Reported Miracles: A Critique of Hume

Suppose that one is presented with a report of a miracle as an exception to nature’s usual course. Should one believe the report and so come to favour the idea that a god has acted miraculously? Hume argued that no reasonable person should do anything of the kind. Many religiously sceptical philosophers agree with him, and have both defended and developed his reasoning. Some theologians concur or offer other reasons why those who are believers in God should also refuse to accept accounts of miracles as accurate reportage. This book argues to the contrary. For Houston, miracle stories may contribute towards the reasonableness of belief in God, and, appropriately attested, may be accepted by believers in God. To bolster his case he examines historically and intellectually significant writings about the miraculous. And having argued for the rejection of Hume, he explores the implications of this rejection for science, history and theology.

• A closely argued critique of Hume’s position on miracles, with far-reaching implications for religious belief • A detailed historical survey of the positions of major philosophers and theologians on miracles, comprising a useful introduction to their views generally • Will appeal to both philosophers and theologians

Acknowledgements; Introduction; 1. Augustine on the miraculous; 2. Aquinas on the miraculous; 3. Locke on the miraculous; 4. Hume on the miraculous; 5. Bradley and Troeltsch on the miraculous; 6. The concept of a miracle - 1; 7. The concept of a miracle - 2; 8. Hume’s case - preamble to assessment; 9. Hume’s case tested - 1; 10. Hume’s case tested - 2; 11. Reported miracles and epistemology; 12. Reported miracles in theology; Bibliography; Index.