Stephen Fry on The argument from miracles
Fry treats miracle claims with the scepticism of a well-read humanist, noting that miracles cluster suspiciously in credulous eras and uncritical communities.
Fry has addressed miracle claims in various interviews and public appearances with his characteristic blend of erudition and wit. His objection is historical rather than scientific: the age of miracles coincides precisely with the age of ignorance. Miracles were commonplace in the ancient world, when people had no understanding of natural causation. They have become progressively rarer as scientific literacy has increased — not because God has become less active, but because people have become harder to fool.
He points to the double standard in how miracle claims are evaluated. If an ancient Greek reported that Asclepius healed the sick, modern Christians would dismiss it as mythology. If an ancient Jewish or Christian source reports that God healed the sick, the same Christians treat it as history. The evidence in both cases is identical — ancient, secondhand testimony from people who believed in supernatural intervention as a matter of course. The difference is not evidential but tribal.
Fry also observes that modern miracle claims are overwhelmingly concentrated in communities that expect and reward them — Pentecostal churches, pilgrimage sites, faith healing ministries. This social distribution is exactly what we would predict if miracles are products of expectation and social reinforcement rather than divine intervention.
“Bone cancer in children — what's that about? How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault?”