43%
Confidence
Belief overview
Skepticism about miracles
Miracles are viewed with reserve, as they seem to contradict the rational order of nature.
2
Supportive
2
Contrary
0
Neutral
What it is: Many deist formulations treat accounts of miracles with skepticism or strong prudence.
How the position understands it: A wise creator would have established a stable natural order, so that claims of frequent suspension of that order would demand exceptional demonstration.
Basis and context: The theme was intensified by modern philosophy, the development of natural sciences, and historical critique of religious testimonies.
Debates and variations: Some deists deny miracles in a strict sense; others merely consider them unnecessary as foundation of faith.
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.