Miracles and violations

Religious Studies 47 (1):41-58 (2011)
The claim that a miracle is a violation of a law of nature has sometimes been used as part of an a priori argument against the possibility of miracle, on the grounds that a violation is conceptually impossible. I criticize these accounts but also suggest that alternative accounts, when phrased in terms of laws of nature, fail to provide adequate conceptual space for miracles. It is not clear what a ‘violation’ of a law of nature might be, but this is not relevant to the question of miracles. In practice accounts of miracle tend to be phrased in terms of God’s act not in terms of laws of nature. Finally I suggest that the a priori argument reflects an intellectual commitment that is widely held, though wrongly built into the argument itself.
Keywords miracles  law of nature
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.2307/23013335
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 16,667
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
R. F. Holland (1965). The Miraculous. American Philosophical Quarterly 2 (1):43-51.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

193 ( #9,731 of 1,726,249 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

10 ( #63,882 of 1,726,249 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.