The Supernatural and the Miraculous

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Both intention-based and causation-based definitions of the miraculous make reference to the term ‘supernatural’. Philosophers who define the miraculous appear to use this term in a loose way, perhaps meaning the nonnatural, perhaps meaning a subcategory of the nonnatural. Here I examine the aetiology of the term ‘supernatural’. I consider three outstanding issues regarding the meaning of the term and conclude that the supernatural is best understood as a subcategory of the nonnatural. In light of this clarification, I argue that a prominent causation-based definition of the miraculous should be revised so as not refer to the supernatural. I further argue that authors of intention-based definitions of the miraculous need to consider whether or not they should continue to refer to the supernatural, in their definitions of the miraculous, in light of the conclusions discerned here.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)277-285
Number of pages9
JournalSophia
Volume46
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2007

Fingerprint

Miraculous
Supernatural
Subcategories
Causation
Intentions
Etiology
Philosopher

Cite this

Clarke, Steve. / The Supernatural and the Miraculous. In: Sophia. 2007 ; Vol. 46, No. 3. pp. 277-285.
@article{42444fb65bb74f42859bfc1d43ca4c66,
title = "The Supernatural and the Miraculous",
abstract = "Both intention-based and causation-based definitions of the miraculous make reference to the term ‘supernatural’. Philosophers who define the miraculous appear to use this term in a loose way, perhaps meaning the nonnatural, perhaps meaning a subcategory of the nonnatural. Here I examine the aetiology of the term ‘supernatural’. I consider three outstanding issues regarding the meaning of the term and conclude that the supernatural is best understood as a subcategory of the nonnatural. In light of this clarification, I argue that a prominent causation-based definition of the miraculous should be revised so as not refer to the supernatural. I further argue that authors of intention-based definitions of the miraculous need to consider whether or not they should continue to refer to the supernatural, in their definitions of the miraculous, in light of the conclusions discerned here.",
keywords = "Causation-based definition, Intention-based definition, Miracle, Nonnatural, Supernatural",
author = "Steve Clarke",
note = "Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: month (773h) = December 2007; Journal title (773t) = Sophia. ISSNs: 0038-1527;",
year = "2007",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1007/s11841-007-0030-7",
language = "English",
volume = "46",
pages = "277--285",
journal = "Sophia",
issn = "0038-1527",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "3",

}

The Supernatural and the Miraculous. / Clarke, Steve.

In: Sophia, Vol. 46, No. 3, 12.2007, p. 277-285.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Supernatural and the Miraculous

AU - Clarke, Steve

N1 - Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: month (773h) = December 2007; Journal title (773t) = Sophia. ISSNs: 0038-1527;

PY - 2007/12

Y1 - 2007/12

N2 - Both intention-based and causation-based definitions of the miraculous make reference to the term ‘supernatural’. Philosophers who define the miraculous appear to use this term in a loose way, perhaps meaning the nonnatural, perhaps meaning a subcategory of the nonnatural. Here I examine the aetiology of the term ‘supernatural’. I consider three outstanding issues regarding the meaning of the term and conclude that the supernatural is best understood as a subcategory of the nonnatural. In light of this clarification, I argue that a prominent causation-based definition of the miraculous should be revised so as not refer to the supernatural. I further argue that authors of intention-based definitions of the miraculous need to consider whether or not they should continue to refer to the supernatural, in their definitions of the miraculous, in light of the conclusions discerned here.

AB - Both intention-based and causation-based definitions of the miraculous make reference to the term ‘supernatural’. Philosophers who define the miraculous appear to use this term in a loose way, perhaps meaning the nonnatural, perhaps meaning a subcategory of the nonnatural. Here I examine the aetiology of the term ‘supernatural’. I consider three outstanding issues regarding the meaning of the term and conclude that the supernatural is best understood as a subcategory of the nonnatural. In light of this clarification, I argue that a prominent causation-based definition of the miraculous should be revised so as not refer to the supernatural. I further argue that authors of intention-based definitions of the miraculous need to consider whether or not they should continue to refer to the supernatural, in their definitions of the miraculous, in light of the conclusions discerned here.

KW - Causation-based definition

KW - Intention-based definition

KW - Miracle

KW - Nonnatural

KW - Supernatural

U2 - 10.1007/s11841-007-0030-7

DO - 10.1007/s11841-007-0030-7

M3 - Article

VL - 46

SP - 277

EP - 285

JO - Sophia

JF - Sophia

SN - 0038-1527

IS - 3

ER -