Religious Studies

Response to Mumford and another definition of miracles

a1 Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University, LPO Box A260, ANU, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia

Article author query
clarke s   [Google Scholar] 


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.