A New Interpretation of Hume's ‘Of Miracles’
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20312937 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Chris Slupik (University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1995 |
| Volume | 31 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 517-536 |
| Publication date | 1995-12-01 |
| 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/s003441250002391x |
| OpenAlex | W1989940183 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 5 |
It has often been suggested (1) that according to Hume it is impossible in principle for testimony to prove a miracle, and (2) that an indispensable element in Hume's argument is the claim that a miracle is by definition a violation of the laws of nature. I argue that both (1) and (2) are mistaken, and that, once Hume's ‘Of Miracles’ is viewed in a proper historical context, it emerges that Hume's argument against miracles is considerably different from what is usually supposed
Argument (complex analysis) · Context (archaeology) · Element (criminal law) · Epistemology · Interpretation (philosophy) · Linguistics · Miracle · Political science · Theology · American Constitutional Law and Politics · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · History · Law · Philosophy
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,11 |
| Citation span | 1998 - 2009 (12) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |