During the Q&A after my paper presentation (available here ) and workshop dinner, I noticed that the philosophers there struggled with the fact that Shepherd didn't see miracles as inherently 'special'. They wanted to keep the awe inspiring 'specialness' of miracles to fit in with their own personal preferences and beliefs so, therefore, found it difficult to relate to her definition. I couldn't see the relevance of this subjective approach. For me, it's not about what fits in with my beliefs, or lack of, it's all about what is in the text and how well it's argued. My points of agreement with Hume: β I agree with Hume's account of adjusting one's degree of assurance to avoid mistakes β I agree with Hume's aim to "silence the most arrogant bigotry and superstition" to "free us" from it and prevent "superstitious delusion" β I agree with Hume that when error is introduced, it's due to a lack of under...