Abstract

Argumentation in the eighteenth‐century miracles controversy exhibits a controlling concern for procedural considerations. Of particular concern to Deist and Orthodox opponents is the most reasonable method for critically evaluating miracle accounts, an issue that elicits extensive argumentation on each side. Rival methods were seen as crucial to efforts to attack or defend the Christian miracles, while choices regarding method were shaped by sharply opposed rational commitments and rhetorical goals. Moreover, the success of argumentative cases was tied to positions concerning method.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call