Hannah

In regard to Crouch’s concept of power, I have another comment: Christians seem to be afraid of “strategy”. Does using strategy perhaps feel too much like lacking trust in God? Other groups have had well defined media strategies, infiltration strategies, etc. (Think of fundamentalist Muslims, communists, environmentalists, gay rights, etc.) Missions agencies use it all the time overseas. But many Christians I know react against it here in the US, when used by Christians. Is using strategy itself a lack of faith, a hungering for power? Or are we simply reacting to past strategies that have failed?

Peter Harrison is a very fine scholar, one of the best working today on the history of Christianity and science. All of his books and essays are worth reading, and in general I agree with most of his claims.

The one major claim he has made that I dissent from, which he has advanced in several places but esp in his recent book on the fall and in an essay in the journal “History of Science” in 2002, is as follows. Harrison gives little support to the view that “voluntarist” theology (which stresses God’s freedom to do anything short of a logical contradiction, in contrast to a “rationalist” theology that stresses the degree to which God’s activities conform to reason) was very influential in shaping early modern science. I do not agree with that view; my dissertation argued for that view a quarter century ago, and a lot of other scholars before and since have also supported it. Most recently, John Henry (Edinburgh) has replied at length in “History of Science,” and in this case he speaks for me as well as for himself — quite literally, insofar as he discussed his essay extensively with me as it was in process.

Since then, Harrison has responded to Henry in the same journal.

As I say, my disagreement with Harrison is pretty much limited to this particular issue, a very important one to be sure but not one that negates the value of his work on this or any other matter. I strongly recommend that you read more of Peter’s work; I do think that historians will still be reading it 50 years from now.

Ted

Harrison argues that when Protestants began to push for more literal readings of Scripture, the old system of reading nature as allegorical began to seem less plausible, and that factor was one thing that drove a movement towards understanding nature through experimental science. I thought it was a fascinating read, but I’m in English, so I’m not sure I’ve learned enough about history of science to have any useful opinions. :)

Hannah