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 language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 459-463 |
Number of pages | 5 |
Journal | Religious Studies |
Volume | 39 |
Issue number | 4 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2003 |