Miracles and violations
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20311443 |
|---|---|
| Authors | TIMOTHY PRITCHARD (King's College London, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2011 |
| Volume | 47 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 41-58 |
| Publication date | 2011-03-01 |
| 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/s0034412510000132 |
| OpenAlex | W2027200127 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 17 |
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
A priori and a posteriori · Argument (complex analysis) · Epistemology · Miracle · Natural law · Political science · Theology · Karl Barth and Christian Theology · Law · Philosophy · Religion, Ecology, and Ethics · Theology and Philosophy of Evil
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |