In defence of Mumford's definition of a miracle

Religious Studies 39 (4):465-469 (2003)
Abstract
In a recent paper in Religious Studies, Clarke criticizes Mumford's definition of a miracle as it fails to recognize a supernatural agent capable of intent. Clarke believes that in order for an event to qualify as a miracle a supernatural agent must intend it. It is my aim to dismiss this qualification and demonstrate how Mumford's intent-neutral definition is less problematic. I will do this by examining each of the three cases against Mumford's definition and give reason to reject Clarke's criticism and his own definition of a miracle
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0034412503006607
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 28,756
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Shifting Frames: From Divided to Distributed Psychologies of Scientific Agents.Peter J. Taylor - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:304-310.
The Hiddenness Argument Revisited.J. L. Schellenberg - 2005 - Religious Studies 41 (3):287-303.
How Bad Is Rape?H. E. Baber - 1987 - Hypatia 2 (2):125-138.
Luck and Miracles.Steve Clarke - 2003 - Religious Studies 39 (4):471-474.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

27 ( #191,521 of 2,178,112 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #316,663 of 2,178,112 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums