“The weapon which wounds the rationalist kills the truth of revelation”: the Christian roots of “intellectual atheism” in nineteenth-century America

Nineteenth-century Protestant intellectuals broke from their Calvinist heritage by incorporating Arminian rationalism and conceding ultimate authority to science in the sphere of God’s natural revelation. Because of this commitment to science as an independent referee, both theologians and naturalists adopted the strategy of harmonizing biblical interpretation with empirical evidence, thereby allowing science to determine the meaning of Genesis 1. In the never-ending process of religious accommodation to science, the evangelical professoriate became imbued with an increasing naturalistic orientation – so much so that they actively assisted in the growth of scientific naturalism as the methodological norm and final criterion of all scientific inquiry.     

DOES HISTORY MATTER? CHARLES TAYLOR ON THE TRANSCENDENTAL VALIDITY OF SOCIAL IMAGINARIES

Since its appearance in 2007, Charles Taylor's monumental book A Secular Age has received much attention. One of the central issues in the discussions around Taylor's book is the role of history in philosophical argumentation, in particular with regard to normative positions on ultimate affairs. Many critics observe a methodological flaw in using history in philosophical argumentation in that there is an alleged discrepancy between Taylor's historical approach, on the one hand, and his defense of fullness in terms of openness to transcendence, on the other. Since his “faith‐based history” is unwittingly apologetic, it is not only “hard to judge in strictly historical terms,” but it also proves that “when it comes to the most ultimate affairs history may not matter at all.” This paper challenges this verdict by exposing the misunderstanding underlying this interpretation of the role of history in Taylor's narrative. In order to disambiguate the relation between history and philosophy in Taylor's approach, I will raise three questions. First, what is the precise relation between history and ontology, taking into account the ontological validity of what Taylor calls social imaginaries? Second, why does “fullness” get a universal status in his historical narrative? Third, is Taylor's position tenable that the contemporary experience of living within “an immanent frame” allows for an openness to transcendence? In order to answer these questions, I will first compare Peter Gordon's interpretation of the status of social imaginaries with Taylor's position and, on the basis of that comparison, distinguish two definitions of ontology (sections I and II). Subsequently, I try to make it clear that precisely Taylor's emphasis on the historical character of social imaginaries and on their “relaxed” ontological anchorage allows for his claim that “fullness” might have a trans‐historical character (section III). Finally, I would like to show that Taylor's defense of the possibility of an “openness to transcendence”—as a specific mode of fullness—is not couched in “onto‐theological” terms, as suggested by his critics, but that it is the very outcome of taking into account the current historical situation (section IV).     

DARWINIAN WE ARE NOT: COUNTERFACTUALISM AS THE NATURAL COURSE OF HISTORY

This article considers Peter Bowler's recent contribution to the genre of counterfactual history as exemplifying a “restrained” counterfactual framework, one that must downplay the role of contingency in the historical process in order to present what Bowler calls a more “natural course” of historical development. This restrained counterfactual methodology is discussed with reference to analogous debates within evolutionary science about the competing roles of contingency and convergence in the history of life, along with recent work done within the humanities about the more subtle nuances of counterfactual reasoning. Although there is little doubt that Bowler's study will help legitimize the genre of counterfactual history, it is argued that the role of contingency—once thought to be integral to the counterfactual—has been necessarily minimized in order to construct a narrative that is a plausible counterfactual history of science. It is in this way that Bowler's world without Darwin sheds light on our historiographical preconceptions about what makes for a plausible historical narrative.     

“I think that would be the end of Canada”: Howard Green,the Nuclear Test Ban,and Interest-Based Foreign Policy, 1946–1963

Canada's atomic arms debate has attracted considerable scholarship, yet one of the debate's chief protagonists, Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs Howard Green, has received comparatively little attention. In the fall of 1959 Green abruptly moved against further nuclear testing, and began a crusade against Canadian acquisition of atomic weapons. By exploring Howard Green's understanding of nuclear fallout and subsequent actions regarding nuclear testing, this article examines the validity of existing explanations for Green's abrupt change of heart and proposes a new primary motivation: that advancements in science's understanding of the environmental impact of nuclear fallout led Green to redraw his “mental map” of Canada's interests.     

Treason,sodomy, and the fate of Adenolfo IV,count of Acerra

The article recounts the charges brought against Adenolfo IV, count of Acerra, a magnate of the Regno in the reigns of Charles I and Charles II, and his execution for sodomy in 1293. This is one of the earliest, if not the earliest, known cases of the death penalty being exacted for sodomy in Europe. Behind it lies a trial in which Adenolfo was convicted of treason but received a royal pardon five years later. The story casts light on relations between the rulers of the Regno and their overlords the popes, on the judicial methods employed in the Regno, and on the government of Charles II.     

20世纪30年代法国军事辩论的惨痛教训

1940年法国战败,军事理论落后是其重要原因之一,而祸根在30年代的军事辩论时就已经种下。30年代法国军事辩论的主要内容是如何认识坦克集群战争。艾蒂安纳、杜芒克、戴高乐等人根据当时欧洲新的军事思潮,主张坦克战;反对派昧于历史新趋势,简单化地、过分乐观地认为,法国已经建立可靠的防线,法军已拥有足够的坦克,坦克只需掩护步兵,而组织坦克部队进攻将是一种冒险,敌人即使突破或绕过防线仍旧无法取胜。1940年法国的溃败,对这场军事辩论做了实际的总结。法国关于坦克集群战争的辩论和它屈服于坦克集群的事实,为我们提供了若干颇有价值的启示：军事理论的辩论一般具有长远意义;必须认识传统的力量及其限度;军事上的正确判断是打败对手的基本条件之一;必须看到军事理论、战争皆和社会生产、国家经济密切相关;落后的军事理论与压制先进军事思想的政策,势必对国家民族造成不可弥补的损失。     

论中英两国政府处理林维喜事件的手法与态度

鸦片战争前夕 ,英国水手在中国领土上殴毙林维喜。对此 ,林则徐根据国际法准则要求英方交出凶犯 ,据理力争 ,有理有节。而义律作为英国驻华的高级官员 ,其所作所为 ,背离国际法原则 ,藐视中国法律尊严 ,也使英国声誉受到严重损害。义律在林维喜命案中设立的法庭与所进行的审讯是非法的 ,他的裁决当然也是无效的。