Luck and Miracles

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    1 Citation (Scopus)

    Abstract

    In another paper published here, I criticized Stephen Mumford's causation-based analysis of miracles on the grounds of its failure to produce results that are consistent with ordinary intuitions. In a response to me, intended as a defence of Mumford's position, Morgan Luck finds fault with my rival approach to miracles on three grounds. In this response to Luck I argue that all three of his criticisms miss their mark. My response to Luck's final line of criticism helps shed light on the difference between my approach to the definition of miracles and that due to Mumford. While my approach is driven by both metaphysical and epistemological considerations, Mumford's approach appears to be driven exclusively by metaphysical considerations.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)471-474
    Number of pages4
    JournalReligious Studies
    Volume39
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2003

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Luck and Miracles'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this