Astrology and Science – the Position of Astrology

Astrology and Science – the Position of Astrology

"I do not believe in Astrology, because there is no reason to, no evidence supports it" closes Andy Carloff his "rational inquiry" about the validity of Astrology, in one of his interesting articles published on this site. We agree. Indeed, there is not too much to say about Astrology that might be in position to change one's belief. After all, the belief is anyone's prerogative and sometimes there is no question of evidence to support it: you believe or not regardless of evidence! At the same time, we are certainly entitled to a question: what kind of evidence would be appropriate in order to give support to Astrology?

At the opposite extremity is Mary Anne Lionel, who analyzes the influence of the Moon upon … the hair growth (naturally, she is a hair consultant after all!), and finds, collaterally, good reasons that Astrology is a science just like Astronomy. She starts with the idea of "influences" declaring that her high school teacher showed "a simple formula how one physical body influences other physical body". While one have serious doubts that such a formula exists (she is probably referring to the formula for Newton's force of gravitation, as we can infer from the context), what she chooses for argumentation of influences is something sound, and indeed very scientific. Mary Anne gives three reasons, in the manner of old speculative philosophies: 1) "Everything in the World is interconnected"; 2) "Big influences Small"; 3) "Stars Are Not Simply Dots in the Sky". The first two reasons can be combined into one, if we remove the relatives "Big" and "Small" which are a matter of scale, and then this one is the basic truth of all natural philosophies. The third reason, however, is a truth to abide by. Even the exact Science responsible for the formula that showed Mary Anne the influences of bodies upon each other forgot that the stars are not "dots in the sky": the formula doesn't work but only for ... dots!

There are many misconceptions about Astrology, most of them entertained by its utterly commercial character. For instance, Diane Dew writes: "All forms of the occult – divination, necromancy, astrology, hypnotism, fortune-telling, magic, etc. – are forbidden by God." And she gives even places to see this: "Leviticus 19:26-28, 31; 20:6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:9-14; 2 Kings 23:24; Jeremiah 10:2" (see [1]). Just out of curiosity we looked in those places and found no mention of Astrology (see [2]). As a matter of fact if we go further to find 'astrology' in a dictionary of concordance, we have an immediate answer: no match! Well, the word 'astrology' was not invented by the time when the Bible was written, but the word 'astrologer' certainly had an equivalent. And, sure enough, we can find 'astrologer' in two of the books of Bible: Isaiah and Daniel. Nowhere in these places can we find that what astrologers did, assuming that this is Astrology, is forbidden by God! Astrologers were considered to possess the summit of human knowledge of the time, which Daniel, for instance, had to prove as insufficient when compared with God's creation. In Diane's list 'astrology' was certainly added among forbidden forms of occult, probably just by the simple impression created by the occultism that penetrated Astrology.

It is so easy to become an Astrologer today: just purchase a software package from the host of those offered in the www, and the job is done! There is not even need to know too much about Astrology as an art, just a resolve to make money at any rate; everything is in place, one just needs to follow user's manual. Still, browsing the www one can find heated debates. Fact is that the practice of Astrology relies on a universal ignorance promoting the explicit opinion that there is an occult extra physical relationship between the position of the cosmic elements and the life of an individual. Now, a long lasting observation of the historical and social life indicates, that indeed, there are common trends among the individuals born within the same period of time. It is only natural then to assume that the cosmic elements determining this period of time are also determining the life of individuals born within its time limits. In Mary Anne's words, 'stars are not simply dots'!

Therefore, it would not be quite unusual if the astrologers would limit the causal explanations about the life of an individual to those elements that determine the periods of time in which he/she was born. However, a respected astrologer usually claims much more in order to raise his/her commercial standing. Thus, for instance, one can see in the www astrologer pages claiming to take into consideration for prediction "elements" borrowed directly from popular science magazines, on the existence of which Physics and Astrophysics themselves have doubts (pulsars, quasars, galactic center, cold dark matter, etc). It is this last aspect, of capitalizing on ignorance, which outrages most people, especially scientists, against Astrology. Yet there is no way to escape the situation as long as money plays the big card. First of all, there are not too many people capable of correctly appreciating the Science. Secondly, every one of us is eager to know his/her future; and all of us can produce money to spend as he/she deems appropriate.

On the other hand, in spite of the alleged objectivity of Science, there are serious cracks in it, which promoted this situation. If, for instance, Andy's request of evidence is expressly for scientific evidence as usually understood, forget about it: the Science cannot provide it but in the form of the above-mentioned facts from popular magazines. In order to see what kind of scientific argument Astrology needs one has to turn back at the very origins of the Modern Science, to see what are the grounds of banishing of Astrology from among Sciences.

References:
[1] Source: DianeDew.com/Occult.htm
[2] Source: ChristianAnswers.net/Bible/