The scientific revolution of the 17th century could not have been possible if scientists did not continue and build off of former scientists research. Aristotelian physics was the basis of the church's belief, and was a common belief for almost everyone in Europe in the fifteenth century. However it only described what the bible, when it was taken literally, had described. Europe was able to change from Aristotle’s physics. Although, it was slow because the Church facilitated the change, and did not want things to occur rapidly.
There was a drastic change from the end of the sixteenth century into the seventeenth century. Giambattista della Porta was a late sixteenth century scholar who believed that there were two types of magic. One that consisted of “foul spirits,” and “incantations,” otherwise known as “sorcery.” The other type of magic was natural magic. According to Della Porta, “Magick is nothing else but the survey of the whole course of nature.” Natural magic was the opposite of doing harm to someone and was for “healing or gaining knowledge of nature.” The idea of healing and gaining …show more content…
Aristotle had been the voice of reason for the church for so long however, that his manuscripts and the scriptures had practically become inseparable. Aristotle’s disproven theories did not take the bible metaphorically. Galileo was asked by Robert Bellarmine, a cardinal at the time, to not release his data. It would be “a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the holy scripture false?” The holy scripture was not incorrect however, according to Galileo’s theories. It was just Aristotle who was incorrect and had become synonymous to the holy scripture. Since Galileo was on the virge of disproving the solar system as heliocentric, he was also on the virge of disproving Aristotle's