FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2079790883> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2079790883 endingPage "14" @default.
• W2079790883 startingPage "1" @default.
• W2079790883 abstract "CONTRARY MIRACLES CONCLUDED Decisive results are seldom expected and scarcely ever attained as a result of philosophical argument. Nevertheless, one might hope that discussion of a brief, tightly confined argument, displayed prominently to the attention of philosophers and theologians for more than two centuries, could be brought to an agreed conclusion. Such is the hope evoked by Hume's Contrary Miracles Argument (first Enquiry, p. 12If); but it has not been satisfied. The first significant commentator, George Campbell, rejected the argument for reasons which (we know from a letter) Hume himself did not accept. In 1916 CD. Broad pointed out that the argument depended upon a suppressed premise whose truth was in doubt. Ten years later A.E. Taylor rejected the argument with almost intemperate zeal. In 1961 it was partly rehabilitated by Antony Flew; but in an article of 1975 Bruce Langtry concluded, for reasons so complicated that they are unlikely to be effective with the very people for whom the directness of Hume's original argument has appeal, that none of its conclusions are acceptable. In 1978 Gaskin maintained that a restricted version of the Contrary Miracles Argument applied effectively (and destructively) to Christianity ; while in 1981, in the most recent discussion known to me, R.M. Burns pointed out that Hume's argument depends upon the truth of two suppressed premises, both of which he held to be highly dubious.^ Let us then look again at this controversial little argument and ask to what extent it is effective, and whether it is effective in any way which is of value or interest to the philosophy of religion now. Hume's argument, in the first Enquiry, Section X, is as follows: ... let us consider, [p] that, in matters of religion, whatever is different is contrary; and that it is impossible the religions of ancient Rome, of Turkey, of Siam, and of China should, all of them, be established on any solid foundation. Iq1 ] Every miracle, therefore, pretended to have been wrought in any of these religions (and all of them abound in miracles), as its direct scope is to establish the particular system to which it is attributed; so has it the same force, though more indirectly, to overthrow every other system, [q,] In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit of those miracles, on which that system was established; so that all the prodigies of different religions are to be regarded as contrary facts, and the evidences of these prodigies, whether weak or strong, as opposite to each other. Ir1] According to this method of reasoning, when we believe any miracle of Mahomet or his successors, we have for our warrant the testimony of a few barbarous Arabians: And on the other hand, we are to regard the authority of Titus Livius, Plutarch, Tacitus, and, in short, of all the authors and witnesses, Grecian, Chinese, and Roman Catholic, who have related any miracle in their particular religion; I say, we are to regard their testimony in the same light as if they had mentioned that Mohametan miracle, and had in express terms contradicted it, with the same certainty as they have for the miracle they relate. [r2 ] This argument may appear over subtile and refined; but is not in reality different from the reasoning of a judge, who supposes, that the credit of two witnesses, maintaining a crime against any one, is destroyed by the testimony of two others, who affirm him to have been two hundred leagues distant, at the same instant when the crime is said to have been committed. The argument strikes one at first reading as deft, vigorous and simple. But, as so often with Hume, second thoughts open up unexpected complexities. Using the designations I have interpolated in square brackets, Ï• is the premise or assumption from which two conclusions follow, namely the conclusion q, , that a miracle wrought in one religion serves to overthrow all other religions; and the conclusion q2, that miracles wrought in different religions are contrary facts. An illustration r, is then supplied for conclusions q ; while at r 2 a comparison is made with a judical procedure: but whether the comparison is with q-^ or q2..." @default.
• W2079790883 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2079790883 creator A5065355613 @default.
• W2079790883 date "1985-01-01" @default.
• W2079790883 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2079790883 title "Contrary Miracles Concluded" @default.
• W2079790883 cites W1598401684 @default.
• W2079790883 cites W2034465215 @default.
• W2079790883 cites W2169392938 @default.
• W2079790883 cites W2322255722 @default.
• W2079790883 cites W3190165590 @default.
• W2079790883 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2011.0066" @default.
• W2079790883 hasPublicationYear "1985" @default.
• W2079790883 type Work @default.
• W2079790883 sameAs 2079790883 @default.
• W2079790883 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W2079790883 countsByYear W20797908832022 @default.
• W2079790883 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2079790883 hasAuthorship W2079790883A5065355613 @default.
• W2079790883 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2079790883 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2079790883 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2079790883 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2079790883 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2079790883 hasConcept C2778023277 @default.
• W2079790883 hasConcept C2778449503 @default.
• W2079790883 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2079790883 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W2079790883 hasConceptScore W2079790883C111472728 @default.
• W2079790883 hasConceptScore W2079790883C126322002 @default.
• W2079790883 hasConceptScore W2079790883C138885662 @default.
• W2079790883 hasConceptScore W2079790883C17744445 @default.
• W2079790883 hasConceptScore W2079790883C199539241 @default.
• W2079790883 hasConceptScore W2079790883C2778023277 @default.
• W2079790883 hasConceptScore W2079790883C2778449503 @default.
• W2079790883 hasConceptScore W2079790883C71924100 @default.
• W2079790883 hasConceptScore W2079790883C98184364 @default.
• W2079790883 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2079790883 hasLocation W20797908831 @default.
• W2079790883 hasOpenAccess W2079790883 @default.
• W2079790883 hasPrimaryLocation W20797908831 @default.
• W2079790883 hasRelatedWork W163896950 @default.
• W2079790883 hasRelatedWork W2007493167 @default.
• W2079790883 hasRelatedWork W2012331862 @default.
• W2079790883 hasRelatedWork W2014141214 @default.
• W2079790883 hasRelatedWork W2071752982 @default.
• W2079790883 hasRelatedWork W2079200374 @default.
• W2079790883 hasRelatedWork W2089801293 @default.
• W2079790883 hasRelatedWork W2156403064 @default.
• W2079790883 hasRelatedWork W3123498716 @default.
• W2079790883 hasRelatedWork W3186897805 @default.
• W2079790883 hasVolume "1985" @default.
• W2079790883 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2079790883 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2079790883 magId "2079790883" @default.
• W2079790883 workType "article" @default.