Are we free to work miracles? On Peter van Inwagen's concept of the miraculous
To bolster his consequence argument against David Lewis's rejoinder, Peter van Inwagen uses the concept of miracle. He claims that the Lewisian compatibilist must admit that under determinism, we possess the ability to work miracles par excellence, that is, not just in some purely technical sen...
| Published in: | Religious studies |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
2023
|
| In: |
Religious studies
|
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Van Inwagen, Peter 1942-
/ Free will
/ Determinism
/ Miracle
/ Law of nature
|
| RelBib Classification: | AB Philosophy of religion; criticism of religion; atheism NBE Anthropology |
| Further subjects: | B
Miracle
B law-breaking event B Compatibilism B Humean account of laws B consequence argument B David Lewis B Peter van Inwagen |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | To bolster his consequence argument against David Lewis's rejoinder, Peter van Inwagen uses the concept of miracle. He claims that the Lewisian compatibilist must admit that under determinism, we possess the ability to work miracles par excellence, that is, not just in some purely technical sense of the term. The article argues that van Inwagen's definition of a ‘miracle’ is too broad even if it is interpreted merely as an explication of one component often thought to be inherent in the religious concept of miracle, namely the concept of an event that breaks the laws of nature. Nomological effects of miracles are not miracles themselves. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1469-901X |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Religious studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S003441252200021X |