Vindicating a Bayesian Approach to Confirming Miracles: A Response to Jordan Howard Sobel's Reading of Hume

Philosophia Christi 10 (1):229 - 238 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper defends a Bayesian approach to confirming a miracle against Jordan Howard Sobel’s recent novel interpretation of Hume’s criticisms. In his book, ’Logic and Theism’, Sobel offers an intriguing and original way to apply Hume’s criticisms against the possibility of having sufficient evidence to confirm a miracle. The key idea behind Sobel’s approach is to employ infinitesimal probabilities to neutralize the cumulative effects of positive evidence for any miracle. This paper aims to undermine Sobel’s use of infinitesimal probabilities to block a Bayesian approach to confirming a miracle

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,369

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Bayes, Hume, and Miracles.John Earman - 1993 - Faith and Philosophy 10 (3):293-310.
Hume on miracles: Interpretation and criticism.James E. Taylor - 2007 - Philosophy Compass 2 (4):611–624.
A New Interpretation of Hume's 'Of Miracles'.Chris Slupik - 1995 - Religious Studies 31 (4):517 - 536.
Walls and Vaults.[author unknown] - 2009 - Wiley.
Interpreting Hume on miracles.Robert A. Larmer - 2009 - Religious Studies 45 (3):325-338.
Hume's Evidential/Testimonial Epistemology, Probability, and Miracles.Francis J. Beckwith - 1991 - Logos. Anales Del Seminario de Metafísica [Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España] 12:87 - 104.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-06-16

Downloads
476 (#40,992)

6 months
13 (#202,760)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

John M. DePoe
University of Iowa (PhD)

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references