Religious Studies 45 (3):325-338 (2009)
Contemporary commentators on Hume’s essay, "Of Miracles" have increasingly tended to argue that Hume never intended to suggest that testimonial evidence must always be insufficient to justify belief in a miracle. This is in marked contrast to earlier commentators who interpreted Hume as intending to demonstrate that testimonial evidence is incapable in principle of ever establishing rational belief in a miracle. In this article I argue that this traditional interpretation is the correct one
|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
Mackie's Treatment of Miracles.Richard Otte - 1996 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 39 (3):151-158.
A New Interpretation of Hume's 'Of Miracles'.Chris Slupik - 1995 - Religious Studies 31 (4):517 - 536.
Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles.John Earman - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
Review Of: Hume, Holism, and Miracles; Hume's Abject Failure; A Defense of Hume on Miracles. [REVIEW]M. Jacovides - 2008 - Philosophical Review 117 (1):142-147.
Hume on Miracles: Bayesian Interpretation, Multiple Testimony, and the Existence of God.Rodney D. Holder - 1998 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (1):49-65.
Miracles and Science: Mora Than a Miraculous Relationship.Yiftach J. H. Fehige - 2012 - Toronto Journal of Theology 28 (1):159-163.
C. S. Lewis's Critique of Hume's “on Miracles”.Robert Larmer - 2008 - Faith and Philosophy 25 (2):154-171.
Review of Fogelin, A Defense of Hume on Miracles. [REVIEW]Richard Otte - 2004 - Hume Studies 30 (1):165-68.
Added to index2009-07-28
Total downloads81 ( #64,521 of 2,169,342 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #25,433 of 2,169,342 )
How can I increase my downloads?