Response to Mumford and Another Definition of Miracles

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    5 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Stephen Mumford concludes a recent paper in Religious Studies, in which he advances a new causation-based analysis of miracles, by stating that the onus is 'on rival accounts of miracles to produce something that matches it'. I take up Mumford's challenge, defending an intention-based definition of miracles, which I developed earlier, that he criticizes. I argue that this definition of miracles is more consistent with ordinary intuitions about miracles than Mumford's causation-based alternative. I further argue that Mumford has failed to demonstrate any advantages that his approach to miracles has over an intention-based approach.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)459-463
    Number of pages5
    JournalReligious Studies
    Volume39
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2003

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Response to Mumford and Another Definition of Miracles'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this