Talk:Epistemic theory of miracles

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 August, 2008. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spirituality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Epistemology / Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Epistemology Philosophy of religion

[1] Where it is argued that Spinoza uses the same argument to dispute the possibility of miracles Peter Damian (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will post my thoughts on this theory as this wikipedia article is the first I'd heard of it. If my comments show that the article doesn't explain it well enough as evidenced by my not understanding it, this will I think help to improve the article.

This theory seems to depend on redefining the term "the laws of nature" to include the causes of supernatural events. All it seems to be saying is that, "The supernatural is merely another part of nature that we haven't discovered yet." The trouble is that this changes the mesning of the word "nature" in mid-sentence without making the distinction clear between nature as in, "that which is physical" and nature as in "that which is governed by laws." As such it is like saying, "Bare is bear," a non-sequitor. Or at least, this is the impression I get from reading the article. --Nerd42 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although this will no doubt draw down the Wrath Of Peter Damian upon me, I think there is a case for moving this to William Vallicella; it's not a term that's commonly used, and AFAIK it's not a term commonly used outside of Vallicella's own publications. Philosophy is one area where the Google Test is not reliable, as so many of the sources are print-only, but it's telling that a Google search on "Epistemic theory of miracles" omitting mentions of Vallicella brings up nothing but Wikipedia mirrors, blogs, and discussions of this article. – iridescent 12:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the theories of Velikovsky (and others) are closely related to this notion. This is not to say that the pseudoscientist is on par with the great philosophers cited, but that Velikovsky is clearly trying to find a naturalistic explanation for various miracles.

I wonder if we can find a source saying as much. At present, this observation is in violation of WP:SYN, but I'd imagine (hope) that others have drawn similar obvious conclusions. Phiwum (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]