A New Interpretation of Hume's 'Of Miracles'

Religious Studies 31 (4):517 - 536 (1995)
Abstract
It has often been suggested (1) that according to Hume it is impossible in principle for testimony to prove a miracle, and (2) that an indispensable element in Hume's argument is the claim that a miracle is by definition a violation of the laws of nature. I argue that both (1) and (2) are mistaken, and that, once Hume's 'Of Miracles' is viewed in a proper historical context, it emerges that Hume's argument against miracles is considerably different from what is usually supposed.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 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: 9,351
External links
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA

    No citations found.

    Similar books and articles
    Matthew C. Bagger (1997). Hume and Miracles. Journal of the History of Philosophy 35 (2):237 - 251.
    Ruth Weintraub (1996). The Credibility of Miracles. Philosophical Studies 82 (3):359 - 375.
    Richard Otte (1996). Mackie's Treatment of Miracles. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 39 (3):151 - 158.
    John Earman (1993). Bayes, Hume, and Miracles. Faith and Philosophy 10 (3):293-310.
    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2011-05-29

    Total downloads

    19 ( #74,754 of 1,088,371 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    2 ( #42,603 of 1,088,371 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


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