C. J. Temminck, director of the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie and a renowned ornithologist, gained his contemporary's respect thanks to the description of many new species and to his detailed monographs on birds. He also published a small number of works on biogeography describing the fauna of the Dutch colonies in South East Asia and Japan. These works are remarkable for two reasons. First, in them Temminck accurately described the species composition of poorly explored regions, like the Sunda Islands and (...) Japan. Secondly, he formulated a new law on the geographical distribution of animals around the globe, based on the parallels he observed between the fauna from Europe, Asia and Japan. The underlying ideas that lead Temminck to this law were the typeconcept, which he understood as the ideal morphological plan behind animal form, the unchanging character of the species and a strong belief in nature's divine design. During the first half of the nineteenth century, the type-and the species-concept, the origin and fixity of the species and the meaning of variations aroused heated discussions. When put in the context of his time, Temminck emerges as a scientist whose work was driven by the dominating scientific philosophy of the time in which he lived, under the influence of late eighteenth century natural history and of French empiricists, in particular, the great zoologist and paleontologist Georges Cuvier. Temminck's detailed descriptions of the Dutch East Indian fauna helped the great naturalists after him to understand nature's patterns and to propose comprehensive theories that explain its diversity. (shrink)

La sostenibilidad ambiental está relacionada directamente con el ciclo del agua y las intervenciones del hombre sobre el mismo, tanto en su extracción, uso y eliminación. La conservación del suelo y la vegetación dependen invariablemente del impacto acumulado de este proceso. La perspectiva de un cambio climático mayor, con el subsecuente aumento de las temperaturas en el planeta, implica transformaciones radicales en el ciclo del agua, y por ende, en su disponibilidad y utilización. Para ello se hace imperioso mejorar radicalmente (...) el ahorro del agua, aumentando al mismo tiempo los sistemas de depuración y eficiencia en el regadío. La autora propone una seria de medidas en esta dirección. (shrink)

By following the arguments between Coenraad J. Temminck and fellow ornithologists Louis J.-P. Vieillot and Nicholas Vigors, this paper sketches, to a degree, the state of zoological classification and nomenclature between 1825 and 1840 in Europe. The discussions revolved around the problems caused by an unstable nomenclature, the different definitions of genera and species and the best method to achieve a natural system of classification. As more and more naturalists concerned with classifying and arranging the groups of birds joined these (...) discussions, a broad platform for debate emerged around the 1840s that gave a major impulse to the disciplines of taxonomy and systematics. Natural history ceased to be dominated by a few influential scientific authorities and became the scientific field where debate preceded agreement and, with it, progress. With this ‘democratization’ of natural history, Temminck's status significantly changed between 1815 and 1840. After that year, his own views on classification along with certain economical and political developments in The Netherlands led Temminck to abandon the arena of ornithology and therefore, to lose his scientific authority. (shrink)

Miracle and Machine is a sort of "reader's guide" to Jacques Derrida's 1994 essay "faith and knowledge," his most important work on the nature of religion in general and on the unprecedented forms it is taking today through science and the ...

In this paper, I draw out a tension between miracles, prophecy, and Spinoza’s assertions about Moses in the Theological-Political Treatise (TTP). The three seem to constitute an inconsistent triad. Spinoza’s account of miracles requires a naturalistic interpretation of all events. This categorical claim must therefore apply to prophecy; specifically, Moses’ hearing God’s voice in a manner which does not seem to invoke the imagination or natural phenomena. Thus, Spinoza seemingly cannot maintain both Moses’ exalted status and his account of miracles. (...) I consider some possible solutions, but find that they are either untrue to Spinoza’s position, or would undercut his categorical argument against miracles. I therefore conclude that Spinoza leaves an unresolved tension in the TTP. (shrink)

Miracles are not "violations" of nature. Contemporary miraculous healings seem to follow natural healing processes but to be enormously accelerated. Like grace, miracles elevate but do not contradict nature. Scriptural miracles, but also contemporary miracle accounts, have something to tell us about how God acts in the world.

_The purpose_ of this article is to explain in religious, secular, and post-secular contexts the functional potential of conceptualizing the miracle as a text or message with a motivational effect. _Theoretical basis._ Max Weber, Ernst Tugendhat, Alexander Geppert and Till Kössler analysed the processes of enchantment and disenchantment of the world on a philosophical basis. The representatives of the Frankfurt school (Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin) and their followers describe the cultural processes of post-secularism (Jürgen Habermas, Peter Sloterdijk) (...) in detail. The logic of cultural and social representation of amazing events and their descriptions can be realized by combining hermeneutic analysis with a functionalist approach based on the model of Niklas Luhmann and the discursive ethics of Karl-Otto Apel. _Originality._ Desired cultural, social and political situations in society often arise unexpectedly and suddenly, which provokes to characterize them as a miracle. However, at the basis of the emergence of such situations are the rules of social communication, in particular those that provide for asymmetric communication with questions that await answers. A miracle appears at the moment of transformation of asymmetric communication into a symmetrical one: each specific miracle-phenomenon needs its own metaphorical understanding and interpretation as a message. _Conclusions._ The article proposes an analysis of miracle phenomenon in its cosmological, anthropological and educational implications. Some tendencies fixed by communicative turn of the contemporary philosophy are also contributed to considering the miracle in its objective and subjective representations. The semantics of the miracle is analysed according to the relevant problem fields. The functionality of miracle is examined on its ability to show orientation for the contemporary societies with their tendency to post-secularity. The fusion of Pre-modernity and Late Modernity is taking into account when the semantics of miracle is described accordingly to their communication functionality. The enchanting and disenchanting dialectic is explained on semantics of miracle as a world and cosmic events. (shrink)

In this paper, we present a case of a boy – Noah Wall, who till today surprises the world of neuroscience with his will to grow his brain and survive. The case presented in this study sets a stepping stone in understanding the advent of the will to make a choice, from a neuro-quantum mechanics interpretation. We propose that besides our internal states of choices (neurogenesis, neuroplasticity, cell differentiation, etc.) we also relate with external states of choices (love, compassion, empathy, (...) emotions, etc.) that contributes to its emergence. Quantum uncertainty seems to support the existence of a fundamental property based on which the universe functions; which means that even the nothing of free space has a small chance of containing something. Outcomes are not determined by prior or random events but by consciousness that gives rise to these outcomes. This provides us a lead into understanding the existence of the will and the origin of choice when we look deeper into the realms of the implausible interpretations of quantum mechanics. Free will is the ability for the mind to choose between possible outcomes. Willful power is therefore not only a psychological intervention but also a biological and quantum intervention, where we have the capacity to make choices about what direction we will take, making a change to the systematic functioning of our body. (shrink)

A solicited response to Robert Larmer's defence of the supernaturalist model of miracles. I show why Larmer fails to make his claim plausible that there aren't any good theological reasons to turn away from the supernaturalist model of miracles.

ONE OF HUME’S ARGUMENTS IN "OF MIRACLES" CONCLUDES (A) THAT MIRACLES IN DIFFERENT RELIGIONS ARE CONTRARY FACTS, AND (B) THAT ANY MIRACLE IN FAVOR OF ONE RELIGION IS EVIDENCE AGAINST ALL OTHERS. I ARGUE THAT WHILE (A) IS ABSURD, (B) IS APPLICABLE TO CHRISTIANITY IN VIRTUE OF ITS EXCLUSIVIST CLAIMS. IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE EARLY FATHERS AND STILL HAS TO BE ASSUMED BY ALL BUT THE MOST DIFFIDENT CHRISTIANS.

This chapter contains sections titled: What is a Miracle? Hume's Challenge Price's Argument The Case of the Church Choir Acknowledging Miracles Arguments for and Against Conclusion Works cited.

