43%
Confidence
Belief overview
Ceticismo sobre milagres
Milagres são vistos com reserva, por parecerem contrariar a ordem racional da natureza.
2
Supportive
2
Contrary
0
Neutral
O que é: Muitas formulações deístas tratam relatos de milagres com ceticismo ou forte prudência.
Como a posição entende: Um criador sábio teria estabelecido uma ordem natural estável, de modo que alegações de suspensão frequente dessa ordem exigiriam demonstração excepcional.
Base e contexto: O tema foi intensificado pela filosofia moderna, pelo desenvolvimento das ciências naturais e pela crítica histórica a testemunhos religiosos.
Debates e variações: Alguns deístas negam milagres em sentido estrito; outros apenas os consideram desnecessários como fundamento da fé.
Documentary evidence
Supportive
David Hume, Of Miracles
A classic essay of skepticism about miracles.
Reference: David Hume, the essay Of Miracles.
Content: Hume questions the probative force of miraculous testimonies in light of the regularity of human experience.
Use in debate: It is a central source for deistic or near-deistic skepticism about miracles.
Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Bible
A rationalist rereading of the moral figure of Jesus.
Reference: Thomas Jefferson, the edition known as the Jefferson Bible.
Content: Jefferson preserves moral teachings attributed to Jesus while removing miraculous and supernatural elements.
Use in debate: It is relevant for questioning miracles and Christological dogmas while maintaining ethical appreciation for Jesus.
Contrary
Joseph Butler, Analogy of Religion
A relevant Christian answer to English deism.
Reference: Joseph Butler, Analogy of Religion.
Content: Butler argues that Christian revelation is not irrational and that nature already contains difficulties analogous to those criticized by deists.
Use in debate: It is one of the most important classical responses to English deism.
William James, The Will to Believe
A pragmatist reply to strict evidentialism.
Reference: William James, The Will to Believe.
Content: James argues that certain existential options may legitimately be embraced before conclusive proof when the decision is forced and vital.
Use in debate: It is often used to challenge the evidentialism associated with agnosticism.