Pritchard, Timothy;
(2011)
Miracles and violations.
Religious Studies
, 47
(1)
pp. 41-58.
10.1017/S0034412510000132.
Preview |
Text
Pritchard_Miracles-Pritchard.pdf Download (207kB) | Preview |
Abstract
The claim that a miracle is a violation of a law of nature has sometimes been used as part of an a priori argument against the possibility of miracle, on the grounds that a violation is conceptually impossible. I criticize these accounts but also suggest that alternative accounts, when phrased in terms of laws of nature, fail to provide adequate conceptual space for miracles. It is not clear what a ‘violation’ of a law of nature might be, but this is not relevant to the question of miracles. In practice, accounts of miracle tend to be phrased in terms of God's act not in terms of laws of nature. Finally, I suggest that the a priori argument reflects an intellectual commitment that is widely held, though wrongly built into the argument itself.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | Miracles and violations |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1017/S0034412510000132 |
| Publisher version: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0034412510000132 |
| Language: | English |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences > Div of Psychology and Lang Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences > Div of Psychology and Lang Sciences > Linguistics |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1471670 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
