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

Authors
Robert A. Larmer
University of New Brunswick
Abstract
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
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,217
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.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-07-28

Total views
110 ( #81,626 of 2,324,914 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #303,931 of 2,324,914 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes