Post by matsselander on Feb 27, 2017 13:07:57 GMT
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.
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.