From www.astrology-and-science.com         Click here to return to home page

The Concepts of Modern Astrology
A Critique -- notes and references

Ivan W. Kelly
University of Saskatchewan, Canada

As already mentioned, these notes need not be referred to as they occur. Instead they can be read more conveniently, and without loss of relevance, as a whole.

Note 1. In Western culture until Newton the views of astrologers and scientists were not so very different. There was widespread belief that all phenomena in the inferior elemental world of nature were governed in some way by the motions of the superior and incorruptible celestial bodies. Not until Newton did the heretical idea arise that maybe these beliefs could be tested, which idea proved to be unstoppable.

Note 2. How successful are astrologers at making predictions? Different astrologers provide conflicting answers. Vaughan (1995) tells us that astrologers have, throughout medieval times, made many successful predictions, including predictions of death. On the other hand, Guinard (1997) says, "it remains true that for two thousand years, astrology by itself has strictly not predicted any major political or cultural event." Campion (1997) contends that there are no reliable techniques in astrology for making successful specific predictions. For example, consider predictions of death: "The prediction of death, astrologically, is a highly subjective business, and there can be no rules for predicting death, because if they applied in medieval times they would apply now -- but now we have a much longer life expectancy and the planetary cycles have not stretched.". It is also interesting to note that when successful predictions are made, there is no consensus in the astrological community regarding the predictions.

The successful predictions seem to be made by isolated astrologers with the vast majority missing the event entirely. While a number of astrologers contend that astrologers cannot predict specific events, they claim they can tell that "something" is going to happen. But astrologers did not predict world war 2 , and why did the vast majority of astrologers miss "the something" of the fall of the Berlin wall and breakup of Russia in 1990? And why did so many astrologers wrongly predict catastrophe at the turn of the twentieth century with the Y2K fiasco? [See Townshend's (1999) astrological site for a large number of astrologer's predictions of Y2K disaster].

The vast majority of astrologers completely miss important events, and the vast majority are wrong when they make specific predictions of major events. Interesting recent examples involve the predictions by astrologers of the outcome of the year 2000 USA presidential election, and the predictions of the 26 Jan 2001 earthquake in India (the worst in 50 years). As usual, only a few isolated astrologers made the correct calls. Let us view these in context. In a survey of ten prominent astrologers on the astrological site, Stariq (2000), four found multiple celestial indicators that Bush would win, four predicted Gore would win, and two hedged their bets and made no clear prediction regarding who the new president would be. These predictions follow the polls made of US voters who were equally divided.

After the election, astrologers made much that "Mercury stationed direct on the evening of November 7, 2000" (See Tarriktar 2001). If it was so obvious about Mercury, why did millions of astrologers around the world miss it? Also, does talk of stationary Mercury make astrological sense, given that Mercury retrograde is an isolated factor? Similarly, we are told (Stariq 2001) that at least two astrologers in India, out of perhaps a hundred thousand, predicted the earthquake of 26 Jan 2001 and "We can see the earthquake reflected in the transits to India's chart" (Wolfstar 2001). But again we are dealing with an isolated factor which is allegedly taboo in astrology. Furthermore, if it is so easily seen why didn't the astrological communities around the world (and especially in India) issue public warnings? And why did only a few out of the millions around the world see it coming? And what is the overall batting average (correct specific predictions versus incorrect specific predictions) of the astrologers making successful predictions? The reader is unlikely to learn from the astrological community that some Hindu astrologers predicted that an even bigger earthquake than the 26 January one would occur in India by 5 February 2001 (Yahoo, 2 Feb 2001). Happily, they were wrong that time. Given that astrologers not only possess all the same information that everybody else has, they are also supposed to have an additional source of information provided by the heavens.

One might expect astrologers to not only have far more consensus in their predictions, but also, as a group, consistently outperform everyone else. If there is so much diversity among astrologers regarding two-outcome predictions like elections, they surely cannot be trusted on more complex issues. For an interesting, historical discussion of prediction relevant to astrological prediction see Pickover (2001).

