Christopher Hitchens on The argument from miracles
Hitchens applied Hume's maxim rigorously: testimony for a miracle is never sufficient when a natural explanation is available.
Hitchens relied heavily on David Hume's argument that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless its falsehood would be more miraculous than the event it describes. Given what we know about human credulity, fraud, and the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, Hitchens argued that natural explanations will always be more probable than supernatural ones.
He was particularly scathing about the miracles attributed to candidates for Catholic sainthood, which he investigated during the canonisation process for Mother Teresa. Hitchens testified as a 'devil's advocate' (the role having been officially abolished) and found the miracle claims to be exactly what one would expect from institutional self-interest combined with motivated reasoning.
Hitchens also pointed to the conspicuous absence of miracles in the age of cameras and recording devices. The miracles always happened long ago, far away, and to people who were already predisposed to believe. If God could part the Red Sea for Moses, why could he not regrow an amputee's limb on camera?
“The mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating: religion is man-made.”
“Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence. What is offered instead is ancient hearsay.”