Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:49:46.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Attributing Miracles to Agents – Reply to George D. Chryssides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Herbert Burhenn
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Religion, The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
A Reply To
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

page 485 note 1 Chryssides, George D., ‘Miracles and AgentsReligious Studies 11 (1975), pp. 319–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 485 note 2 Ibid. p. 319. Chryssides rejects what is sometimes called the ‘coincidence’ concept of miracle: ‘Many religious believers use the word “miracle” in the sense of “violation of scientific law”, and tend to feel that the term “miraculous’ is being withdrawn once scientific explanation of a remarkable phenomenon is offered’ (p. 320).

page 485 note 3 Ibid. p. 319.

page 486 note 1 Ibid. p. 321.

page 486 note 2 Ibid. p. 322.

page 486 note 3 Danto, Arthur C., ‘Basic Actions’, American Philosophical Quarterly 2 (1965), pp. 141–8.Google Scholar

page 488 note 1 See, for example, Woods, G. F., ‘The Evidential Value of Biblical Miracles’, in Moule, C. F. D., ed., Miracles (London: A. R. Mowbray and Co., 1965), p. 25.Google Scholar

page 488 note 2 E.g. Fridrichsen, Anton, The Problem of Miracle in Primitive Christianity, transl. Harrisville, Roy A. and Hanson, John S., Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972 (originally published in French 1925).Google Scholar