Construing miracles as “violations,” I argue that a law of nature must specify some kind of possibility. But we must have here a sense of possibility for which the ancient rule of logic---ab esse ad posse valet consequentia---does not hold. We already have one example associated with the concept of statute law, a law which specifies what is legally possible but which is not destroyed by a violation. If laws of nature are construed as specifying some analogous sense of what (...) is naturally possible, then they need not be invalidated by a (rare) violation, and Humean miracles remain a genuine possibility. (shrink)

David Johnson seeks to overthrow one of the widely accepted tenets of Anglo-American philosophy—that of the success of the Humean case against the rational credibility of reports of miracles. In a manner unattempted in any other single work, he meticulously examines all the main variants of Humean reasoning on the topic of miracles: Hume's own argument and its reconstructions by John Stuart Mill, J. L. Mackie, Antony Flew, Jordan Howard Sobel, and others. Hume's view, set forth in his essay "Of (...) Miracles," has been widely thought to be correct. Johnson reviews Hume's thesis with clarity and elegance and considers the arguments of some of the most prominent defenders of Hume's case against miracles. According to Johnson, the Humean argument on this topic is entirely without merit, its purported cogency being simply a philosophical myth. (shrink)

The Consequence Argument is one of the leading arguments for the incompatibility of causal determinism and free will in the sense of freedom to do otherwise. Thus, it challenges “classical compatibilism” of the sort defended by many philosophers, such as Hume, Schlick, Ayer, Lehrer, Perry, Lewis, Vihvelin, et, al. David Lewis has offered what has become the most influential response: local-miracle compatibilism. I present a critique of this kind of response to the Consequence Argument. My critique shows that, although (...) Lewis-style local-miracle compatibilism may effectively address some versions of the Consequence Argument, it does not succeed in refuting others. My critique consists, in large part, in arguing for a new reconstruction of the principle of the fixity of the past - a principle that played a crucial role in the history of the debate and that has, in one form or another, been employed by many important historical figures. I will also show why Lewis’s famous views about our powers in time-travel are false. (shrink)

This article aims to examine the perspective on miracles and their relationship to humility offered by the alphabetical collection of Apophthegmata Patrum. For the analysis of this relationship, texts that speak directly or indirectly about humility have been selected and an attempt has been made to organize them into a coherent discourse. Then a significant set of accounts of miracles is analysed, which are seen from the perspective of their relationship with humility.

The waters part at the Crossing of the Red Sea by the Hebrews. Water is turned into wine by Jesus at the Wedding Feast at Cana. For Christians, these miraculous events have really or truly happened. But aren't miracles rather fictions full of deep meaning? Aren’t Christians invited to pretend (make-believe) that miracles have taken place? Aren’t miracles fictions? Fictionalism answer positively to these questions. This account is sometimes presupposed in the hermeneutics of the biblical narrative. Fictionalism can be theological, (...) that is global: God himself is fiction; it can be partial: only miracles are fictions, not God. The article shows that a Christian may not adhere to fictionalism and must assume the reality of miracles. The Christian may not make them a matter of simple interpretation and deep meaning. He must believe that the waters parted when the Jewish people fled Egypt, that Jesus did indeed turn the water into wine in Cana. (shrink)

Since early modernity, it has often been assumed that miracles are incompatible with the existence of the natural laws utilized in the sciences. This paper argues that this assumption is largely an artifact of empiricist accounts of laws that should be rejected for reasons internal to philosophy of science, and that no such incompatibility arises on the most important alternative interpretations, which treat laws as expressions of forces, dispositions, or causal powers.

SINCE THE TIME OF HUME, A MIRACLE HAS MOST FREQUENTLY BEEN DEFINED IN PHILOSOPHICAL CIRCLES AS A VIOLATION OF A NATURAL LAW CAUSED BY A GOD. I ARGUE THAT THERE IS A MEANINGFUL SENSE IN WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT A NATURAL LAW HAS BEEN VIOLATED. BUT I FURTHER ARGUE THAT SINCE AN EVENT CAN ONLY BE A VIOLATION IN THIS SENSE IF IT IS NOT CAUSED BY A GOD, NO MIRACLE CAN BE SAID TO BE A (...) VIOLATION OF A NATURAL LAW. (shrink)

