Religious Studies 47 (1):41-58 (2010)
The claim that a miracle is a violation of a law of nature has sometimes been used as part of an a priori argument against the possibility of miracle, on the grounds that a violation is conceptually impossible. I criticize these accounts but also suggest that alternative accounts, when phrased in terms of laws of nature, fail to provide adequate conceptual space for miracles. It is not clear what a ‘violation’ of a law of nature might be, but this is not relevant to the question of miracles. In practice accounts of miracle tend to be phrased in terms of God’s act not in terms of laws of nature. Finally I suggest that the a priori argument reflects an intellectual commitment that is widely held, though wrongly built into the argument itself.
|Keywords||miracles law of nature|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Miracles, Laws of Nature and Causation.Christopher Hughes & Robert Merrihew Adams - 1992 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 66 (66):179 - 224.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Defining Miracles: Violations of the Laws of Nature.Morgan Luck - 2011 - Philosophy Compass 6 (2):133--141.
Miracles as Violations of Laws of Nature.Martin Curd - 1996 - In Faith, Freedom, and Rationality: Philosophy of Religion Today. Rowman & Littlefield.
A New Interpretation of Hume's 'Of Miracles'.Chris Slupik - 1995 - Religious Studies 31 (4):517 - 536.
Miracles, Physicalism, and the Laws of Nature.Robert A. Larmer - 2008 - Religious Studies 44 (2):149-159.
Prawa natury, prawa nauki a cuda. Krytyka argumentów Hume'a przeciwko cudom.Andrzej Stępnik - 2007 - Filozofia Nauki 4.
Added to index2011-02-10
Total downloads219 ( #17,396 of 2,168,635 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #127,283 of 2,168,635 )
How can I increase my downloads?