Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T10:41:59.183Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Miracles and Good Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Douglas Odegard
Douglas Odegard
Affiliation:
Professor of Philosophy, University of Guelph
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I. Introduction There are still those who think that, if the word ‘miracle’ means a violation of a law of nature, miracles are either impossible or undetectable or a threat to science. I shall take the opposite side and argue that, thus defined, miracles are possible, are detectable in principle, and, again in principle, can be endorsed without compromising legitimate scientific aspirations.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 1982 , pp. 37 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

page 37 note 1 Holland, R. F., ‘The Miraculous’, American Philosophical Quarterly 2 (1965), 43–51.Google Scholar

page 38 note 1 Hume, David, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, sec. 10, ‘Of Miracles’.Google Scholar

page 38 note 2 Instances of such arguments can be found, collectively, in Flew, Antony, God and Philosophy (London, Hutchinson, 1966), ch. 7Google Scholar; McKinnon, Alastair, ‘“Miracle” and “Paradox”’, American Philosophical Quarterly 4 (1967), 308–14Google Scholar; Nowell-Smith, Patrick, ‘Miracles’, in Flew, and Maclntyre, A. (eds.) New Essays in Philosophical Theology (London, SCM Press, 1955), pp. 243–53Google Scholar; Penelhum, Terence, Problems of Religious Knowledge (London, Herder and Herder, 1972), appendix CGoogle Scholar; Robinson, Guy, ‘Miracles’, Ratio 9 (1967), 155–66Google Scholar; Diamond, Malcolm L., ‘Miracles’, Religious Studies 9 (1973), 307–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Landrum, George, ‘What a Miracle Really Is’, Religious Studies 12 (1976), 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 39 note 1 Broad, C. D., ‘Hume's Theory of the Credibility of Miracles’, Proc. Arist. Soc. 17 (1916–1917), 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 40 note 1 Swinburne, Richard, The Concept of Miracle (London, Macmillan, 1970), p. 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also, Boden, Margaret, ‘Miracles and Scientific Explanation’, Ratio II (1969).Google Scholar

page 40 note 2 Holland, op. cit.; compare Liebniz, Gottfried, New Essays Concerning Human Understanding, bk. IV, ch. XVIII.Google Scholar

page 41 note 1 Young, Robert, ‘Miracles and Epistemology’, Religious Studies 8 (1972), 115–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 43 note 1 Nowell-Smith, , op. cit. p. 247.Google Scholar For further discussion see Dietl, Paul, ‘On Miracles’, American Philosophical Quarterly 5 (1968), 130–4.Google Scholar

page 44 note 1 See Robinson, , op. cit.Google Scholar and Diamond, , op. cit.Google Scholar; also Erlandson, Douglas K., ‘A New Look at Miracles’, Religious Studies 13 (1977), 417–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 45 note 1 Penelhum, , op. cit. p. 159.Google Scholar