IN SECTION X OF "AN INQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING", DAVID HUME RAISES TWO QUESTIONS ABOUT MIRACLES AND THEIR RELATION TO TESTIMONY. FIRST, HE ASKS WHETHER IT COULD EVER BE REASONABLE TO BELIEVE ON THE BASIS OF TESTIMONY THAT NATURE DOES NOT FIT THE IMAGE OF OUR SCIENCE, AND, SECOND, HE ASKS WHETHER IT COULD EVER BE REASONABLE TO BELIEVE ON THE BASIS OF TESTIMONY THAT NATURE IS NOT UNIFORM. HUME’S ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION IS ’YES’ AND HIS ANSWER TO (...) THE SECOND IS ’NO’. HUME THINKS THAT A ’NO’ TO THE SECOND QUESTION SHOWS THAT BELIEF IN THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS LESS REASONABLE THAN A BELIEF IN MODERN SCIENCE. HOWEVER, HUME’S ’NO’ SEEMS TO OPPOSE HIS EMPIRICISM AND HIS BELIEF THAT THERE ARE NO NECESSARY TRUTHS ABOUT ANY MATTER OF FACT OR EXPERIENCE. THE POINT OF THIS PAPER IS TO SHOW THAT HUME CAN PROVE THAT THERE CAN BE NO TESTIMONY OF SUCH A QUANTITY OR QUALITY TO MAKE IT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT NATURE IS NOT UNIFORM AND, AS RESULT, NO TESTIMONY TO MAKE IT REASONABLE TO. (shrink)

This short article aims to strengthen Hume's case against the rationality of believing in religious miracles by incorporating certain lessons borrowed from the growing literature on the history and psychology of magic tricks.

IN "MIRACLES AND CRITERIA" I ARGUE THAT, CONTRARY TO VIEWS OF PHILOSOPHERS SUCH AS GUY ROBINSON, THERE EXIST CRITERIA BY WHICH TO DIFFERENTIATE EVENTS LEGITIMATELY TERMED MIRACLES AND EVENTS BEST INTERPRETED AS MERE INDICES OF AN INADEQUATE UNDERSTANDING OF NATURAL PROCESSES. WHETHER ONE VIEWS AN EXTRAORDINARY EVENT AS A MIRACLE OR AS THE RESULT OF SOME UNKNOWN OR POORLY UNDERSTOOD NATURAL PROCESSES IS NOT, THEREFORE, A MATTER OF WHIM.

Some have tried to make miracles compatible with the laws of nature by re-defining them as something other than interventions. By contrast, this article argues that although miracles are divine interventions, they are not violations of the laws of nature. Miracles are also not exceptions to the laws, nor do the laws not apply to them. The laws never have exceptions; they never are violated or suspended, are probably necessary and unchangeable, and apply also to divine interventions. We need to (...) reconsider not miracles but laws. The main claim of this article is that laws of nature do not entail regularities, and therefore that miracles do not violate the laws. We need a new theory of the laws of nature: the tendency theory. (shrink)

A beautiful celebration of your child's uniqueness among all of God's creation, this colorful picture book by Cleere Cherry Reaves speaks the words on your heart about what a God-given miracle your little one will always be.

The dominance of string theory in the research landscape of quantum gravity physics (despite any direct experimental evidence) can, I think, be justified in a variety of ways. Here I focus on an argument from mathematical fertility, broadly similar to Hilary Putnam’s ‘no miracles argument’ that, I argue, many string theorists in fact espouse in some form or other. String theory has generated many surprising, useful, and well-confirmed mathematical ‘predictions’—here I focus on mirror symmetry and the mirror theorem. These predictions (...) were made on the basis of general physical principles entering into string theory. The success of the mathematical predictions are then seen as evidence for the framework that generated them. I shall attempt to defend this argument, but there are nonetheless some serious objections to be faced. These objections can only be evaded at a considerably high (philosophical) price. (shrink)

This paper is the latest in a debate with Robert Larmer as to whether the occurrence of a miracle would provide evidence for the existence of God or against the existence of God. Whereas Larmer’s view is categorical (miracles occur and are evidence for the existence of God), mine is hypothetical (if the events typically described as miracles were to occur -- although I do not believe they do -- they would be evidence against the existence of God). The (...) reason is that miracles, if they were to occur, would be ontic, epistemic, and moral evils. (shrink)

