Religious Studies 39 (4):459-463 (2003)
|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.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Morgan Luck (2007). Supernatural Miracles and Religious Inclusiveness. Sophia 46 (3):287 - 293.
Stephen Mumford (2001). Miracles: Metaphysics and Modality. Religious Studies 37 (2):191-202.
P. X. Monaghan (2010). A Novel Interpretation of Plato's Theory of Forms. Metaphysica 11 (1):63-78.
H. E. Baber (1987). How Bad Is Rape? Hypatia 2 (2):125 - 138.
H. M. Malm (1989). Commodification or Compensation: A Reply to Ketchum. Hypatia 4 (3):128 - 135.
By John Whipple (2008). Hobbes on Miracles. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 89 (1):117–142.
Morgan Luck (2003). In Defence of Mumford's Definition of a Miracle. Religious Studies 39 (4):465-469.
Steve Clarke (2003). Luck and Miracles. Religious Studies 39 (4):471-474.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #106,239 of 549,060 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?