Hume Studies 18 (1):105-112 (1992)
Robert Fogelin has forcefully argued that Hume intended to produce an "a priori" argument to show that miracles are logically impossible, while Anthony Flew is noted for a conflicting view that Hume intended merely to urge caution in accepting miracles solely on the basis of testimony. I furnish text ("Enquiry", Chapter X) which lends aid and comfort to both. But Fogelin’s interpretation forbids "miracles" only under a strict definition, whereas the empirical arguments favored by Flew are also needed if particular marvelous reports are to be legitimately dismissed
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Review of Fogelin, A Defense of Hume on Miracles. [REVIEW]Richard Otte - 2004 - Hume Studies 30 (1):165-68.
Replies to Evan Fales: On Miracles & the Modern Mind.Norman L. Geisler - 2001 - Philosophia Christi 3 (1):39 - 42.
Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles.John Earman - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
A Defence of Hume on Miracles - by Robert J. Fogelin. [REVIEW]J. C. A. Gaskin - 2007 - Philosophical Books 48 (2):166-168.
Miracles and Modern Thought', R C Sproul (Response).Norman L. Geisler - 1982 - Zondervan.
Review of Robert J. Fogelin, A Defense of Hume on Miracles, Princeton. [REVIEW]Terence Penelhum - 2004 - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2004 (1).
Hume's Definition of Miracles Revised.Steve Clarke - 1999 - American Philosophical Quarterly 36 (1):49 - 57.
A New Interpretation of Hume's 'Of Miracles'.Chris Slupik - 1995 - Religious Studies 31 (4):517 - 536.
Hume on Miracles: Begging-the-Question Against Believers.Benjamin F. Armstrong - 1992 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 9 (3):319 - 328.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads20 ( #235,674 of 2,021,591 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #135,186 of 2,021,591 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.