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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Morgan Luck (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: