Following the popularity of the dating of the crucifixion, this week’s post is on another aspect of Sir Colin Humphrey’s work on science and religion – his work on miracles.*
Can a scientist believe in miracles such as the Resurrection? To understand miracles we must first understand ‘normal’ events. For scientists, normal events are described by theories and laws. Laws are well established theories which have survived many tests. Laws therefore describe the past: they do not prescribe the future (ie, predict what must happen in the future) but they do raise our expectations to a very high degree. For example, we would be astonished if Continue reading →
Sir Colin Humphreys is Professor of Materials Science at Cambridge University, and his most heavily quoted paper – one in the prestigious scientific journal Nature – is on the dating of the crucifixion of Jesus. How did this come about? Humphreys is a Christian, so as he said in the book Real Science, Real Faith, he has ‘made it a particular personal interest…to try to pin down more accurately the dates of some important biblical events.’
I have written before on Humphreys’ work on the dating of the birth of Jesus, but as Easter is coming soon, it seemed a good time to talk about his death. Jesus’ crucifixion is dated around 30-33AD, but Humphreys and his astrophysicist colleague W.G. Waddington came up with the more exact date. Continue reading →
Time for a Christmas post! The BBC series The Nativity featured three scholars from the East who pieced together history, prophecy, politics and astrology to predict a momentous event in Judaea. They threw all their resources together and traveled for days to be present at the moment when God stepped into the world he had created. Stepped isn’t quite the right word, but the fact that God came to us through the birth canal of a Judaean peasant girl is hard to describe elegantly – it’s not the PR spectacle that we would have planned if God’s arrival on earth had been left to us. God knows what we’re like and he chooses to communicate with us in ways that turn our petty assumptions upside down.
God’s welcoming committee included scholars – perhaps Zoroastrian – who used astrology to predict his birth. This is a fantastic example of ‘common grace’. Astrology isn’t given the time of day by either scientists or Christians today, but it worked for the Magi. I can’t help thinking that the arrival of these learned men at the birth of Jesus is a great link between science and faith. What better way to discover God than to explore the world and follow where the evidence leads?
I watched the film The Nativity Story a few weeks ago. I picked it up at a well-known supermarket for just £3 so I was a bit dubious about what it would be like, but I was pleasantly surprised. The production values are great and the story is told well. Of course a lot of detail was added to the gospel accounts but the extra content was – as far as I can judge – pretty much in keeping with what we know of the period historically, and the original message was faithfully preserved. I thought the film makers did well in creating the atmosphere of an occupied country, showing Mary and Joseph’s developing relationship and, though everyone knows the story (?), introducing some suspense. I objected to the very cheesy birth tableau, but perhaps that was to be expected…
There is a definite science and faith link in the story of the birth of Jesus. Colin Humphreys is Professor of Materials Science at Cambridge University, and is one of the people who has helped to date the birth of Jesus more accurately in recent years. I’ve heard him tell the story of how he saw in his daughter’s ‘Great Men of History’ book that the dates of Jesus’ birth and death were not known very accurately. Being a Christian, he thought it was important to know a bit more about such momentous happenings as the nativity and crucifixion of Christ. He got together with an astrophysicist from Oxford University, WG Waddington, to work out the most likely dates of both events. The Nature paper that he and Waddington then wrote on the date of the crucifixion is his most cited scientific paper – a somewhat unusual thing for someone whose stock-in-trade is electron microscopy.