(September 4, 2014 at 5:23 am)Michael Wrote: Though the story that Tyndale was killed for translating the bible into English is a neat little one; it doesn't fit the history of the time particularly well. Yes, he had to flee to work on the bible in English, but that was earlier.

I mostly enjoy your contribution here; however, I can't help but conclude that you are prone to historical revisionism for the sake of Christianity's image. Not long ago I ignored your assertion that Calvinists were responsible for the advent of journal writing even though it's easy to cite journals prior to the birth of Calvin himself.

Tyndale left England twice. The first was due to his unpopular work of NT translation, but we shouldn't gloss over the reason why Tyndale left England the second time; he couldn't learn Hebrew at home because of the Edict of Expulsion. This nasty blemish of the Christian complexion is unconcealable.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that your speculation regarding the motivation for Tyndale's demise is correct. What does it say about Christianity that heresy was the charge he was tried and convicted for?

Hi Cato:

On diaries, that information came from Prof Diarmaid McCulloch. Remember I didn't say that diaries started with the Calvinists, rather it was the popular habit of keeping track of personal lives that started with the Calvinists.

On Tyndale. I did say that Tyndale had to flee during the time he was translating. What I was trying to make clear was that by the time of his death the argument about vernacular translations had largely been won, and that other factors, particularly his opposition to Henry's divorce were likely to be more influential in his fate. Counter-factual history is always going to be hugely speculative, but I suspect if Tyndale had not objected to Henry's divorce then he would have been as welcome as Myles Coverdale who had worked on an English translation, using much of Tyndale's work, prior to Tyndale's death but had found favour in the King's eyes. If the objection was simply to an English translation then Coverdale would have suffered the same fate, but we see Coverdale taking a leading role in the production of the Great Bible.

As for what the charge of heresy says, I think it simply shows the hypocrisy and inconsistency that was rampant at the time; church and state were in a pretty dreadful political state and each used each other out of convenience. Tyndale had too few friends of influence (though Cromwell did speak on his behalf). I'm certainly not afraid to see the church in a bad light - one need only look at the fate of the Cathars to see how dreadful things could get, but 16th century history is much more complex than often presented.

(September 1, 2014 at 2:24 am)Michael Wrote: Natachan

I too am a scientist. I have a Ph.D. in pharmacology (I specialised in intracellular messenger systems, especialy phosphoinositides), and 25 years post-doc work in Pharma, and now back into academia working on what is broadly called 'translational science' or 'evidence-based medicine'.

Yes, science and faith are different. But I love them both, and both play a role in my life (as do other perspectives on life, such as an amateur interest in history).

I hope you continue to get as much enjoyment out of science as I have had, and continue to have.

It certainly is not impossible for a theist to be a scientist, but I do find it absurd to say they are separate but equal. That is mentally compartmentalizing issues in order to avoid scrutiny to what you have no evidence for. You don't dare bring your belief into a lab because you know damn well you don't even have anymore a starting point than a theologian does "poof, god did it".

"God the Failed Hypothesis" and "The New Atheism" by Victor Stenger dispels the myth that science has nothing to say about god claims. And on top of that he rightfully criticizes the idea that religion and science can co exist.

No they cannot co exist. You start mixing god with science science destroys it as a concept, and that is why you try to separate them to justify keeping both of them at the same time.

There is no Allah based gravity.
There is no Vishnu based entropy.
There is no Yahweh based DNA.
There is no Thor based lightening.
There is no Poseidon based hurricane.
There is no magic baby birth gynecology.

Those "god theories" do not exist in science.

You can love your god claim all you want, but that is you and your own anthropomorphic desire. It is YOU projecting human qualities in want of a super hero in order to ignore your own finite existence.

Stephen Hawkins, "A god is not required".

Humans are so busy trying to insisting that a magic cognition with superpowers started everything they never bother to consider that a cognition is not required. I find it childish knowing the size of the universe and how tiny we are in it that "all this" was put here for us and we are somehow special. What a load of crap. It is our species narcissism that creates fictional sky heros. Hardly humble. It is understandable to have that desire to live on. But it is childish to insist on kaleidoscope thinking once you have telescopes.

(September 4, 2014 at 7:29 am)Brian37 Wrote: You don't dare bring your belief into a lab because you know damn well you don't even have anymore a starting point than a theologian does "poof, god did it".

What experiment would you suggest I perform?

I know of no scientific experiment that can falsify the hypothesis "God exists". If the creator God exists then everything we study in a lab is the product of God's will (this has been the motivation for very many scientists over the years; to think God's thoughts after him, as Kepler famously said). If God doesn't exist then nothing in the lab is the product of his will. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about how we might test between those possibilities. It sounds like it should be simple, but I've yet to hear of anyone who designs an experience to test for God in the lab.

For me science explores the nature and behaviour of 'creation'. And I love it

(September 4, 2014 at 7:50 am)Michael Wrote:

(September 4, 2014 at 7:29 am)Brian37 Wrote: You don't dare bring your belief into a lab because you know damn well you don't even have anymore a starting point than a theologian does "poof, god did it".

What experiment would you suggest I perform?

I know of no scientific experiment that can falsify the hypothesis "God exists". If the creator God exists then everything we study in a lab is the product of God's will (this has been the motivation for very many scientists over the years; to think God's thoughts after him, as Kepler famously said). If God doesn't exist then nothing in the lab is the product of his will. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about how we might test between those possibilities. It sounds like it should be simple, but I've yet to hear of anyone who designs an experience to test for God in the lab.

For me science explores the nature and behaviour of 'creation'. And I love it

As a scientist you should know better than that. It is not up to me to do your homework for you.

---

I would suggest you read Victors books though.

(September 4, 2014 at 7:53 am)Brian37 Wrote: As a scientist you should know better than that. It is not up to me to do your homework for you.

'nuff said

It is as simple as accepting the reality that their is no ocean god causing hurricanes. If you accept that then it should be quite easy to understand that no natural process, in evolution or the universe needs a magical super hero either.

Hi Michael

(September 4, 2014 at 7:50 am)Michael Wrote: What experiment would you suggest I perform? I know of no scientific experiment that can falsify the hypothesis "God exists".

Tut-tut. You well know that evidence for a proposition is required before forming a hypothesis and that the nature of the experiments derive from the observations and hypothesis. Please state the evidence so that we may examine it for testable criteria

Quote: If the creator God exists then everything we study in a lab is the product of God's will... If God doesn't exist then nothing in the lab is the product of his will. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about how we might test between those possibilities.

Same again

Quote:For me science explores the nature and behaviour of 'creation' existence. And I love it

Fixed that for you.

(September 4, 2014 at 10:10 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Please state the evidence so that we may examine it for testable criteria

Sure, the prima facie evidence (not proof) of a creator is that there is something rather than nothing.

(September 4, 2014 at 10:31 am)Michael Wrote:

(September 4, 2014 at 10:10 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Please state the evidence so that we may examine it for testable criteria

Sure, the prima facie evidence (not proof) of a creator is that there is something rather than nothing.

Stephen Hawkins, "A god is not required"

Dead language is not science.

Science has yet to say either way "something vs nothing" and the way QM is looking it may be BOTH. But the scientific community has long ditched a invisible sky hero as a necessity to fill in the gap.

Just like our seasons change, they do so without a cognition.