Richard Dawkins on The argument from miracles
Dawkins treats miracle claims as failures of statistical reasoning and the human tendency to see patterns in noise.
Dawkins approaches miracle claims as a scientist accustomed to thinking statistically. What people call miracles, he argues, are usually events that are improbable for any individual but virtually certain to happen to someone, somewhere, given the billions of people alive and the millions of events each experiences daily. The 'miracle' of thinking about someone moments before they call is just the law of large numbers at work.
He is particularly critical of the miracles cited in religious traditions — virgin births, resurrections, water into wine — which he regards as myths indistinguishable from the miracle stories of every other ancient religion. The resurrection of Jesus has exactly as much evidential support as the miracles attributed to Dionysus or Osiris: ancient, secondhand testimony from credulous observers.
Dawkins also points out that miracle claims have declined precisely as our ability to verify them has improved. The age of smartphone cameras has produced no verified miracles — only debunked ones. This pattern is exactly what we would expect if miracles do not occur.
“The nineteenth century is the last time when it was possible for an educated person to admit to believing in miracles like the virgin birth without embarrassment.”