Bacon's important contribution was inductive reasoning. Prior to Bacon there was general reliance upon deduction and authorities like Aristotle and scripture. Creationists use the deductive approach when they start with Genesis and selectively distort evidence to support their faulty presuppositions.
You so confuse me. You noted that Humanism was not part of religion so now you suggest Voltaire is not part of the humanist tradition because he was not a Catholic. How does this work?
Marshall D'Arcy // I"m not sure what you mean but can answer where each of these fit historically, if that helps clarify. Humanism--meaning the Italian movement from the 14th-16th centuries--is certainly Catholic. The only point I make in my lectures is that Humanism in this phase is not the same Humanism that comes later with men like Voltaire. This is not controversial, since it's only an issue of the same name for two different movements. The Humanism that arises out of the Enlightenment is purposefully trying to either relegate or avoid religious issues and focus instead on reason as the path for truth. Voltaire then would not be a 14th-16th century version of Humanism, but he certainly would be part of the Enlightenment version of Humansim. Hope that clarifies. :)
Ryan Reeves I understand a "Humanist" as in the "humanities" which is as you have pointed out a study of ancient Greek and Latin scholars. Are you suggesting this is a Catholic thing and their for persons like Servetus and Calvin could not be one? Are you suggesting that Voltaire could not have studied Greek and Latin scholars? "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_Humanist" I do not think the study of Greek and Latin scholars was Catholic as much as a product of the Renaissance which is not a religion. I do believe that when Voltair said such things as "we eat to live we do not live to eat" he was talking about more then Greek and Latin scholars but certainly not less then.
Marshall D'Arcy // You're dividing things up a bit too eagerly. The issue is that simply studying Latin and Greek are not what makes one a humanist. The point about a humanist being one who studied the 'humanities' is a point about the impact the Humanist movement had on the West. Maybe the difference can be described as the use of capital letters: I've studied Greek and Latin, so I study the humanities but I am not part of Humanism. Humanism is far more complex than Greek and Latin studies or even the classics. Rather it's their entire approach to the subjects of the classical past, which was a break with the medieval intellectual world. Humanism as a movement is a method, and there are merely examples after the end of the movement that carry on its general method. So people in the Renaissance period would be both Catholic and Humanist (i.e. Catholics who adhere to the new methods). Also the Humanist movement is considered 'Catholic' becuase it occurs before Protestantism exists (14th-early 16th centuries).
Marshall D'Arcy I would also suggest that to study the ancients because they have value suggests that one may have value even with out Christ. This suggests, to me anyway if not to Dr Reeves, that Humanists and Humanists are unquestionably related. This is true because Humanism as we now understand it means that man has value separate from religion. This I believe is as Voltaire believed.
So Voltaire was the Mel Gibson of his time? Sounds about right, because you got someone whose a revisionist towards history, great at mockery, and overall seems to have an odd way of looking at things in general--I'd hate to imagine how much he'd butcher history if movies were invented in his time.
