Response to Mumford and Another Definition of Miracles

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)


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
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2003


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

Cite this