Talk:Étienne Tempier

Is this right?
I wouldn't know anything about this guy, but the sentence "Taking a further step and arguing that aliens actually existed remained rare." Seems out of place for a Medieval era Pope to say, especially during a time when people mostly took Aristotle's theory for all it was worth, and that there was only the solar system revolving on glass spheres (I believe.) around the earth. - Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.130.36 (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible change of phrasing needed.
I am a little concerned by the following sentence:

Tempier also overturned Aristotle on one point: God could have created more than one world (given His omnipotence) yet we know by revelation He made only one.

As this is not direct speech (or, at least, it is not marked as such), the structure implies by its use of 'we know' that all those reading share the same point of view. Furthermore, whether Tempier 'overturned' Aristotle or not rather depends on the question of a) there being a god; b) this god being omnipotent; and c) the bible and its contents being facts. As all the previous are matters of faith not fact, we can only logically assert an attempt to overturn Aristotle, as if we reject these arguments, the whole premise collapses. I shall happily assume 'good faith' and accept that this is simply the fault of a slighlty ambiguous turn of phrase. May I suggest something along the lines of: Tempier also attempted to overturn Aristotle on one point: he argued that, if (as he believed)God is omnipotent, he could have created more than one world. However, the Christian bible makes it clear he chose to create only one. I must also take objection to the capitalisation of pronouns. I will live with God being treated as proper noun, but the capitalisation of his and he seems to be favouring the beliefs of certain religions. Something I know Wikipedia is against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.36.254 (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)