To Explain the World: The Discovery of Modern Science Read Free Page B

hand, Aquinas disagreed with Aristotle on the theory of motion; he argued that even in a vacuum any motion would take a finite time. It is thought that Aquinas encouraged the Latin translation of Aristotle, Archimedes, and others directly from Greek sources by his contemporary, the English Dominican William of Moerbeke. By 1255 students at Paris were being examined on their knowledge of the works of Aquinas.
    But Aristotle’s troubles were not over. Starting in the 1250s, the opposition to Aristotle at Paris was forcefully led by the Franciscan Saint Bonaventure. Aristotle’s works were banned at Toulouse in 1245 by Pope Innocent IV. In 1270 the bishop of Paris, Étienne Tempier, banned the teaching of 13 Aristotelian propositions. Pope John XXI ordered Tempier to look further into the matter, and in 1277 Tempier condemned 219 doctrines of Aristotle or Aquinas. 3 The condemnation was extended to England by Robert Kilwardy, the archbishop of Canterbury, and renewed in 1284 by his successor, John Pecham.
    The propositions condemned in 1277 can be divided according to the reasons for their condemnation. Some presented a direct conflict with scripture—for instance, propositions that state the eternity of the world:
      9.  That there was no first man, nor will there be a last; on the contrary, there always was and always will be the generation of man from man.
     87. That the world is eternal as to all the species contained in it; and that time is eternal, as are motion, matter, agent, and recipient.
    Some of the condemned doctrines described methods of learning truth that challenged religious authority, for instance:
     38. That nothing should be believed unless it is self-evident or could be asserted from things that are self-evident.
    150. That on any question, a man ought not to be satisfied with certitude based upon authority.
    153. That nothing is known better because of knowing theology.
    Finally, some of the condemned propositions had raised the same issue that had concerned al-Ghazali, that philosophical and scientific reasoning seems to limit the freedom of God, for example:
     34. That the first cause could not make several worlds.
     49. That God could not move the heavens with rectilinear motion, and the reason is that a vacuum would remain.
    141. That God cannot make an accident exist without a subject nor make more [than three] dimensions exist simultaneously.
    The condemnation of propositions of Aristotle and Aquinas did not last. Under the authority of a new pope who had been educated by Dominicans, John XXII, Thomas Aquinas was canonized in 1323. In 1325 the condemnation was rescinded by the bishop of Paris, who decreed: “We wholly annul the aforementioned condemnation of articles and judgments of excommunication as they touch, or are said to touch, the teaching of blessed Thomas, mentioned above, and because of this we neither approve nor disapprove of these articles, but leave them for free scholastic discussion.” 4 In 1341 masters of arts at the University of Paris were required to swear they would teach “the system of Aristotle and his commentator Averroes, and of the other ancient commentators and expositors of the said Aristotle, except in those cases that are contrary to the faith.” 5
    Historians disagree about the importance for the future of science of this episode of condemnation and rehabilitation. There are two questions here: What would have been the effect on science if the condemnation had not been rescinded? And what would have been the effect on science if there had never been any condemnation of the teachings of Aristotle and Aquinas?
    It seems to me that the effect on science of the condemnationif not rescinded would have been disastrous. This is not because of the importance of Aristotle’s conclusions about nature. Most of them were wrong, anyway. Contrary to Aristotle, there was a time before there were any men; there certainly are many planetary systems, and there may