In their scheme to hide god and his workings from us, The Roman Catholic Church - one of the first western bodies of power to take the banner of the globular pigswash that today eager students drink up, has also hidden from us the truth about astrology.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss why and how this plays into their plans to hide God from us, if such plans exist, and how we might move forward with this knowledge. First to accomplish this nobel goal we must take on us the argument of whether Astrology is indeed a valid view of thought, whether its enemies (science and the Catholic church) acted rationally in their acceptance of it, and finally what their motives will be. We start here at part I:
ASTROLOGY
SCIENTIFICALLY DEMONSTRATED
The Scientific Call To War: A Manifesto For Learned Men
Feyerabend, and others, report that in the October 1975 issue of the Humanist, 186 scientists - including a generous handful of Nobel Prize winners mind you - signed a manifesto against Astrology. They talk a great many words, and proudly proclaim astrology bunk with little to no argument. More than this, they include 186 signatures; if it was not clear the argument was not given, it should be when one considers the question - 'why so many signatures if their argument could be shown?'
They are not interested in learned subjects here clearly - they act religiously. Now, mind you when I say religiously here what I, like the average globularist, actually mean is dogmatically; this is in contra-distinction to the definition I so often lean to from William James which I hold in the more general and less specific sense.
They are clearly trying to delude the mind of the common man with their position of power. Some have gone so far as to show the structure of this document was a replica of the Roman Catholic book on witchcraft. We will now destroy these myths, and publicly humiliate all those great men who signed such a ridiculous document. No, we will be kind enough not to 'name names.'
The Obvious Truth
Let us set aside now greater matters - that of the shape of the earth - and examine only those at hand. Don't worry flatists - we will come full circle and address the elephant in the room. The arguments presented will assume neither side, yet will fit the common flat earth model as well as the globular one. First we will turn to the definition presented here.
'the assumption that celestial events such as the positions of the planets, of the moon, of the sun influence human affairs'
This is the definition we will use for astrology. Here the avid Christian might laugh - there is no doubt from biblical context that these bodies indeed influence the earth. However, we march bravely on and face the fool on his own hill.
There is no doubt to the always staunt scientist that the heavenly bodies have a body of plasmas that are in a delicate balance with that of the sun. This of course is influenced by the relative placement of the planets - flat or round. For example, Bill Nye might find himself quite titillated at the thought that this interaction - and careful knowledge of the system at hand and the positions of the planets can predict solar disturbances with ridiculous clarity, in model independent mathematics. DeGrace just wouldn't know what he was looking at, but we all know what a silly man he is.
Further more, solar activity - and lunar as we know from other sources - has an almost all invasive hold on not only the basic functions of life itself, but of even chemical reactions. Though we've always known this; at least since Plato. More recently, the electric potential of trees depends not only on the activity of the sun, but on flares - which obviously tie to the position of the planets.
If you are an older fellow you might even remember the harvest moon - or not to put fish out in the dark of night. Now a days we go mad for 'super moons'. Or heck, the interested fellow can direct himself to the nearest hospital. Here, he or she may ask the staff bluntly - 'do the crazies come out on the full moon?' This has particular effect on an actual full moon.
There is no doubt that any reasonable or reasonable led force (such as evolution) would lead us to a state that is not to appear as random chance and to appear created.
The effects of the moon are discussed in this forum at length. The effects, now, of the sun have been shown sufficiently or can be found by those interested. Or one can save their 20$ and simply use their common sense - of course the position of the sun, and thus the other planets, affect our lives.
Is there not always a chaos to the order? What of Sierpinski and his marvelous triangle? Even but a smidgen of order or evolution or holiness introduced into a chaotic system brings upon that system its own order - such that it can realize even in a pyramid of triangles in the simplest case. I digress...
There is no doubt the seasons affect our disposition. So much so, the ever growing book of psychological disorders now includes disorders for each season! The tale of astrology seems a little more likely, once we start talking about it discretely, doesn't it?
I do not have a physical copy, but it has been widely distributed. I source Feyerabend rather than others like Kurtz because I lean on some of his arguments - however the article is fairly well known and referenced in many astrological apologetics. I have reproduced it below:
Objections to Astrology
A Statement by 186 Leading Scientists
(The following statement first appeared in The Humanist of September/October 1975.)
Scientists in a variety of fields have become concerned about the increased acceptance of astrology in many parts of the world. We, the undersigned--astronomers, astrophysicists, and scientists in other fields--wish to caution the public against the unquestioning acceptance of the predictions and advice given privately and publicly by astrologers. Those who wish to believe in astrology should realize that there is no scientific foundation for its tenets.
