Abstract

THE TWO-FOLD PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION IS: (1) TO CRITICIZE THE FIRST THREE OF HUME�S REASONS FOR REJECTING AS UNRELIABLE THE HISTORICAL RECORDS OF MIRACLES; (2) TO DRAW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION WHICH CHALLENGES THE "A PRIORI" JUDGEMENT THAT AUTHENTIC MIRACLE REPORTS CANNOT FORM A RELIABLE PART OF HISTORY. HUME FAILED TO REALIZE THAT THE NATURALISTIC EXPLAINABILITY OF AN EVENT SAID TO BE A MIRACLE IS NOT LOGICALLY IMPLIED BY ITS ACCURATE DESCRIPTION.