Update from 31 December 2021
From the Chapter: “Why Schleiermacher was not an Option”
This material comes from the chapter “Why Schleiermacher was not an Option”. It addresses three themes that allows it to ‘stand alone’: 1) What was post-Copernican science in the mid-19th Century? 2) How is John’s Gospel both problematic for Schleiermacher but paradigmatic for Strauß’ understanding of ‘myth’ as ‘science’ (Yes, Strauß approached and valued the gospel narratives as ‘science’ in 1835!) 3) What did post-Copernican science in the mid-19th Century miss (including Strauß) in Kant’s philosophy of science, which Kant grounded in what he called the ‘Copernican Turn’ of philosophy? Therefore, these reflections can have value if you have interest in the history of the ‘philosophy of science’, if you have interest in the problem of ‘history’ in the Christian gospels, and/or if you have interest in how the post-Kantian world has (for the most part – Einstein was an exception!) failed to appreciate Kant’s ‘Copernican Turn’.