WHILE THERE IS AGREEMENT AMONG MANY (BUT NOT ALL) THEOLOGIANS AND PHILOSOPHERS THAT A MIRACULOUS EVENT SHOULD BE CONCEIVED IN OPPOSITION TO THE NATURAL ORDER, THERE IS DISAGREEMENT ABOUT WHY THIS OPPOSITION MUST BE PRESENT. IN THIS PAPER I EXAMINE ANTONY FLEW’S EXPLANATION OF HOW AND WHY MIRACLES AND NATURE ARE OPPOSED, SUGGESTING THAT HIS ACCOUNT IS, AS IT STANDS, PROBLEMATICAL AND IN NEED OF REVISION. I ARGUE THAT IF MIRACLES ARE TO BE THOUGHT OF AS SUPERNATURAL INTERVENTIONS INTO THE (...) NATURAL WORLD, AND HENCE IT IS THOUGHT APPROPRIATE TO SPEAK OF THEM AS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, THEN ONE MUST DEFINE THE PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE IN TERMS OF WHAT CAN BE EXPLAINED ONLY BY REFERENCE TO SUPERNATURAL FORCE, RATHER THAN IN TERMS OF WHAT IS LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT WITH LAWS OF NATURE. (shrink)

A minor philosophical industry has sprung up in recent years defending the possibility and epistemic utility of miracles: supernatural interventions in the world by a Christian God. By examining some staples of science fiction, this chapter finds a way to agree: miracles are possible, and could tell us something about reality. Nobody is sure exactly what David Hume himself thought, but there is an identifiable Humean tradition on miracles. It makes two main points. First, by definition a miracle is (...) in some relevant sense beyond what the laws of nature can describe and explain. The second point is intended to generally undermine claims of an established marvel which is contrary to our understanding of the laws of nature; to prevent a miracle claim even getting a toehold. The chapter then focuses on three miracle monger's favorite Sci‐Fi things: time travel, other dimensions, and simulations. (shrink)

THREE CONCEPTS OF MIRACLE ARE EXAMINED: INTERVENTION MIRACLE, CONTINGENCY MIRACLE, AND NATURAL MIRACLE. IT IS ARGUED THAT EACH CONCEPT OF MIRACLE IS COHERENT. REGARDING THE FAMILIAR CONCEPT OF INTERVENTION MIRACLE, IT IS ARGUED THAT PROBLEMS RELATING TO GOD’S INTERVENING IN THE COURSE OF NATURE, RAISED BY HUME AND OTHERS, CAN BE OVERCOME. THEN IT IS SHOWN THAT IN ANY CASE THERE ARE TWO OTHER COHERENT CONCEPTS OF MIRACLE--CONTINGENCY AND NATURAL MIRACLES--EACH OF WHICH BY (...) ITSELF GIVES US SOME GRASP OF HOW A TRANSCENDENT GOD CAN HAVE A PRESENCE IN THE WORLD. (shrink)

This book is a critical overview of the manner in which the concept of miracle is understood and discussed in contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. In its most basic sense, a miracle is an unusual, unexpected, observable event brought about by direct divine intervention. The focus of this study is on the key conceptual, epistemological, and theological issues that this definition of the miraculous continues to raise. As this topic is of existential as well as theoretical interest to (...) many, there is no reason to believe the concept of miracle won't continue to be of ongoing interest to philosophers. (shrink)

Christian Overall and I have been debating whether the occurrence of events traditionally viewed as miracles would constitute evidence for theism. In this article, I make some concluding comments regarding our exchanges. My goal in making these comments is twofold. First, I wish to sketch why I think miracles can function as evidence for God. Second, in the course of our discussion, Overall has ascribed to me claims that I do not make and criticized me on the basis of my (...) holding these views. I feel it is important to set the record straight on several issues. (shrink)

The topic and methods of David Hume’s "Of Miracles" resemble his historiographical more than his philosophical works. Unfortunately, Hume and his critics and apologists have shared the prescientific, indeed ahistorical, limitations of Hume’s original historical investigations. I demonstrate the advantages of the critical methodological approach to testimonies, developed initially by German biblical critics in the late eighteenth century, to a priori discussions of miracles. Any future discussion of miracles and Hume must use the critical method to improve the quality and (...) relevance of the debate. (edited). (shrink)

