Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 4
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Luck, Morgan 2016. Defining Miracles: Direct vs. Indirect Causation. Philosophy Compass, Vol. 11, Issue. 5, p. 267.


    Padgett, Alan G. 2012. The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity.


    Ransom, Michael R. and Alicke, Mark D. 2012. It’s a Miracle: Separating the Miraculous from the Mundane. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, Vol. 34, Issue. 2, p. 243.


    Luck, Morgan 2011. Defining Miracles: Violations of the Laws of Nature. Philosophy Compass, Vol. 6, Issue. 2, p. 133.


    ×

Miracles: metaphysics and modality

  • STEPHEN MUMFORD (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0034412501005595
  • Published online: 01 June 2001
Abstract

It is argued that miracles are best understood as natural events with supernatural causes and that such causal interaction is logically possible. Such miracles may, or may not, involve violations of natural laws. If violations of laws are possible, Humean supervenience views of laws are best avoided. Where miracles violate laws, it shows that what is naturally impossible may be actual and what is naturally necessary may not be actual. Whether or not miracles actually occur, this demonstrates that the nomic modalities differ from the logical. The theory contrasts favourably with competitors and allows, contrary to an interpretation of Aquinas, that Creation would have been a miracle.

Copyright
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Religious Studies
  • ISSN: 0034-4125
  • EISSN: 1469-901X
  • URL: /core/journals/religious-studies
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×