Abstract

In this paper, I argue that, while Kierkegaard distinguishes between an event 'contrary to the order of nature' and an event 'above the order of nature,' and while he recognises a strong order of nature and a strong bond of natural laws, the idea of miracle (i.e., expressed explicitly in terms of violation of laws of nature or of the order of nature) is not important to him. The unavoidable doubtfulness of all historical knowledge and the 'non-immediate' character of personal experience are the most important reasons for what is, at best, a tangential interest in miracles.