Attributing Miracles to Agents: Reply to George D. Chryssides

Religious Studies 13 (4):485 - 489 (1977)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

IN HIS ESSAY IN VOLUME 11 OF "RELIGIOUS STUDIES", CHRYSSIDES MAINTAINS THAT OUR USUAL CONCEPT OF MIRACLE IS INCOHERENT BECAUSE AN EVENT CANNOT BOTH VIOLATE A SCIENTIFIC LAW AND BE ATTRIBUTED TO AN AGENT. AGAINST THIS VIEW IT IS ARGUED THAT WE DISTINGUISH A MIRACLE FROM A MERE CURIOSITY AND ALSO ATTRIBUTE THE MIRACLE TO AN AGENT NOT ON THE BASIS OF A CAUSAL ANALYSIS OF THE EVENT BUT RATHER BY ASKING WHAT PURPOSE THE EVENT MIGHT SERVE

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,990

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-05-29

Downloads
39 (#398,421)

6 months
6 (#700,872)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Miracles as evidence against the existence of God.Christine Overall - 1985 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 23 (3):347-353.
Is it Reasonable to Believe that Miracles Occur?Alberto Oya - 2019 - Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 38 (2):39-50.
Defining Miracles: Direct vs. Indirect Causation.Morgan Luck - 2016 - Philosophy Compass 11 (5):267-276.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references