Religious Studies 45 (3):325-338 (2009)

Robert A. Larmer
University of New Brunswick
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
Keywords David Hume
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0034412509009962
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: 60,878
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

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.
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.
Hume, Holism, and Miracles.J. Gill - 2001 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79 (3):439 – 440.


Added to PP index

Total views
114 ( #91,252 of 2,439,013 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #434,623 of 2,439,013 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes