Reconceiving Miracles
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20310943 |
|---|---|
| Authors | James E Gilman (Mary Baldwin College, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1989 |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 477-487 |
| Publication date | 1989-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Religious Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0034-4125 • E-ISSN: 1469-901X |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0034412500020059 |
| OpenAlex | W4232613320 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 3 |
The chief, but far from only, thinker to shape the modern discussion of miracles was David Hume. Ever since, his collaborating off-spring (both those who defend and those who reject the coherence of the idea of miracles) have routinely made several (false) assumptions about the laws of nature and the idea of miracles, which, together with the rich and varied debate arising from them, constitute what I shall refer to as the Humean tradition
Coherence (philosophical gambling strategy) · Epistemology · Natural law · Physics · American Constitutional Law and Politics · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Philosophy · Religion and Society Interactions
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0.1 |
| Citation span | 1996 - 2018 (23) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |