Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:16:49.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Miracles and Physical Impossibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 1975

Dennis M. Ahern
Dennis M. Ahern*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

While there is agreement among many (but not all) theologians and philosophers that a miraculous event should be conceived in opposition to the natural order, there is disagreement about why this opposition must be present. In this paper I propose to examine Antony Flew's explanation of how and why miracles and nature are opposed, suggesting that his account is, as it stands, problematical and in need of revision. In evaluating Flew's position I shall focus on comments he makes when discussing Hume's account of miracles, and while I shall not attempt to argue the correctness or incorrectness of Flew's interpretation of Hume, I think that what I say, if correct, bears importantly on that issue.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 1977 , pp. 71 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1977

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.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Ayer, Alfred J. “What is a Law of Nature?” The Concept of a Person and other essays. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Flew, Antony G. N. Hume's Philosophy of Belief. London: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1961.Google Scholar
[3] Smart, Ninian., Philosophers and Religious Truth. Second ed. New York: Macmillan, 1970.Google Scholar
[4] Tennant, Fredrick Robert., Miracle and its Philosophical Presuppositions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1925.Google Scholar