From there introduction the works of Aristotle were loved and hated by the intellectuals of the middle ages. This love and hate resulted many conflicts, specifically at the University of Paris, there were a series of condemnations that restricted what could be taught and believed. These condemnations had little effect as there was a lack of a strong punishment until the condemnation of 1277 which threatened excommunication to anyone who held, spoke, or even endorsed beliefs contrary to anything listed in it. this led to great change as it forced intellectuals of the day to look for other answers other than referring back to Aristotle.

      The first and one of the largest of the conflicts with the renewed interest in ancient learning came from Aristotle’s claim that the world was not created that it was eternal. In his works On the Heavens Aristotle claims “the world as a whole was not generated and cannot be destroyed, as some allege, but is unique and eternal, having no beginning or end of its whole life.”1 This left no room at all for the creation of the world as taught by the church and is recorded in genesis. Some during this time tried to rationalize this and make it fit the religious views of the church at this time. Boethius of Dacia, in his treatise On the Eternity of the World, argues that no one could show how the first motion ever happened, so the eternity of the world is able to be determined. In 1272  the teaching masters at the University of Paris were required to take an oath “We decree further and ordain that, if anyone shall have disputed at Paris any question which seems to touch both faith and philosophy, if he shall have determined it contrary to the faith, henceforth he shall forever be deprived of our society as a heretic, unless he shall have been at pains humbly and devoutly to revoke his error and his heresy, within three days after our warning, in full congregation or elsewhere where it shall seem to us expedient.”2 According to Edward Grant Boethius claims there is no conflict between Christian faith and philosophy so to him he is not breaking this oath. So not only do we see the church trying to keep this from becoming an issue we see faculty skirting this issue by saying there can be two truths one in philosophy and one in Christian faith. With this belief that there can be two truths allows the teaching masters to fully teach everything with little worry as they are still solving things in favor of the Church. Even Thomas Aquinas held a similar view as he said that the world had a beginning is an object of faith, but could not be demonstrated. With several prominent people lending support to this view that the world could be eternal it could undermine the authority of the scriptures.

      With the continued rise in popularity of Aristotle and the fact that at least some of the teaching masters at the University of Paris were willing to accept that Aristotle even if it seemed to undermine the belief of the Church resulted in a sweeping condemnation in 1277. Unlike in the past this condemnation stuck due to if you held beliefs contrary you were excommunicated from there Church. As we have seen the Bishop of Paris was uneasy with the limitations, that Aristotle places, on God’s power. There were many that dealt with the limitations on God’s power some examples of these are article 34. “That the first cause could not make several worlds.” Article 48 “that God cannot be the cause of a new act, nor can he produce something anew.” And article 9 “That there was no first man, nor will there be a last; on the contrary, there always was and always will be generation of man from man.” With Aristotle’s ideas being denounced as wrong thinkers of the time were now free to speculate on things previously thought wrong. We see now the possibility for a true vacuum to exist in nature. Aristotle argues that nature abhors a vacuum, so therefore we have to assume that the world existed with god since to create something there has to be a void in the place it will take. The condemnation now states that Aristotle was wrong in many areas and things he said could not happen now can. This opened a whole new world to thinkers at the University of Paris and elsewhere. We now see the ability of God to create new worlds and he could make the Heavens(planets) move anyway he choses. This did not result in a revolution as in a science revolution but it laid the ground work for it. We now have the great thinkers of the time thinking outside the box and not simply looking to encyclopedia’s of knowledge from the past for them. We see the idea of infinity is now being accepted after Nicholas of Cusa puts his weight behind it, this and many other ideas and creations help form the scientific revolution later. But this stark break forced on the faculty and scientists of this time forced them to look for new answers to questions and also question the old answers.

      I mentioned the doctrine of double truths earlier as used by Boethiusof Dacia was denounced in article 90 “that a natural philosopher ought to deny absolutely the newness of the world because he depends on natural causes and natural reasons. The faithful, however, can deny the eternity of the world because they depend on supernatural causes.” Scientists were not required to link their thought with their religion, so now science had to have purpose; why would God create something if it was useless? So not only do we see a break from the older ways of thinking and looking back to the ancient thinkers for answers we now see a tying together science and religion in the same thought that both had to agree with each other and neither could be in direct conflict.