In Defence of Mumford's Definition of a Miracle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In a recent paper in Religious Studies, Clarke criticizes Mumford's definition of a miracle as it fails to recognize a supernatural agent capable of intent. Clarke believes that in order for an event to qualify as a miracle a supernatural agent must intend it. It is my aim to dismiss this qualification and demonstrate how Mumford's intent-neutral definition is less problematic. I will do this by examining each of the three cases against Mumford's definition and give reason to reject Clarke's criticism and his own definition of a miracle.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)465-469
Number of pages5
JournalReligious Studies
Volume39
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2003

Fingerprint

Miracles
Supernatural
Criticism
Qualification
Religious Studies

Cite this

@article{b3bfabe73d8c436ba2ba7a75e382cfca,
title = "In Defence of Mumford's Definition of a Miracle",
abstract = "In a recent paper in Religious Studies, Clarke criticizes Mumford's definition of a miracle as it fails to recognize a supernatural agent capable of intent. Clarke believes that in order for an event to qualify as a miracle a supernatural agent must intend it. It is my aim to dismiss this qualification and demonstrate how Mumford's intent-neutral definition is less problematic. I will do this by examining each of the three cases against Mumford's definition and give reason to reject Clarke's criticism and his own definition of a miracle.",
keywords = "Clarke, Definition, Miracles, Mumford",
author = "Morgan Luck",
note = "Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: month (773h) = Oct 2003; Journal title (773t) = Religious Studies: an international journal for the philosophy of religion and theology. ISSNs: 0034-4125;",
year = "2003",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1017/S0034412503006607",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "465--469",
journal = "Religious Studies",
issn = "0034-4125",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "4",

}

In Defence of Mumford's Definition of a Miracle. / Luck, Morgan.

In: Religious Studies, Vol. 39, No. 4, 10.2003, p. 465-469.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - In Defence of Mumford's Definition of a Miracle

AU - Luck, Morgan

N1 - Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: month (773h) = Oct 2003; Journal title (773t) = Religious Studies: an international journal for the philosophy of religion and theology. ISSNs: 0034-4125;

PY - 2003/10

Y1 - 2003/10

N2 - In a recent paper in Religious Studies, Clarke criticizes Mumford's definition of a miracle as it fails to recognize a supernatural agent capable of intent. Clarke believes that in order for an event to qualify as a miracle a supernatural agent must intend it. It is my aim to dismiss this qualification and demonstrate how Mumford's intent-neutral definition is less problematic. I will do this by examining each of the three cases against Mumford's definition and give reason to reject Clarke's criticism and his own definition of a miracle.

AB - In a recent paper in Religious Studies, Clarke criticizes Mumford's definition of a miracle as it fails to recognize a supernatural agent capable of intent. Clarke believes that in order for an event to qualify as a miracle a supernatural agent must intend it. It is my aim to dismiss this qualification and demonstrate how Mumford's intent-neutral definition is less problematic. I will do this by examining each of the three cases against Mumford's definition and give reason to reject Clarke's criticism and his own definition of a miracle.

KW - Clarke

KW - Definition

KW - Miracles

KW - Mumford

U2 - 10.1017/S0034412503006607

DO - 10.1017/S0034412503006607

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 465

EP - 469

JO - Religious Studies

JF - Religious Studies

SN - 0034-4125

IS - 4

ER -