Helge Kragh

Helge Stjernholm Kragh (born 1944) is a Danish historian of science who focuses on the development of 19th century physics, chemistry, and astronomy.

Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science 2 (2017)

• I read a great many books without finding one that satisfied my needs and so I decided to write one myself. (About his book An Introduction to the Historiography of Science, 1987.)

• I was not brought up in a religious milieu but was (like most Danes) born into the Lutheran-Protestant church. Religion did not play much of a role and when I was in my early twenties I left the church; not because I became an atheist but just because of lack of interest and a certain dislike of organized religion as practiced in my country. My interest in religion is of relatively new date and mostly a result of my studies in history of science which showed how important Christian religion has been for the development of science (and at some stage also Islam). Especially after I turned toward history of cosmology I began thinking about religion in connection with, for example, the perennial question of the origin of the universe. Although I do not believe in traditional religious dogmas I have sympathy and respect for religious thought whereas I have no sympathy for hard-core atheism and materialism. Somehow, it seems to me, there must be something above and beyond the physical universe, a mystical spirit or divine principle. If this principle is called God, I believe in God. But this god has no interest at all in human beings. In a sense, my kind of religiosity is somewhat the same as the one Einstein expressed on various occasions.

• I am rather sure that the ultimate origin of the universe cannot be explained in scientific terms. That is impossible. From this one cannot infer a creative divine being, however. And even if such a being existed (which is an appealing possibility) the God-hypothesis rests on faith and cannot possibly be justified scientifically. I share the belief of most experts that one cannot use science in the service of religion, nor religion in the service of science. By and large I am a supporter of what is called the “independence thesis” in the science-religion discussion.

• I have a certain weakness for alternative ideas, not because I think they are valid but because they tell us something about science and the psychological state of scientists.

• ...It would be of value to have a comprehensive study of the relationship between philosophy and the physical sciences in the period after about 1970. My guess is that the impact of professional philosophers upon physics in this period has been minimal, but I am not sure.