Most accounts of miracles assume that a necessary condition for an event's being miraculous is that it be, as Hume put it, “a violation of the laws of nature.” However, any account of this sort will be ill-suited for defending the major Western religious traditions because, as I will argue, classical theists should not believe in violations of the laws of nature. In place of the rejected Humean accounts, this paper seeks to develop and defend a Leibnizian conception of miracles on which an event is said to be miraculous just in case we can discover its final cause but not its efficient cause.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Kierkegaard's Tangential Interest in Miracles.Jyrki Kivelä - 2006 - The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 8:115-119.
Mackie's Treatment of Miracles.Richard Otte - 1996 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 39 (3):151-158.
Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles.John Earman - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
A New Interpretation of Hume's 'Of Miracles'.Chris Slupik - 1995 - Religious Studies 31 (4):517 - 536.
Added to index2009-11-06
Total downloads75 ( #66,445 of 2,143,791 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #280,512 of 2,143,791 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.