In ancient times people believed in the predictions and advice of astrologers because astrology was part and parcel of their magical world view. They looked upon celestial objects as abodes or omens of the gods and, thus, intimately connected with events here on earth; they had no concept of the vast distances from the earth to the planets and stars. Now that these distances can and have been calculated, we can see how infinitesimally small are the gravitational and other effects produced by the distant planets and the far more distant stars. It is simply a mistake to imagine that the forces exerted by stars and planets at the moment of birth can in any way shape our futures. Neither is it true that the position of distant heavenly bodies make certain days or periods more favorable to particular kinds of action, or that the sign under which one was born determines one's compatibility or incompatibility with other people.
Why do people believe in astrology? In these uncertain times many long for the comfort of having guidance in making decisions. They would like to believe in a destiny predetermined by astral forces beyond their control. However, we must all face the world, and we must realize that our futures lie in ourselves, and not in the stars.
One would imagine, in this day of widespread enlightenment and education, that it would be unnecessary to debunk beliefs based on magic and superstition. Yet, acceptance of astrology pervades modern society. We are especially disturbed by the continued uncritical dissemination of astrological charts, forecasts, and horoscopes by the media and by otherwise reputable newspapers, magazines, and book publishers. This can only contribute to the growth of irrationalism and obscurantism. We believe that the time has come to challenge directly, and forcefully, the pretentious claims of astrological charlatans.
It should be apparent that those individuals who continue to have faith in astrology do so in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary.
Sponsoring Committee
(Affiliations, as of 1975, given for identification only.)
Bart J. Bok, emeritus
Professor of Astronomy
University of Arizona
Lawrence E. Jerome
Science Writer
Santa Clara, California
Paul Kurtz
Professor of Philosophy
SUNY at Buffalo
Signed by 183 others, including 18 Nobel Prizewinners
The fact of the matter is that many of these signees know nothing about the subject matter which they claim false - this is evidenced by interviews with the subjects after the fact. Our friends at the BBC attempted to interview many of these nobel prizewinners and they declined - stating that they knew nothing of astrology and never studied it. Not only this, but within they make wild claims that 'In ancient times people believed in the predictions and advice of astrologers because astrology was part and parcel of their magical world view.' Where exactly did these men come by their convictions here? Not a one of them is an anthropologist...
Furthermore, I have shown with little to no effort that their base statement: "It is simply a mistake to imagine that the forces exerted by stars and planets at the moment of birth can in any way shape our futures" is complete bullocks. No argument is given here, except religious declaration, which I have shown false by simple use of solar flares.
Let us continue to show these men as religious nut jobs.
Oysters open and close their shells based on lunar events. Potatoes as well have their own lunar period. And man? what of him? Well, for one, solar flares have been linked to higher rates of cancer in pilots and astro'nots'. Some have even seen a brilliant flash of light due to them! This is an obvious fact. Standford goes so far as to call it 'space weather.' There is also no doubt that the movement of the heavenly bodies affects our seasons. Many insects are also affected by the heavenly bodies. One simply needs to shake a stick to find it pointing towards more evidence.
However, to full attack the claim "it is a mistake to imagine... [the] stars and planets at the moment of birth can in any way shape our futures" let us look at a 2012 study by Queen Mary University, London. In it, we see that month of birth indeed played quite the role in a great many lives. Winter babies are at the greatest risk for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder; spring babies depression. Other months show lows for these traits, thus again providing a correlative link between the planets locations and the 'shape of our futures'.
You can hardly pick out a sentence without finding complete bullocks. "They would like to believe in a destiny predetermined by astral forces beyond their control. " Is it not quite the popular opinion among scientists, and demonstrably some of those signees, that determinism is a valid point of view?
Have you ever heard of astrotheology? Astrotheology deals with the rotation of the heavens above us, and how they have an effect on earth's physical phenomenon. You'll also discover why the Mayan calendar ended in 2012. You'll also begin understanding the mythological Moses exodus from Egypt. Astrology is the religious{for lack of a better word}, component of astrotheology. It was probably the Mayans that gave us astrology, for they had some complicated charts that each person received upon their birth. These charts directed what the individual did for the rest of their lives.
I have not but will research it, thank you.
The Mayan Calendar, as far as I know, ended in 2012 because that was the end of the last great age. There is no endeavor more important to man than the study of the ages. If you haven't read them, check out the works of David Wardlaw Scott.
I disagree that the term religious is meaningful at all in the context you are using it; though you seem to recognize its issues. To me, science is as religious at most times (by necessity as pointed out by Thomas Kuhn, when you consider what he calls 'Normal' Science). While you recognize this weakness, I still feel - to me - it is fatal to the argument at hand.
The truth is you can tie astrology to cultures not tied to the Mayans at all, and you can find it across disparate cultures - and even some whom were not big fans of the Mayans. Never the less, thank you for the research bullet.