THERE ARE TWO CONCEPTS OF MIRACLE: AS (A) THE VIOLATION OF A NATURAL LAW, AND AS (B) A STRIKING COINCIDENCE WITHIN NATURAL LAW. DIFFICULTIES IN (A) HAVE BEEN WIDELY DISCUSSED, E.G., BY R SWINBURNE. THOSE IN (B) HAVE NOT. I ARGUE THAT IF DIFFICULTIES IN (A) FORCE A RETREAT TO (B), THEN A PLACE MUST BE FOUND FOR A GOD TO ACT TO PRODUCE (B). SEVERAL POSSIBILITIES ARE CONSIDERED; NONE ARE FOUND SATISFACTORY EXCEPT POSSIBLY THE GOD INFLUENCING UNNOTICED AN (...) ANIMATE OBJECT. I CONCLUDE WITH A NEW AND FAVORABLE LOOK AT HUME’S CONTRARY MIRACLES ARGUMENT. (shrink)

EVEN IF ’MIRACLE’ MEANS A VIOLATION OF A LAW OF NATURE, A CASE CAN BE MADE FOR THINKING THAT MIRACLES ARE POSSIBLE, DETECTABLE, AND COMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE. THE CASE WORKS BY DEFINING A LAW-VIOLATION AS AN EVENT OF A KIND THAT IS EPISTEMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS THERE IS GOOD EVIDENCE OF A GOD’S PRODUCING AN INSTANCE. HUMAN AND NON-HUMAN OBJECTIONS ARE CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED.

In a recent article in this journal, Sus purports to account for what have been identified as the ‘two miracles’ of general relativity—that (1) the local symmetries of all dynamical equations for matter fields coincide, and (2) the symmetries of the dynamical equations governing matter fields coincide locally with the symmetries of the metric field—by application of the familiar result that every symmetry of the action is also a symmetry of the resulting equations of motion. In this reply, we argue (...) that, while otherwise exemplary in its clarity, Sus’ paper fails in this regard, for it rests upon a illegitimate application of the aforementioned result. Thus, we conclude, pace Sus, that these two miracles persist in general relativity. (shrink)

In his paper "Miracles: Metaphysics, Physics, and Physicalism," Kirk McDermid appears to have two primary goals. The first is to demonstrate that my account of how God might produce a miracle without violating any laws of nature is radically flawed. The second is to suggest two alternative accounts, one suitable for a deterministic world, one suitable for an indeterministic world, which allow for the occurrence of a miracle without violation of the laws of nature, yet do not suffer (...) from the defects of what McDermid terms the ’Larmerian’ model. I briefly describe my model, reply to McDermid’s criticism of it, and evaluate his alternative accounts. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue against the thesis suggested by Cappelen and Lepore, according to which if contextualism were true, communication would require many items, and therefore would be fragile; communication is not fragile, and therefore, communication does not demand a large number of conditions, and contextualism is false. While we should grant the robustness of communication, it is not guaranteed by some unchanging conditions, but by different flexible mechanisms that enhance the chances of mutual understanding at a relatively low (...) cost –– this is true, in particular, of different feedback mechanisms and of alternative ways to make the same information mutually available. Communication is not a series of successive, individual and independent actions; dialogues are a kind of joint activity in which misunderstandings are jointly repaired by participants as part of the very activity they are engaged in. Moreover, as we consider the roles of hearers in a conversation, we see that no construal makes Cappelen and Lepore’’s argument both plausible and relevant. The hearer can either be overhearer or a certified participant. If the hearer is an overhearer, it may be the case that he easily misunderstands what is said, but it has no consequence to the understanding of what takes place in a dialogue, since, ex hypothesi, he is not a party to it. If the hearer is a participant, many of the conditions of mutual understanding will be assured in the dialogical activity itself, and both he and the speaker will make efforts to assure that mutual understanding do take place, as part of their responsibilities as parties to a dialogue –– and their argument is not plausible. (shrink)

