Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T22:37:10.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problem of the Meaning of ‘Miracle’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Michael J. Langford
Michael J. Langford
Affiliation:
Professor of Philosophy, The Memorial University of Newfoundland
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The problems that arise over the concept of the miraculous are of continuing importance for the philosophy of religion, and because of their relation to issues such as the nature of explanation, and of scientific laws, they are of considerable interest to philosophy in general.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 1971, pp. 43 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

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 44 note 1 An Enquiry concerning human understanding: X, part I. Paragraph go in the text edited by SelbyBigge. This definition is amplified by Hume in a note on the next page.

page 44 note 2 Flew, A., Hume's philosophy of belief (London, 1961), p. 188.Google Scholar Cf. Hume, op. cit. par. 98.

page 45 note 1 See Flew, op. cit. pp. 178 and 201. Cf. Hume, op. cit. par. 96.

page 45 note 2 Enquiry; VI, par. 46, and VIII, part 1, par. 74. Cf. Treatise; I, III, 14.

page 46 note 1 Paley, William, Preparatory considerations to Evidences of Christianity; Works, London, 1830, Vol. I, p. 7.Google Scholar However, cf. p. 3 where his position seems rather different. See also the appendix, An adequate occasion for the miracles; Vol. I, pp. ccciv–cccv.

page 47 note 1 Cf. an alternative set of models relating God to the Universe by Woods, G. F. in Miracles, ed. Moule, C. F. D. (London, 1965) p. 28 f.Google Scholar

page 47 note 2 Throughout this paper I have used the words ‘mind’ or ‘mental’ in contrast with the category of the ‘physical’. It is possible that a better contrast might be made by using the word ‘spirit’, or perhaps the word ‘person’, in place of mind', since I am concerned with the essentially human phenomena which lead many people to make some such distinction.

page 47 note 3 Cf. Coulson, C. A., Science and Christian belief (London, 1955), e.g. p. 64.Google Scholar

page 48 note 1 E.g. by Smart, N., in Philosophers and religious truth (London, 1964) 2Google Scholar; 32. Cf. Paley, op. cit. p. 5 where almost the same argument is used.

page 48 note 2 Lectures on psychical research (London, 1962) p. 1f.Google Scholar cf. Religion, philosophy and psychical research (London, 1953), pp. 7–12.Google Scholar

page 48 note 3 Lectures on psychical research, p. 4.

page 48 note 4 Miracles; reprinted in New essays in philosophical theology; ed. Flew, and MacIntyre, , pp. 249–51.Google Scholar

page 51 note 1 N.B. the remarks of Mackie, J. L. in ‘Evil and omnipotence’, Mind, 1955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar