Miracles and principles of relative likelihood

International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 18 (3):123 - 131 (1985)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I EXAMINE VARIOUS SUGGESTED PRINCIPLES FOR WEIGHING TESTIMONY TO PAST EVENTS AND IDENTIFY ONE WHICH SEEMS TO BE BOTH TRUE AND ROUGHLY IN THE SPIRIT OF DAVID HUME’S ESSAY. I ARGUE THAT HUME FAILS TO PROVIDE GOOD REASONS FOR SAYING THAT THIS PRINCIPLE, WHEN APPLIED TO REPORTS OF MIRACLES PURPORTING TO SUPPORT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, WILL ALWAYS LEAD US TO REJECT THE OCCURRENCE OF THE MIRACLE

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,783

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

Martin on Miracles.Michael Almeida - 2007 - Philo 10 (1):27-34.
Locke on Competing Miracles.Travis Dumsday - 2008 - Faith and Philosophy 25 (4):416-424.
Hume's abject failure: the argument against miracles.John Earman - 2000 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Mackie on miracles.Bruce Langtry - 1988 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 66 (3):368-375.
Vindicating the “principle of relative likelihood”.Keith Chrzan - 1984 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 16 (1):13 - 18.
Hobbes on miracles.By John Whipple - 2008 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 89 (1):117–142.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
54 (#294,559)

6 months
17 (#146,837)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Bruce Langtry
University of Melbourne

Citations of this work

Miracles.Timothy McGrew - 2011 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Miracles.Michael Levine - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Vindicating the “principle of relative likelihood”.Keith Chrzan - 1984 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 16 (1):13 - 18.

Add more references