In Defence of Mumford's Definition of a Miracle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

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 Dive into the research topics of 'In Defence of Mumford's Definition of a Miracle'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this