THE  MODERN  RATIONALIST

What is the standing of astrology in today’s world? There is a tendency on the part of ordinary Humanists to downplay astrology and similar sorts of mysticism, especially in the West. Organized religion is frequently seen as the key threat, and New Age cures, drum circles, star charts and horoscopes can come and go as they please. In India the situation may be a bit different, thanks to the efforts of Abraham Kovoor and others to dispel superstition, but I expect the belief that astrology is a fairly harmless quirk continues to hold sway. It is this belief which allowed Ronald Reagan to casually remarks in his memoirs that his wife had often visited an astrologer, and for any number of ostensibly secular Indian politicians to publicly ensure that their inauguration fall on “auspicious days.”

In this essay, I will attempt to show that while astrology may not be the worst belief in history, it is nonetheless, a fundamentally dangerous and absurd belief which puts human rights at risk. Not only is astrology a superstition and an untruth, it is an evil doctrine.

Of course, there are some 31% of Americans, according to the 2003 Harris poll , and an even greater number of Indians, who would disagree even that astrology is a superstition and a myth. Our first task is to explode this belief.

Scientifically, astrology cannot be defended. We know of no scientific mechanism which would allow the stars and planets to exert any control over our lives or destines. Even the force of their gravity is too weak to cause any but the most inconceivably tiny wobbles in our orbit. Even if I felt a slight jolt from such wobbles, and I would have to applaud myself for my infinite sensitivity if I did. I don’t think this would change the happiness of my future marriage or alter my personal destiny.

Even if we grant the stars a mysterious power of influence of which we are not aware, this does not change the fact that astrology, as it was classically, formulated, cannot make sense alongside our modern understanding of the world.

I believe I have explained above why astrology is fundamentally nonsensical within our modern universe. It is based on a conception of the world which is grossly outmoded, and was developed by people with a limited understanding of what the sky and the celestial objects actually were.

But those who believe in astrology do not defend it on the grounds of science. To do so would be nearly impossible. Instead, they tend to fall back on four key arguments, all of which I have heard used in discussions. I should mention here that I am not speaking about bearded quacks selling snake-oil, but reasonable, intelligent individuals, who still retain a belief in astrology. The people tend to claim

(1) that one ought not to dismiss astrology until it has been properly studied,

(2) that scientific rationality, while it may be useful tool for certain disciplines, cannot take full account of the universe,

(3) that within a religious framework, anything is possible, and

(4) that even if astrology does not “work” scientifically, it “works for” people, meaning it is helpful and gives them comfort in life.

I will attempt to deal with all four arguments.

Astrology as scientific hypothesis

There are still a courageous few who assert that astrology, even if it has not been proven, ought to be discussed and tested and investigated by science. To dismiss the discipline, they argue, is an unscientific thing to do. Every hypothesis must be researched, after all, before it can be scrapped. Astrology, therefore, ought to be seen as a legitimate theory, an alternative explanation for the world, and be tested accordingly.

I believe I have explained above why astrology is fundamentally nonsensical within our modern universe. It is based on a conception of the world which is grossly outmoded, and was developed by people with a limited understanding of what the sky and the celestial objects actually were. If there are not really constellations in the universe, if the celestial objects are inconceivably distant, if some of the signs of the zodiac do not even deal with real objects, and so on, astrology cannot be tested. To say that it ought to be is as absurd as saying that modern physicists ought to stop probing the mysteries of quantum mechanics and space-time and focus instead on the alternative theory of gravity which posits that instead of Newton’s apple falling to Earth, the apple remained stationary and the Earth rushing up to meet it.

These alternative theories, which cannot be reconciled with our understanding of the world have, in a sense, been tested. Our conception of the universe and its structure, as we commonly accept it, is based on centuries of observing and testing natural phenomena. If astrology does not fit with that conception, then it has already been disproved by science. This does not mean that our current understanding is perfect, by any stretch of the imagination. But to reject it, one must demonstrate why a certain aspect of it does not hold up under rigorous scrutiny, and why one’s proposed hypothesis makes for a better explanation. The proponents of astrology have not been able to find flaws in the rational understanding of the universe which can only be explained by their belief. And even when astrologers have been “tested”, as in Abraham Kovoor, the well-known Indian rationalist’s famous fraud-proof experiments, they have consistently failed to predict events and answer to questions.  Kovoor even reported that the astrologers he tested performed less well, on average, than the laymen and random guessers who formed their competition.

Astrology as impervious to reason

Once the  mystics lose the scientific battleground, as they inevitably do, they retreat to one of the oldest and most nonsensical arguments in the book. This is the famous “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio,” sort of argument. Its proponents state that scientific rationality, while it may take us quite a ways when dealing with certain phenomena, is just not equipped to deal with the universe as a whole. There are things which reason cannot explain. Our brains are too limited and our reason too puny to comprehend god, the divine forces, the astrological omens, etc. We cannot explain them with science, but we can feel them and grasp them intuitively. So if a large number of people believe in astrology and can “feel” the worth of its doctrines, as many apparently do, it may have some legitimacy.

