How necessary was Christianity for the rise science?

[matsselander]

Dear James Hannam,

I've read your book "The Genesis of Science" and found it most rewarding. Thank you very much for writing it!

I'm Swedish living in Sweden (one of the most secularized countries in the world). Here most people live in the "conflict-paradigm" and few have heared about the insights that historians of science have discovered. That's why I'm writing a book in Swedish on this topic. It's popular book for young adults.

I'm reading Rodney Stark, and I have some quotes from him in my not yet published book (it will be published - everything is arranged). The other day I read you review of Stark's book "For the Glory of God". It was a very valuable review. But it gave me a few questions that I would like to ask you. If you don't mind I'm asking for your advice here. If you find it better to email me in private my email is matsselander at yahoo.com

Here's my questions:

1. How would you describe the different nuances in the field concerning the question of "how" necessary Christian faith was in for modern science to rise?

2. It seems to me that Stark answers the counterfactual question "Without Jesus, would modern science exist?" in absolutely negative terms. Would you agree that this is Starks view?

3. Would you agree with Stark in this matter?

4 To me it's interesting that anyone would answer a counter-factual question with so definitive terms (as Stark). It seems to me that the evidence could be potentially quite strong, in order to even dare to post such a question. Would you agree, or is it anathema for an historian to even try to answer such an hypothetical question?

5 Am I right in saying that there are other historians of science that say that it is highly unlikely that modern science would have arisen without the Christian world view (and its view of reason, humanity and nature) in place?

6. Are there others, still, that would feel that the question is all too hypothetical to be asked, (and even more so, in order to be answered). My feeling is that perhaps a majority of historians of science would end up in this category?

7. But are there anyone saying that modern science would probably have arisen anyway, without Christianty in place? You indicated that Lindberg had the opposite view from Stark. Is this Lindbergs view?

8. Lastly, what kind of necessity would you be willing to talk about here (if any)? It's not a logical necessity. Is it a psychological, or institutional, or sociological necessity in play here? What is the best way to characterize what seems to be necessary ingridients for the modern scientific "cake to be baked".

I hope my questions make sense.

friendly regards

Mats Selander
2. 

[ignorantianescia]

Hello Mr Selander. Welcome to the forum and good luck on finishing your book.

I hope you will soon have a reply from James himself. Until then, you may find (tentative?) answers to some of your questions in these old blog posts.

bedejournal.blogspot.nl/2010/09/was-christianity-responsible-for-modern.html
bedejournal.blogspot.nl/2010/09/was-christianity-responsible-for-modern_09.html
bedejournal.blogspot.nl/2010/09/richard-carrier-on-ancient-science.html

[James Hannam]

Dear Mats,

Thank you for your email and I am glad you enjoyed the book. I do have some differences with Rodney Stark and Ignorantianescia has provided some links on that.

I'll have a stab at your questions:

1. How would you describe the different nuances in the field concerning the question of "how" necessary Christian faith was in for modern science to rise?

I don't think Christianity per se was necessary. Rather, a particular metaphysical veiw point was needed that other religions/philosophies did not provide but Christianity did. In theory, another religion or philosophy could have done the job just as well, but historically it was Christianity that did so.

2. It seems to me that Stark answers the counterfactual question "Without Jesus, would modern science exist?" in absolutely negative terms. Would you agree that this is Starks view?

I think Stark is saying that in the real world, the rise of science needed Christianity since no other real world religion did the job of supplying a metaphysical system conducive to science. But I presume he would not rule out another religion like Christianity being able to hypothetically do so.

3. Would you agree with Stark in this matter?

I think that it isn't possible to know what the world would be like without Christianity, what religions would have filled the gap and how they would have developed.

4 To me it's interesting that anyone would answer a counter-factual question with so definitive terms (as Stark). It seems to me that the evidence could be potentially quite strong, in order to even dare to post such a question. Would you agree, or is it anathema for an historian to even try to answer such an hypothetical question?

Counterfactuals can help shed light on real-world causation, which is of interest to historians. But it isn't the counterfactual itself that is interesting so much as how it illuminates real world issues. For example, asking if WWII would have happened without Hitler is really asking whether the conditions of interwar Europe were such that another big war was inevitable.

5 Am I right in saying that there are other historians of science that say that it is highly unlikely that modern science would have arisen without the Christian world view (and its view of reason, humanity and nature) in place?

Stanley Jaki certainly thought so. I think Edward Grant probably thinks so but has never said it explicitly. Likewise Peter Harrison. But the full on thesis that Christianity was a necessary condition for modern science is reasonably unusual in the academy, at least in part because historians don't like one-dimensional explanations.

6. Are there others, still, that would feel that the question is all too hypothetical to be asked, (and even more so, in order to be answered). My feeling is that perhaps a majority of historians of science would end up in this category?

Most historians of science focus on quite narrow areas and don't like big picture questions. David Wootton is probably opposed to the Christianity thesis. This is in contract to the conflict thesis which is another big picture theory and is now rejected by pretty much everyone in the field.

7. But are there anyone saying that modern science would probably have arisen anyway, without Christianty in place? You indicated that Lindberg had the opposite view from Stark. Is this Lindbergs view?

Lindberg probably avoided the question as much as he could. He thought it was not historically helpful, especially as an educator who wanted to train students to consider multiple aspects.

8. Lastly, what kind of necessity would you be willing to talk about here (if any)? It's not a logical necessity. Is it a psychological, or institutional, or sociological necessity in play here? What is the best way to characterize what seems to be necessary ingridients for the modern scientific "cake to be baked".

In the real world, I think Christianity was one of the main causes of modern science arising in Europe. It wasn't 'necessary' in that we can imagine science arising without it, but in reality that did not happen.

I hope this helps slightly.

Best wishes

James

[hidexas5]

Your question helped me a lot. return man 3 unblocked