Muslims accept the existence of prophets and the occurrence of miracles as a basis of faith. The issue whether miracles will emerge from the righteous or saints is debatable. All Islamic scholars have accepted the existence of spiritual miracles, such as the grace of Allah to his saintly servants in the form of glad tidings, peace of heart and perseverance in faith. However, the existence of sensible (ḥissī) miracles or extraordinary situations that a person would never be able to do (...) under normal circumstances such as resurrecting the dead, changing the nature of objects, talking with inanimate beings and animals, knowing the events of the unseen, reaching long distances in a short time, walking on water or in the air, etc. has been the subject of serious debate. Most notably Mutazilites as well as some Sunni scholars also rejected saintly miracles and they argued that such events could only occur for prophets -with Allah’s permission and creation- and that they were called miracles. They are also concerned that if the extraordinary acts of saints are accepted, the institution of prophecy and therefore the proof of the miracle may be harmed. One of those who accepted this view is the famous Ẓāhirī scholar Ibn Ḥazm (d. 456/1064), who grew up in Andalusia. He claimed that marvelous events would occur only on the hands of the prophets, and he argued that it cannot be possible for a rightful person, saints or wizard to do extraordinary acts. However, he considered the marvelous events attributed to some people -who were not known to be prophets in the Qur’an and hadiths- as the miracles of the prophet who lived in the period in question. Ibn Ḥazm, who accepted that extraordinary events occurred from some of the ṣaḥāba (Prophet’s companions) during the Prophet’s lifetime, claimed that it ended with the death of the Prophet. According to him, those who claim that such events took place after the Prophet Muhammad, are liars, dishonest and deceitful people. In this article, the nature and limits of miracles according to Ibn Ḥazm are discussed, and the role he assigned to miracles despite being a scholar of the ahl al-ḥadīth is evaluated. (shrink)

La recherche entreprise par John P. Meier sur le Jésus historique accorde une large place à la question des miracles. La présente contribution s’attachera à rendre compte du travail de Meier sur ce dossier particulier, en trois étapes : un premier temps sera consacré à l’examen de son projet et de sa méthodologie ; un deuxième moment sera dédié à l’évaluation des principaux résultats auxquels il parvient. Il s’agira enfin, au terme du parcours, de répondre à la question : « (...) Y a-t-il une théologie du miracle chez Meier ? ». Il faudra alors se situer différemment dans la lecture de l’ouvrage de Meier, dont le projet, selon ses propres mots, « peut être pris en compte par des théologiens qui pratiquent la christologie dans un contexte contemporain ». Il est clair, en effet, que cette recherche historique peut être d’un grand profit aux théologiens contemporains, encore faut-il préciser en quoi et selon quelles limites.The research undertaken by John P. Meier on the historical Jesus deals amply with the issue of the miracles. The present contribution gives an account on Meier’s work in this particular matter and proceeds in three steps. We first examine his objectives and his methodology, and secondly try to evaluate the results he achieves. Finally, we attempt to answer the following question: “Is there a theology of the miracle in Meier’s work?” If so, we would then have to position ourselves differently in our reading of this work whose objective, as Meier declares himself, “can be taken into account by theologians who practice Christology in a contemporary context”. Actually, it is quite clear that this historical research can provide much benefit for contemporary theologians, but we will have to specify by which means and within which limits. (shrink)

THE ARTICLE DISCUSSES WHETHER THERE CAN EVER BE CONCLUSIVE GROUNDS FOR ACCEPTING ANY MIRACLE CLAIM WHATSOEVER. THE USUAL ’EMPIRICAL’ MODEL FOR THE MIRACULOUS IS EXAMINED AND REJECTED AS VARIOUSLY INCOHERENT. THE AUTHOR PROPOSES AND ELABORATES ON ALTERNATIVE ’ANALYTIC’ MODELS, ACCORDING TO WHICH A MIRACULOUS ACT IS A "CREATIVE" ACT. THE LOGIC OF CREATION IS EXAMINED, AND FURTHER PROBLEMS ADUMBRATED.