The counterintuitive moral of the story seems to be that ideological censorship has the potential to spur philosophical and scientific progress, even if this is

The counterintuitive moral of the story seems to be that ideological censorship has the potential to spur philosophical and scientific progress, even if this is an unintended and not very frequent outcome. It is strange, but for a good chunk of time religious thinkers were "more right" about subjects like the eternity of the universe than the prevailing aristotelian philosophers, sometimes deploying surprisingly modern-sounding ideas in the process. I'm thinking of authors like Philoponus https://historyofphilosophy.net/philoponus https://historyofphilosophy.net/philoponus and Crescas https://historyofphilosophy.net/crescas https://historyofphilosophy.net/crescas The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an entry on the condemnation of 1277: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/condemnation/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/condemnation/