While such an argument may make sense in the world of Hamlet, where there are ghosts aplenty, in our world, where there is no fraud-proof, experimental evidence for astrology whatsoever, it simply does not. It is always true, of course, that there is more out there than we can understand. Scientists are constantly discovering new aspects of our world which were previously undreamt of. Who would have thought that the majority of the matter in our universe would turn out to be invisible “dark matter”? Who would have believed that matter is being created and destroyed every second before our eyes by the instantaneous appearance of particles and their antiparticles? All of this boggles the mind and suggests that our reason is limited. To be sure, we do not know everything about the universe.

No scientist in the entire world would claim to know everything, or claim that complete, perfect knowledge is within our grasp. To make the sort of argument outlined above is a grossly unfair characterization of scientific rationalism. It portrays such rationalism as pompous and arrogant, inflated with its own significance. Meanwhile, the mystics come across as humble and wise, perfectly willing to admit the powerlessness of their reason before the divine chaos. None of this, however, is accurate. In fact rationalists do not claim to be able to take into account the entire world. However, they do claim that reason is our only tool to attempt to do so. We can, of course, balk at the very attempt, as the mystics would prefer. But if we want to make any progress, however stumbling and slight, toward understanding the world, and how we can make it better, we must use reason. It is all we have “to render less the sum of human wretchedness,” as Byron put it. If we abandon our reason, imperfect as it is, then we leave the door open to any untruth. Should we believe in gravity or in stationary apples? A vast universe governed by laws or a bunch of constellations which control our fate? People may “feel one way or the other about these questions at any given moment. The only way we can decide which is closer to the truth  and which is patently false is by using our reason.

Astrology as religion

The next argument is related to the above, but is slightly different. Here, the mystics may concede both of the above points, but they may still seek asylum in the arms of an organized religion. They argue that they have chosen to have faith in a certain tradition, and that while reason may be our best guide to understanding the physical universe which has been set up by god or Brahma or the divine forces, those same cosmic forces may intervene at a time to contradict these laws. In the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, Clarence Darrow asked William Jennings Bryan whether or no he believed that Joshua “stopped the sun”. Of course, the sun does not orbit the Earth, so the whole thing is absurd. But even beyond this point, any halt in the Earth’s orbit would necessarily cause an inconceivable global holocaust, which, as far as I know, does not happen in the Bible story. Bryan conceded that this was the case when it came to our natural world and its laws, but that god, as creator, could suspend these laws as he saw fit. This constituted a miracle.

The reason that this does not hold water is essentially the same as that given above. We do not form opinions about the natural world and human life willy-nilly. We must use our minds, even if they are imperfect guides, otherwise we might as well “have faith” in anything. If we want to be content and idle in ignorance, then we may have faith without having reason for our faith, we may have belief without a second basis for belief. But if we want to solve the world’s problems, we need to think logically and coherently, and to use what tools we have, including reason.

Astrology as social worker

This final argument is probably the most persuasive and the most rational, but it also the most dangerous. It goes something like this: “Even though astrology is false and inaccurate, it gives people hope and comfort. It ‘works for’ them by giving them a way to understand and cope with their fate, while holding out the possibility of better tomorrow.”

The belief that astrology is essentially, harmless may seem persuasive, but in fact, astrology is a highly dangerous doctrine and a social evil. For one thing, there is a great deal of evidence that any unruth is harmful. When people know the truth, they are better able to understand the world around them, as well as their own plight. When people do not know the truth, they are unable to grasp the real condition of their lives and the problems which beset them. A solution, then, is impossible. So, no matter how unpleasant the truth may appear, it is ultimately empowering.

However, astrology is not even a pleasant untruth which we might be tempted to hold on to. Astrology assure  people that they are pawns in a cosmic game. It encourages the belief that humanity has no control over its own fate, and is entirely in the hands of ruthless destiny. It encourages people to accept their doom and to calmly wait, when things are going badly, for a  more “auspicious day”. It is not an attitude suited to democratic citizens, and it stands in the way of the  realization of human rights in this world by denying people the hope of subverting fate, throwing off the shackles of destiny, and seizing hold of dignity and justice for themselves.

Astrology is suited to oppression. Like lotteries and gambling, it encourages the belief that one might rise above one’s fellow-sufferers through pure chance. One therefore ignores the plight of those fellow-sufferers, as well as one’s own plight, by throwing everything away on a cosmic crap shoot. The alignment of the stars will not solve our problems, and I cannot guarantee that human reason will either, but it is the best we have. Those who discredit its use, astrologers especially, stand in the way of progress the world over.

(Courtesy: International Humanist News - November, 2009).