Note 3. The research of the late Michael Gauquelin and his wife Francoise have been consistently misunderstood and distorted by astrologers and those sympathetic to astrology (eg West 1991, 1996). For an account of the Gauquelin work see this website under Gauquelin.

It is of interest to note that the overall findings of Gauquelin are hardly supportive of astrology. As noted by Dean (2002), "astrologers do not claim that astrology fails to work for half the planets, for signs, for aspects, for character, or (on Gauquelin's figures) for the 99.994 percent of the population who are not eminent." Furthermore, when Gauquelin tested the ability of astrologers to predict people's character and behaviour using the whole chart, they invariably failed, which led him to conclude that horoscopes were of no useful value in understanding people (Gauquelin 1983).

Seymour (1990, 1996) has argued for the validity of a limited astrology based on the Gauquelin findings. He speculates that our neural networks respond to fluctuations in the earth's geomagnetic field which, in turn, interacts with the gravitational fields of the planets. McGillion (2002) has argued in favour of a pineal intermediary.

Unfortunately, while Seymour's and McGillion's theorizing do not contradict modern physical theories, to make a plausible case one needs more than an after-the-event fit to the Gauquelin results. Despite their appeals to the scientific status of their explanation, they fail to specify how their theories could be tested. For example they fail to address the mismatch between planetary and biological frequencies, and how an unborn child can pick up the difference between Jupiter and Saturn when the frequencies of their diurnal signals actually overlap, and how it can actually work when the causal chain from genetic heredity to personality is extremely complex and non-linear (see Turkheimer 1998). See also Dean (2000) for further criticisms.

Note 4. The quality of much astrological thinking is summarized by ex-astrologer Joanna Ashmun's descriptions of internet exchanges between astrologers:

Skepticism is not in evidence, and is in fact discouraged. ... The way astrologers treat researchers and skeptics is just the way they treat other astrologers who disagree with them -- continuing on as if they and their disagreements never existed ... The thing that I find least comfortable about astrology discussions (and not just on the internet) is their immateriality, their lack of grounding. Astrologers are less literate than average; they write badly and they read badly; there is almost no critical response; errors are ignored, corrections are not acknowledged. They answer off the top of their heads, quote from memory, claim that anything published anywhere at any time is general knowledge, and then get sidetracked into arguing about who's a liar instead of sorting out the facts of the original question. There is nothing resembling peer review, except in regard to political correctness. The fact is they don't look stuff up, not even when they disagree with you! Most astrologers would rather have an iffy quotation from Dane Rudhyar or C.G. Jung to support their opinions than some good research (Ashmun 1996, p.41-43).

Note 5. This way of dealing with conflicting ideas is quite common in the astrological world. It is often claimed that "Everything works" -- it just depends on one's point of view, line of approach, etc. Here speculation, devoid of accompanying argument, is often the rule. So in regard to conflicting house systems one can hear responses like, "Perhaps Regiomontanus works best for character and circumstances in life, whereas Placidus may give a better insight into events, and Koch works best for horse racing". But there is no agreement among astrologers on these claims nor even minimal agreement on how such speculation could be tested.

Note 6. The oft-heard claim in textbooks that "The stars incline, not compel" is contradicted by statements in any astrology book or magazine. So the British astrologer Campion (1987) tells us, "signs rule skills and talents" (p.45), "Artists are specifically linked to a strong Venus ... 5th house ... and sun in fifth house" (pp.17,47,49). No ifs or buts here.

Note 7. A variety of ad hoc rules could be used, for example, oldest = Sun, or (for opposite-sex twins) Male = Sun, or it could be whichever one on inspection fits best. At the end of the day all that matters to astrologers is having a practical strategy no matter how arbitrary.

Note 8. Actually, Freud did not discover the unconscious. There is a large pre-Freudian literature on the topic. What Freud did was use the term as a working tool that could be investigated psychologically (Fine 1973, pp.36-37). Further, the North Pole wasn't discovered at all. Everybody knew where and what it was.

Note 9. Owen (2000), writing in The Mountain Astrologer, praises sun-sign delineations because people can "recognize themselves" in them, which implies they are accurate, but is mystified by the public's appetite for sun-sign forecasts when they are so "consistently wrong". Unfortunately, she does not make clear the distinction between forecasts and delineations or why one and not the other could be seen as accurate.

Note 10. A more general underlying issue here is why astrologers themselves believe in astrology. As Dean, Mather and Kelly (1996) point out, the steps in belief are roughly:

1. Read astrology books, become aware of the system.
2. Learn more, calculate charts, see that they appear to work
3. Become dazzled by the history, majesty, and sheer appeal of it all.
4. Adopt the system as true, and reject attacks to avoid cognitive dissonance.

The sequence from 1 to 4 is not unreasonable. Students of astrology are not told to accept astrology without question, they are told to try things out for themselves, so at first sight, what could be fairer? The problem, of course, is that they are not made aware of all the pitfalls of personal validation (and the confirmation bias), nor are they told how to make controlled tests or to design research that actually tests astrological hypotheses and not auxiliary hypotheses. Nor are they presented with the vast body of criticism of astrological tenets, as is, for example, found in this article and references. Once they reach (4) then any internal inconsistencies and disagreements can logically be accommodated as minor hiccups due to the complexities of astrology or inevitable human fallibility (see Dean, Mather & Kelly 1996).

Note 11. Astrologers will often, in the same article or book, shift back and forth between causal and non-causal terminology. Cornelius (1998, p.10) mentions that this was noted by St Augustine almost two millennia ago:

[Augustine] observed that astrologers (when it suited them) will say "Mars caused the action of violence in that man" and, if then pressed on that point, will say "Mars is a symbol", but catch them another moment and they're back to talking as if Mars caused the thing.

Similarly the British astrologer Campion (1987) says, "Saturn causes delays, obstacles and material difficulties" (p.19) and "Uranus rules all new technology" (p.19).

Note 12. Johnsen (2000) points out that the debate between those astrologers who believed in divinatory astrology and those looking for physical explanations of astral influences was present in the second century AD. Almost two millenia later, the debate is still alive in astrological circles with about as much hope of being resolved as it was then.

Note 13. Consider as an analogy, the phrase "medicine works". This would likely be interpreted to mean that medicine as a discipline has demonstrated techniques that work. However, some medical claims about the functioning of the human body are strongly supported by evidence, some are moderately supported, and others weakly supported or dubious. Similarly, some techniques in medical practice have been shown by studies to work very well, others moderately well [but may still be used because of a lack of better alternatives, others not very well (e.g The PSA test for prostate cancer but may still be used because of a lack of alternatives despite high false positives and false negatives)].

Further, there is awareness in the medical community that some techniques may work for different reasons than those considered by advocates (see Beyerstein 1999). Medicine is buttressed by a large consensus in the medical community (on areas such as anatomy, mechanisms of many diseases) and is associated with a successful technology (X-rays, surgery, MRI, PET scans, etc). There is no comparable consensus within astrology about the comparative reliability of techniques or even how we might go about determining the reliability of the techniques.

Note 14. It might be argued by astrologers that many of the techniques are complementary rather than contradictory (various diseases may be cured by herbs, drugs, climate change, psychotherapy, etc.). But this depends on the astrologer and/or astrological school. Most astrologers do not seem to care about consistency in the systems they use, if only because most of them have either no idea of the technical details or of the philosophy behind them. Only a few schools in astrology (Ebertin, Hamburg, Ram, etc) know exactly what they are doing and hence reject systems that do not confirm with their ideas. As many astrologers see it, astrology is a pragmatic business. As long as it seems to work then they do not worry about (the absence of) consistency in techniques, philosophy, etc.

Note 15. West (1991) attempts to bypass the problem of how the astrological relationships could have been determined by pointing in another direction. He agrees that a complex system such as astrology could not have been built on observations but argues that this similarly holds for other bodies of ideas: "this system (astrology) ... is a whole. No amount of aimless observation, no matter how accurate or painstaking, could develop willy-nilly into such an elegant and internally consistent system. In the realm of man, nothing evolves mindlessly. No coherent body of knowledge -- such as astrology -- simply accumulates, taking form as it goes" (p.38).

However, astrology is not a coherent body of knowledge but a body of ideas, and ideas do not have to be true to be coherent (eg Tolkien's world, Star Trek, etc.). Also, the historical inconsistencies and differences among astrological systems throughout the world show that astrology is not the generic internally coherent system that West makes it out to be. Furthermore, bodies of knowledge in the social and natural sciences have theoretical conceptual structures that have become more refined over time in response to research findings which, in turn, direct and facilitate research (Whitt 1992). In contrast, astrology has shown no progress in solving its empirical and conceptual problems. Unlike many other theories, astrology doesn't have diverse evidence that converges on its central claims, has no plausible explanation for its putative correlations, there is little worldwide agreement on central tenets, and anomalies that were pointed out by critics centuries ago still remains as persistent difficulties (See Dean , Mather & Kelly 1996, pp.62-64; Dean, Ertel, Kelly, Mather & Smit 2000).

Note 16. Dane Rudhyar began the move in the United States away from traditional ideas. In their psychological orientation Rudhyar and Perry overlap, the main difference being that Rudhyar is more inclined to Eastern mysticism and religious concepts. A critical examination of Rudhyar's astrology can be found in Kelly and Krutzen (1983). A thorough consideration of the development of psychological astrology in the early twentieth century would also acknowledge the theosophist ideas injected by the British astrologer Alan Leo and the American astrologer Marc Edmund Jones (Zoller 1998).

Note 17. A useful critique of non-physical /dualist views of mind can be found in Parsons (2000).

Note 18. Astrologers are forever trying to increase the surface plausibility of astrology by associating it with the latest theories that have caught the public imagination. So Blumenthal (1994, p.19) appealed to the relevance of fuzzy logic to astrology, while Perry alluded to chaos theory (1994, p.34) and the new physics exemplified by Fritjof Capra and David Bohm. Townley (1994) informs us that "the more advanced areas of systems mathematics [complexity theory, information theory] and neuroscience [could] be very friendly to the type of structural thinking that the best of astrology has to offer and to which astrology could make important contributions" (p.43). Jewsbury (1988) notes how Rupert Sheldrakes principle of formative causation "should remove the objection that astrology is impossible", adding in an interesting circularity that "astrology itself is a further pointer to its truth". Astrologers just assert, without providing details, that Bell's theorem, Bohm's holonomic theory of quantum mechanics, the Anthropic Principle, and purposive evolution are, both all compatible with each other, and support the principles upon which astrology is based.

A negative feature of these astrologers' writings is their penchant to be crucially vague at critical points. We are not provided with specifics of how these juxtapositions will take place. We are only given promissory notes. It is never made clear how the new physics and other modern disciplines can provide support for the supposition that specific planetary configurations can symbolize fundamental human needs, or motivational drives (eg. How Sun square Mars symbolizes overall strength and vigor in the personality) [See Stengler (1995, 1996) for critical comments on misinterpretations of Quantum Mechanics by advocates of New Age claims, and Guttman (2005) for what he sees as Capra's naive and misleading writings].

Further, such modern approaches in physics do not explain why the planetary positions of a moment in the past (birth) describe the supposedly continuing nature of a person in the present. And what about the "birth" of a country, a company, a resolution, a domicile, and so on, all of which astrologers confidently take as having their own natal charts? (Jones 1996).

The astrologer Cornelius (1998) has pointed out that this is an old game that astrologers have always played, namely that astrology has survived by disguising itself as part of the science and philosophy of each particular time period. The modern disguise being, according to Cornelius, depth psychology (Jungian archetype psychoanalysis) and modern physics. Apart from giving the impression that modern theories in physics hold the key to astrological explanation, many astrologers mix in modern theorizing in the social and biological sciences with their symbolic interpretations, creating a very uneasy alliance. Since the theories in the social sciences change in response to new discoveries and evidence, it is interesting how easily astrologers relate planetary conjunctions with completely different findings and theories over time.

For example, Banfield (2000) in "The Astrology of Depression" refers to findings in the psychological literature that there may be a link between "adult depression and being hypersensitive, shy, introverted, and timid when young." These childhood signatures, Banfield claims, can be identified in the natal/birth chart and may be suggestive of future depression. For example, "Astrological indicators for sensitivity and vulnerability are linked to a strong natal emphasis on the receptive planets ... emphasis on the water signs ... and water houses ... and suppression of the fire element in the chart" (Banfield 2000, p.77). On the other hand, Angelfire (1999) considers depression in terms of excessive Saturn and has no need of such theorizing.

So we find some astrologers relating planetary configurations to psychological theorizing and others ignoring such findings. This adds further chaos to the already bloated set of astrological techniques and consequent disorder in the entire field. We have also heard it all before. In the past, the same confidence was expressed by astrologers with every prominent theory of the period. The two millennia of failures provides some good inductive grounds for believing that the confidence of present-day astrologers is as misplaced as that of their predecessors. Such represents the triumph of hope over experience.

More recently astrologer Ken McRitchie (2004) has made an attempt to provide academics with a theory to explain why astrology works. He identifies key psychological concepts such as "values", "skills", "urges", and "development", casts around for a classification scheme whose numbers are a convenient match to astrology (eg a classification of urges into ten categories that numerically match the ten planets), and proceeds from there. Along the way he makes key statements that are glaringly wrong, for example "Few [matching] tests have been conducted" (p.28) and "personality is not well understood today as a science" (p.32), and aggressively ignores the existence of hidden persuaders. Ironically he stresses that his book is "without hypotheses or testing" (p.14), so the end result boils down to speculation and passing the burden of proof. Precisely the things astrology does not need, nor the things that would satisfy academic demands for a theory.

Note 19. We are told that "astrology was never disproven by the methods of science. Rather, its invalidity was a presupposition. The issue was not one of proof, but of paradigm" (Perry 1991/2000, p.4).

However, in the history of science and ideas, theories and paradigms do not have to be disproven to be replaced or superceded. Both Popper and Kuhn (two prominent philosophers of science in the 20th century) were aware that astrology was not disproven. Popper (1959), argued that, on the contrary, astrologers go out of their way to develop immunizing strategies to make sure that no evidence will ever seriously threaten their theory. Their one-size-fits-all theories are so elastic that any disconfirming evidence can be explained away.

Kuhn (1970a,b), along related lines, contended that astrology fails because practitioners did not and do not learn from failures. They have not set up reliable procedures to determine the causes of mistakes, learn from them, and improve their theories. While astrologers have acquired multiple outs for failures they do not have agreed means of reducing these alternative explanations of failure and identifying specific astrological claims that need rejection or revision.

We might also point out that the views of astrologers in the medieval and middle ages (which are often at variance with much present day practice) have also not been disproved by present day astrologers (eg see Crane (1999) for a review of such approaches in medieval times). Rather, such views are just out of fashion in the astrological community. One interesting example is the doctrine of sect, where charts of daytime and nighttime births are read differently (Hand 1995). In this approach, the planets change their meanings in day and night charts, which would seem to mean that on average the world's astrologers must be getting it wrong half the time. Why don't they notice?

Note 20. Astrologers could get around this problem by having astrological symbolism restrict itself to the basics of human nature as claimed by bio-psychological researchers and psychometricians. This would turn astrology into a science that could be investigated by the quantitative methods used in the social and life sciences. This does not seem, however, a path most astrologers seem willing to pursue.

Note 21. A similar situation arises in counselling and psychotherapy. However, an examination of astrology books compared with clinical and counselling texts show important differences. The psychological texts, unlike texts for astrologers, present overviews of the research literature, and compare and contrast differing perspectives in terms of strengths and weaknesses (see Capuzzi & Gross 1999 for a typical example). Further, in-depth research based discussions of what is currently known about which treatments are most effective for various psychological disorders can be found in the psychological literature (eg Nathan & Gorman 1998), but similar research-based comparisons of techniques are absent in the astrological literature.

The theories in psychology also do not require the extravagant and problematic transcendental and supernatural assumptions that underlay astrology. Astrology complicates our view of the universe without providing an increase in understanding.

Note 22. Astrologers often claim, in a loose, unsystematic way, that astrology can arrive at a quicker, in-depth understanding of a person than can psychologists. So Tyl (in Phillipson 2000, p.62) says, "There are hundreds and hundreds of people who have said 'My God, it took my therapist six months (or a year) to get to that!' ". First of all, the same stories occur in psychology, when clients change to a therapist with a different orientation, so the situation is hardly unique to astrology. It often happens within astrology itself when clients consult a different astrologer.

Second, what can we infer from this? Not much without complete transcripts of the interviews. Third, such stories create other problems for astrology, since the same situation can arise when wrong birth information is used. The psychologist/astrologer Niehenke (1983) reports, "One of my clients had consulted four other astrologers before she came to me. She judged my interpretation as the most adequate of all, and showed me for comparison the work of my colleagues. I thus realized that I had made an error of 20 years on her birth date" (p. 37).

Note 23. The seductive phrase "experiential evidence" (or "clinical evidence") is problematic. Practitioners of psychological approaches Perry disavows (eg Skinnerian behaviourism, orthodox Freudian psychoanalysis) and the many competing schools of astrology in both the East and West, many of whom would contest Perry's approach, all cite testimonial evidence and case studies in support. But if we can all cite experiential evidence for our positions, it can hardly, by itself distinguish the good from the bad, the better theory from the worse. As Meehl points out:

the scholarly authors of Malleus Maleficarum pursued ... an enterprise detailing symptoms that diagnose witchcraft. Despite their scholarly efforts, we know today there are no persons who have made a solemn pact with Satan and thereby gained preternatural powers. If asked to support their theoretical system and the technical procedures warranted by it, [they] would doubtless have invoked the medieval equivalent of "clinical experience" (1995, p.1021).

A salutary lesson here is provided by other non-mainstream approaches such as phrenology, graphology (handwriting analysis), and palmistry which cover the same ground as psychological astrology. Phrenology was immensely popular in the nineteenth century and both phrenologists and their clients were very satisfied with phrenological readings. Graphology has been around for some centuries and is still very popular. It is instructive to compare the following endorsements of psychological astrology, phrenology, graphology, and palm reading:

(1) "[T]he client's character and life story inevitably conform to the range of potentials symbolized by the [horoscope], often in extraordinary specific ways" (Perry 1994, p.35).

(2) "The phrenologist has shown that he is able to read character like an open book, and to lay bare the hidden springs of conduct with an accuracy that the most intimate friends cannot approach" (Alfred Russel Wallace, cited in Severn 1916, p.6).

(3) "Your handwriting is all-revealing. To the trained eye it lays open your secret mind. Every whirl or line you pen exposes your true character and personality" (Marne 1988, p.2).

(4) "A study of the hand tells much about ... the physical body ... health, vitality ... the emotional nature -- love potential ... the will and individuality ... success in business ... talent ... creativity ... fame ... Self-fulfilment -- travel, life experience, spiritual development" (Wilson 1971, pp.7-8).

Astrology is only one of a very large number of contenders, past and present , which rely on magical thinking and purport to yield knowledge unattainable by materialistic science. No plausible reasons have been provided that all of these extra-science contenders are interconnected, or mutually supporting (Loptson 1996). Planets or head-bumps or palms or handwriting, at least one of them is redundant. Astrology is in the unenviable position of having to show either that it provides genuine insight into areas not covered by the social sciences and related disciplines, or to show that it can meliorate our understanding in the same domains covered by contemporary psychological and sociological theories. Astrologers have to show they can provide insight or benefits beyond those provided by non-astrological theories.

Third, many sources of bias operate in such personal experiences that can lead clinicians to claims of personal knowledge that are invalid, despite their association with high levels of conviction (Dean, Kelly, Saklofske & Furnham 1992; Dawes 1994, 2001; Grove & Meehl 1996).

Note 24. The astrologer Pottenger (1994) said "Opponents of astrology like to quote 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' without giving any proof that 'as above so below' is an extraordinary claim. It is only extraordinary in some philosophies, especially materialistic frameworks which deny meaning" (p.37). As it stands, what Pottenger stated is trivially true. No matter what is postulated (barring logical impossibilities), it will always be more "plausible" within some worldview(s) than others. For example, fairy bubbles, goblins, and guardian angels are extraordinary claims in materialistic conceptions of the world (and perhaps many others as well). That they are more plausible in worldviews based on say Santa Claus or Peter Pan does not provide any reason to believe in their existence.

Similarly the claim that the universe has meaning and provides us with signs/portents does not imply that the signs are to be found "up there", they might only be found in entrails, the tracks and movements of nature, or only in messages from angels or similar beings, or in a number of other forms. It does not follow that an animistic/magical universe must have, or even might have, meaning reflected everywhere. We need cogent reasons to prefer the animistic universe of astrologers to other possible animistic universes, just as we need evidence for a particular astrological universe as opposed to alternatives.

There are also an incredibly large number of possible pairings between as above, so below. The possibilities are even larger for a system based on the symbolic meaning of signs. For example, there are probably more possible pairings of two things in, say, Jungian symbolism than if we confine ourselves to putative causal (material) relationships; so it is even more incumbent on astrologers to provide a reason for their pairings than it would be on materialists.

Note 25. Perry (1999, p.1) informs us, without supporting argument, that "I believe the purpose of life is to progressively evolve a deeper and wider connection to this parent consciousness until we ultimately realize our at-one-ment with it." The issue of purpose in life is a very complex one with diverse answers both within and among cultures. The expression "a deeper and wider connection to this parent consciousness" is less than helpful, since it would have vastly different interpretations in Eastern and Western traditions. It would also need a great deal of explication as to how astrology can help us to realize this purpose. Many would deny Perry's claim that any transcendental purpose(s) are even knowable by human beings. Further, it is unclear whether any transcendental claims to meaning and purpose really help since we can step back from any proposed spiritual perspective and doubt its point as well (Nagel 1980).

Finally, the notion of purpose is an ambiguous one in that if there is no cosmic purpose to the universe, it does not follow that individual human beings cannot live meaningful/purposeful lives (Ames 1999; Sharpe 1999; Taylor 1999).

Note 26. The "underlying intelligence" also seems from Perry's perspective to be benevolent rather than indifferent or vindictive (since it is "always assisting us"). Presumably, this is why we should "trust the universe". This notion comes face-to-face with the argument from evil (see Weisberger 1999). Given that this "Intelligence" plays a large role in the transcendental aspect of many astrologies, one might expect an elaboration, along with some awareness of the extensive debate in the philosophical and religious literature on this topic.

Note 27. Contrast this to the debates in modern physics over the nature of reality. Physicists, unlike astrologers, are very forthcoming in the weaknesses and shortcomings of their theories and their willingness to embrace new paradigms (see economist.com 2000; Johnson 2000). Astrologers, unlike physicists, like new paradigms as long as they don't challenge basic astrological practice or fundamental beliefs.

Note 28. Astrology is viewed in different ways by astrologers. Most astrologers, if implicitly, hold a realist view, that is, that astrology conveys truths about the universe and the human situation. While such a perspective indicates a need to arbitrate conflicting astrological views, there is a general reluctance in the astrological community to do so. However, "Basinger"s Rule" surely applies to astrology as it does with religion:

If we want to maximize truth and avoid error, we are under an obligation to attempt to resolve significant conflict between astrological claims. Astrologers have an obligation to identify and assess the reasons why astrologers with whom they disagree hold their positions (Basinger 2000; see also, Trigg 1998). Other astrologers are non-realists since they would contend that astrological claims do not rest on evidence, but rather express commitments to a way of life or particular values. While non-realist theologians may talk of "God" and "life after death", they would reject realist talk of an objectively real God or actual physical survival of our deaths. Similarly, non-realist astrologers like Kochunas (1999) contend that astrology is more in line with drama and poetry. It does not provide factual meanings but can still add value, interest, and meaning to our lives.

Note 29. Many astrologers seem to be simultaneously universalist and relativist. They claim that their astrology is shown to work by their own experience and holds for all people on the planet, but they also acknowledge the existence of conflicting traditions of astrology that work as well. A similar problematic situation occurs when astrologers purport to be both post-modernist and embrace astrology as a universal Grand Narrative. Astrology is, ironically, a paradigm example of the kind of universalist, all-encompassing self-described repository of received wisdom that post modernism opposes (see Sim 1998, pp.vii- ix).

Note 30. Venus was widely believed at the time to be a cold planet, whereas Mars was characterized as hot and dry. Hot, cold, wet, and dry were the four qualities underlying the four elements considered by Greek philosophers to be the basic constituents of the physical world. So they had Earth (cold and dry), Air (hot and wet), Fire (hot and dry), and Water (cold and wet). Elements with common qualities were able to change into each other, eg Water (cold, wet) could change into Earth (cold, dry) because both had the quality of coldness. Most Greek scholars, of course, considered science (as we know it today) to be an insignificant part of philosophy, which meant that their world view was based mainly on philosophical ideals rather than empirical observations. So hot and cold, etc do not necessarily correspond to what we today call hot and cold, etc.

Note 31. The diversity in symbolisms used by astrologers with apparently no rules about being consistent are noteworthy. Davison (1963) bases his astrological symbolism variously on physical attributes of the planets and on attributes of the Greek gods. The astrologer Press (1993), on the other hand, utilizes other mythologies and adds another dimension of physical characteristics to her symbolism, such as a celestial body's proximity to other celestial bodies. Which particular magical correspondences are perceived as relevant are in the eye of the beholder, and there are many different astrologer beholders.

Note 32. On the whole, astrologers will recognize some combinations easier than others. They will recognize Venus 0/90/180 to Saturn, or Venus 0/90/180 to Uranus, or Venus 0/90/180 to Neptune, or Venus 0/90/180 to Pluto as a "cause" or contributor to divorce. After all, Venus is the love planet, and the other planets mentioned are all considered disruptive "forces" when connected in negative aspect with Venus (Saturn = coldness, Uranus = unable to tie the knot, Neptune = deceit, and Pluto = oppression).

Note 33. Some astrologers view as above, so below in the widest sense possible to encompass any correlations (including physical correlations) between heavenly and terrestrial events. On this view, sunspot effects on radio transmissions on earth, gravitational or electromagnetic effects (however variable) on animals and plants, or daily cycles in animal metabolism are subsumed under the astrology label even though astrologers did not postulate the nature or form of the obtained relations, or contribute to research uncovering such relationships. Somehow such research is supposed to confirm the notion that the rest of astrology is supported. A difficulty with this vague position is making clear how one goes from such physical correlations to astrological symbolic claims like the herb garlic is ruled by Mars, or the area of the sky called the Seventh House is associated with marriage, or how a snapshot of the sky captured at a particular moment (expressed in an astrological chart) should have an enduring strong relationship with almost all aspects of a person's life (see also Kelly & Dean 2000 for a critical examination of this position).

Note 34. Astrologer Valerie Vaughan (2000) criticises studies conducted by skeptics that failed to uncover significant results with "which astrological theory is he referring to?"

References

From www.astrology-and-science.com         Click here to return to home page