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
Keywords Hume
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 0319-7336
DOI 10.1353/hms.2011.0426
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,291
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Miracles.Michael Levine - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
34 ( #321,692 of 2,456,081 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,366 of 2,456,081 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes