Categories
history and philosophy of astrology

Richard Dawkins’ Coverage of Astrology in Enemies of Reason

I came across a clip today from Richard Dawkin’s new documentary titled Enemies of Reason in which he attacks a number of paranormal fields, including astrology. Dawkins brings out the usual modern arguments against the subject that have been recycled over and over again over the past couple of decades, mainly focusing on Sun-sign columns and invoking the Barnum effect in order to make the case that the entire field is rubbish.

This is all old news, and there weren’t any new or terribly poignant arguments brought out against the theory or practice of astrology itself. The main argument that he made was simply about a legitimate psychological tendency that people have to seek or contrive a correspondence between something that they think is linked with them and their perception of their life or personality. While the Barnum effect or “Forer effect” is striking and certainly relevant, this phenomenon only has a sort of peripheral relevance in disputing the actual validity of the subject of astrology itself.

This isn’t what struck me as interesting though, although the filming of that segment was directed in a much more artistic manner than say, James Randi’s clip from the 80’s in which he held the same kind of experiment in a classroom. What really caught my attention in Dawkin’s coverage of astrology was this sudden string of blatantly false historical statements about a third of the way through the segment. In reference to astrology, Dawkins tells us that

It was developed in the 2nd century AD by the philosopher Claudius Ptolemy, and has not moved on since, despite the discovery of new planets, and despite a shift in the Earth’s rotational axis that has thrown Ptolemy’s zodiac out by 23 degrees.

There are at least 4 major historical inaccuracies in just this one sentence. It is rather astounding actually. Commendable even. How so, you might ask incredulously? Lets break it down piece by piece.

Western Astrology Developed by Ptolemy?

1) It [astrology] was developed in the 2nd century AD by the philosopher Claudius Ptolemy…

Dawkins claims that astrology was invented in the 2nd century of the common era. That is, despite the fact that western astrology has roots in Mesopotamia that go back more than 2,000 years before Ptolemy was even born. Despite the fact that the finalized form of the zodiac with 12 signs of 30 degrees each dates back to the 5th century BCE. Despite the fact that evidence of the practice of natal astrology, casting astrological charts for the birth of an individual, goes back at least as far as the first known birth chart which has been dated to 410 BCE. Despite dozens of extant birth charts, sometimes known more generally as “horoscopes”, in Cuneiform, Demotic, and Greek which date to well before the period when Ptolemy flourished in the 2nd century CE. Despite the earlier Greek and Latin textbooks on the subject that exist, which demonstrate the use of the same system of horoscopic astrology that Ptolemy wrote about. Despite Ptolemy’s own references to earlier astrologers. Most of all, despite the current historical consensus among academics that Hellenistic astrology originated sometime around the 1st or 2nd century BCE. Despite all of this, Dawkins unflinchingly tells us that astrology was invented in the 2nd century CE by Claudius Ptolemy.

Western Astrology Has Not Changed Since Ptolemy?

Dawkins, clearly very knowledgeable about the subject at this point, goes on to tell us that

2) [astrology] has not moved on since [Ptolemy invented it]…

So, in Dawkins’ opinion, astrology, as devised by Ptolemy, hasn’t changed or developed at all since the 2nd century CE. This is of course despite the fact that the way that astrology is practiced today in the 21st century is quite different than the way that it was practiced nearly 2,000 years ago in the Hellenistic and Roman traditions. Despite the fact that most modern astrologers don’t have the slightest clue what Ptolemy is talking about in the majority of his astrological text, known as the Tetrabiblos, since the practice of astrology has changed so drastically both in theory and in technique since his time. Despite the fact that astrology was transmitted through several different cultures and several different languages over the past 2,000 years until it reached the form that it is in today. Despite the advances in astronomy that were partially spurred on by astrologers such as Galileo , Brahe, and Kepler. Despite that fact that Sun-sign astrology, the type that Dawkins is familiar with, is a recent mutation of astrology that took place as recently as the early 20th century. Despite all of this, as far as Dawkins knows astrology is the same today as it was in the 2nd century.

Western Astrology Has Not Incorporated Newly Discovered Planets?

According to Dawkins astrology is the same

3) … despite the discovery of new planets…

He apparently thinks that modern astrology either hasn’t incorporated the outer planets, which it has, or that the discovery of the outer planets didn’t change the basic technical or theoretical structure of modern astrology, which, again, it has.

Ptolemy’s Zodiac Is Wrong?

Finally, according to Dawkins, astrology hasn’t changed since the time of Claudius Ptolemy in the 2nd century

4) … despite a shift in the Earth’s rotational axis that has thrown Ptolemy’s zodiac out by 23 degrees.

The problem with this statement is that in the process of borrowing old arguments from earlier skeptics Dawkins got mixed up due to his unfamiliarity with the subject that he is attempting to dispute. Skeptics of astrology tend to favor this argument that centers around the fact that the sidereal zodiac of the constellations has moved out of alignment with the tropical zodiac of the seasons over the course of the past 2,000 years since horoscopic astrology was developed. The problem with Dawkins’ statement is that since he is under the assumption that Ptolemy was the one who invented astrology, he assumes that Ptolemy was the one who originally used the sidereal zodiac of the constellations, and then later astrologers started using the now common tropical zodiac of the seasons. But in actuality Ptolemy was the one who instituted the tropical zodiac of the seasons as the main zodiacal reference point in the western astrological tradition, as opposed to the sidereal zodiac of the constellations that prevailed prior to Ptolemy’s time. So, basically, Dawkins got it completely backwards. His first historical mistake led to another even more ridiculous one. This is from a guy who fashions himself as some sort of champion or advocate of reason and rationality against what he is apparently calling the “enemies of reason”, as the title of his documentary states. In this instance it would appear that in his quest to smite the “enemies of reason” he forgot to use his own powers of reason in order to read a lousy history book or two.

Insight Into the Modern Skeptical Movement

This whole episode may seem a bit surprising to some, but what is actually surprising is how common it is. In fact, it is so common that Dawkins can hardly even be faulted for his mistakes here because he is simply ‘toeing the party line’ and repeating a bunch of old statements that have been recycled again and again by careless skeptics over the past several decades. These arguments are then duly repeated without any real comprehension of their intrinsic merit by those who are willing to take up ‘the cause’ and act as soldiers of science or rationality or whatever simply as an excuse so that they don’t have to actually research the subject that they are denouncing so readily. What Dawkins can be faulted for is his readiness to denounce a subject that he is so clearly ignorant of, and his unwitting acceptance of faulty arguments that aren’t even his own. In doing so he is guilty of perpetuating the same sort of misinformation and sloppy thinking that he accuses astrologers of.

But hey, its all for a good cause, right? Even if Dawkins is making blatantly inaccurate statements it is ok because it conveys a sense of authority and it convinces people to relinquish archaic belief systems which no longer hold any place in our society due to their presumably false premises. He doesn’t need to actually know anything about the subject. He feels that astrology is false, his colleagues tell him that that is the case, and thus accepts any counterarguments against it, regardless of their validity. The end justifies the means. In a situation like that, one sometimes wonders who the real ‘enemies of reason’ are…

26 replies on “Richard Dawkins’ Coverage of Astrology in Enemies of Reason”

Well, Chris Brennan. That was a shocking and appalling read.

“He feels that astrology is false, his colleagues tell him that that is the case, and thus accepts any counterarguments against it, regardless of their validity.”

This may insult your intelligence, should it find any. Professor Richard Dawkins is a scientist. Science (and subsequently, scientists) is/are concerned only with evidence. A scientific case in favour of the validity of astrology has never been sufficiently presented, since there is no evidence to support it. As such, it may be about fair to say that astrology is a hypothesis. Though it is clearly a bad one, since it has been debunked countless times and never verified experimentally since its misguided invention during the Babylonian era. Professor Dawkins does indeed feel that astrology is false, however, every argument he details against astrology is a scientific one, and is supported fully and completely by evidence.

I could spend literally hours detailing every one of your arguments from Authority, Personal Incredulity and Ignorance but it’s less time consuming and perhaps more effective still to point out the self-inflicted wound you suffered from your highly unoriginal and shameful quote mining. Let me begin mine!

“It was developed in the 2nd century AD by the philosopher Claudius Ptolemy..”

Let us ponder this for a moment. “Ptolemy’s treatise on astrology, the Tetrabiblos, was the most popular astrological work of antiquity and also enjoyed great influence in the Islamic world and the medieval Latin West.” – Source: Wikipedia.
Yes indeed, it would appear Professor Dawkins was entirely correct to state that Ptolemy developed astrology. Now, what did you have to say on the matter?

“Dawkins claims that astrology was invented in the 2nd century of the common era.”

What? That demands a re-read. Where exactly did you pluck the word “invented” from Dawkins script? Let’s see…

v. de•vel•oped,
To bring from latency to or toward fulfillment

tr.v. in•vent•ed,
To produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination.

– Source: American Heritage Dictionary

It comes as no surprise to me that these two words have different meanings. However, I feel the need to make it abundantly clear to you, as though I am talking to a child with severe learning disabilities. One cannot develop what has not first been invented. By stating that Ptolemy developed astrology, Dawkins clearly acknowledges, but does not detail, that it was invented prior to the 2nd Century AD. He has no illusions about Ptolemy’s contribution to astrology. At this point in your blog you have made an utterly unforgivable mistake, and it makes you appear as idiot, lacking a fundamental grasp of language at the age of 22. It is almost certain your college education is not as rigorous as my degree in Astrophysics, nor as accurate. But if you are going to blog, and misinform people over the internet, have a little self-respect and buy a dictionary.

The whole paragraph following is invalid. One very long straw man argument based on an incorrect assumption. As is demonstrated by the continuing lack of evidence to support the validity of astrology, it is entirely forgivable that Professor Dawkins says:

“[astrology] has not moved on since [Ptolemy DEVELOPED it]”

I have taken the liberty of correcting your blatant misquote for you. In scientific terms, astrology has not moved on at all. In fact, it has taken several leaps backward as critical thinking has developed. Astrology is still a bad hypothesis, entirely testable and unanimously unsupported by science.

“…despite the discovery of new planets…”

By which Dawkins is referring to over 2 hundred extra-solar planets (outside of our solar system) which, according to the law of gravity, also exert forces on us. Similarly to all solar planets and the Kuiper belt – including the recently reclassified object, Pluto – these forces are negligible. Astrology has made no effort it would seem to accommodate the “magical properties” of these “heavenly bodies”. You continue to embarrass yourself against Dawkins superior intellect:

“… despite a shift in the Earth’s rotational axis that has thrown Ptolemy’s zodiac out by 23 degrees.”

However you’ve failed to see this. Did you really “study” astrology? Here are the facts Chris:

“The Earth tilts at an angle of approximately 23° with respect to the orbital plane. This tilt is partly due to the Earth’s precession as it gyrates and rotates on its axis. It contributes to the divergence between a tropical year and a sidereal year and thus contributes to the precession of the equinoxes which marks the difference between tropical and sidereal celestial coordinate systems. During the time of Ptolemy’s observations and cataloging of stars the sidereal and tropical longitudinal origins differed by a magnitude of perhaps less than 2°. The close convergence of these two systems of coordinates — combined with the varied interpretations of the phrase “first point in Aries” — makes it difficult to discern Ptolemy’s longitudinal origin. More recently, in 2000 AD for example, the first point in Aries and the boundary of the sign of Aries diverged by about 25°.” – Source: Wikipedia

Since Ptolemy “instituted” (and I’m being careful with my words here) the tropical zodiac in the 2nd Century AD, a deficit of 23° in the Earth’s rotational axis has completely warped the first point in Aries, not surprisingly, by a factor of 23°. The Axial Shift has thrown Ptolemy’s Tropical zodiac out, or did you not learn during your college education that the original divergence was less than 2°? You continue to mindlessly repeat a Red Herring based on a false representation of Dawkins knowledge of astrology. Your attempted humour to close your blog is dry and unnecessary and only serves to further expose your weakness for thorough analysis of anything. Chris, I am younger than yourself and possess a massively superior understanding of the universe and the dynamics of planets and stars than you. You should be ashamed that you feel the need to desecrate the graves of every great astronomer in history by pedalling this outdated drivel. Please understand that you are a champion of ignorance and idiocy.

While I was expecting a certain degree of hostility in reaction to this post, I wasn’t really anticipating this sort of a venomous response. I do want to address a few points made in your comment, Tom. Sections from your comment appear in quotes below.

“Let us ponder this for a moment. “Ptolemy’s treatise on astrology, the Tetrabiblos, was the most popular astrological work of antiquity and also enjoyed great influence in the Islamic world and the medieval Latin West.” – Source: Wikipedia.
Yes indeed, it would appear Professor Dawkins was entirely correct to state that Ptolemy developed astrology. Now, what did you have to say on the matter?”

First, I might question the advisability of using Wikipedia as a source, since many of the articles related to astrology are in poor condition there. This is partially due to the fact that most astrologers don’t know very much about the history of astrology, and partially due to the fact that few historians who specialize in the history of science contribute to the astrology articles on Wikipedia. I know because I’ve been trying to oversee a project to improve articles related to the history of astrology there over the past couple of years. At the moment I would caution you against using Wikipedia as a source for that type of information, although I can recommend some decent books on the subject written by those in the history of science community (not astrologers) if you are interested.

Aside from that, yes, it is true that Ptolemy was a particularly influential figure in the medieval Arabic and Latin traditions since he was known for a number of his other works on science and he was considered to be authoritative by many as a result of being a very prolific author. Once astrology was transmitted back to Europe during the course of the 12th century translation movement many came to believe that Ptolemy was the father of astrology or that he actually invented the subject. This view held for a number of centuries since Ptolemy’s astrological work was one of the only texts from the Hellenistic tradition of astrology which was regularly republished and stayed in somewhat constant circulation over the past 2,000 years. But how do we then derive the statement from this that Ptolemy “developed” astrology? What exactly did he develop that Dawkins is singling out here? Certainly it is accurate to say that Ptolemy was one of the most influential propagators or proponents of astrology, but “developed”? How so? What did Ptolemy do that is worthy of being singled out to the point that he can be said to have singularly “developed” astrology in a way that is any different than the contributions of earlier astrologers who had a similar historical influence and who expounded the same system, such as Dorotheus of Sidon for example?

““Dawkins claims that astrology was invented in the 2nd century of the common era.”

What? That demands a re-read. Where exactly did you pluck the word “invented” from Dawkins script? Let’s see…

v. de•vel•oped,
To bring from latency to or toward fulfillment

tr.v. in•vent•ed,
To produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination.

– Source: American Heritage Dictionary

“It comes as no surprise to me that these two words have different meanings. However, I feel the need to make it abundantly clear to you, as though I am talking to a child with severe learning disabilities. One cannot develop what has not first been invented. By stating that Ptolemy developed astrology, Dawkins clearly acknowledges, but does not detail, that it was invented prior to the 2nd Century AD. He has no illusions about Ptolemy’s contribution to astrology. At this point in your blog you have made an utterly unforgivable mistake, and it makes you appear as idiot, lacking a fundamental grasp of language at the age of 22. It is almost certain your college education is not as rigorous as my degree in Astrophysics, nor as accurate. But if you are going to blog, and misinform people over the internet, have a little self-respect and buy a dictionary.”

Again, why is he singling out Ptolemy then? Stating that astrology was “developed” in the 2nd century AD by Claudius Ptolemy implies that Ptolemy was somehow the founder of the tradition. Even if we restrict it to Ptolemy as being the founder of that particular tradition of Hellenistic or Greek astrology, with the assumption that there was another previous Babylonian tradition prior to him, this is still not an accurate statement to make. He was not the founder, and the tradition did not begin with Ptolemy. Using Thesaurus.com we see that, in addition to “cultivate” and “expand”, the word “develop” also means to “begin”, “commence” or “start” something, as in “Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution”, or “Isaac Newton developed the theory of gravity.” This is the exact sense that Dawkins is using this term in, and I’m sorry, but that is a mistake.

““…despite the discovery of new planets…”

By which Dawkins is referring to over 2 hundred extra-solar planets (outside of our solar system) which, according to the law of gravity, also exert forces on us. Similarly to all solar planets and the Kuiper belt – including the recently reclassified object, Pluto – these forces are negligible. Astrology has made no effort it would seem to accommodate the “magical properties” of these “heavenly bodies”.”

I sincerely doubt that Dawkins was referring to extrasolar planets in his reference to “the discovery of new planets”. If he was then he probably would have stated that explicitly. Rather, it seems like a pretty clear reference to the relatively recent discovery of Uranus, Neptune and perhaps Pluto, all of which occurred after Ptolemy’s time. Ptolemy being the main historical anchor or reference point that was used in that sentence from Dawkins. As far as your other statement about astrologers making no effort to accommodate, by which I assume you mean ‘incorporate’, the newly discovered bodies in our solar system into their astrological construct I would have to ask you- are you sure about that?

“You continue to embarrass yourself against Dawkins superior intellect:

“… despite a shift in the Earth’s rotational axis that has thrown Ptolemy’s zodiac out by 23 degrees.”

However you’ve failed to see this. Did you really “study” astrology? Here are the facts Chris:

“The Earth tilts at an angle of approximately 23° with respect to the orbital plane. This tilt is partly due to the Earth’s precession as it gyrates and rotates on its axis. It contributes to the divergence between a tropical year and a sidereal year and thus contributes to the precession of the equinoxes which marks the difference between tropical and sidereal celestial coordinate systems. During the time of Ptolemy’s observations and cataloging of stars the sidereal and tropical longitudinal origins differed by a magnitude of perhaps less than 2°. The close convergence of these two systems of coordinates — combined with the varied interpretations of the phrase “first point in Aries” — makes it difficult to discern Ptolemy’s longitudinal origin. More recently, in 2000 AD for example, the first point in Aries and the boundary of the sign of Aries diverged by about 25°.” – Source: Wikipedia

“Since Ptolemy “instituted” (and I’m being careful with my words here) the tropical zodiac in the 2nd Century AD, a deficit of 23° in the Earth’s rotational axis has completely warped the first point in Aries, not surprisingly, by a factor of 23°. The Axial Shift has thrown Ptolemy’s Tropical zodiac out, or did you not learn during your college education that the original divergence was less than 2°? You continue to mindlessly repeat a Red Herring based on a false representation of Dawkins knowledge of astrology. Your attempted humour to close your blog is dry and unnecessary and only serves to further expose your weakness for thorough analysis of anything. Chris, I am younger than yourself and possess a massively superior understanding of the universe and the dynamics of planets and stars than you. You should be ashamed that you feel the need to desecrate the graves of every great astronomer in history by pedalling this outdated drivel. Please understand that you are a champion of ignorance and idiocy.”

Only one rather simple point needs to be made here:

What skeptics don’t seem to understand when they make this argument about precession is that Ptolemy’s adoption of the vernal point as the first degree of “Aries” was a conscious decision to associate the zodiac with the tropical reference system, and thus to divorce it from the sidereal zodiac of the constellations. It wasn’t a mistake, and astrologers have been conscious of the difference since the 2nd century. That is to say, astrologers in the west have consciously been choosing to use the tropical zodiac for nearly 2,000 years now, knowing full well that it is no longer in alignment with the sidereal zodiac. They are two entirely different reference systems which serve different purposes, and there has been a conscientious decision since the 2nd century that the tropical zodiac is the more appropriate reference system for what astrologers are attempting to study. It is a mistaken assumption to assume that astrologers aren’t aware of this, or that they aren’t making a conscious decision to use one system over another. Do you honestly think that someone like Kepler simply overlooked precession and decided to use the tropical zodiac in casting astrological charts as a mistake? I’m sorry, but that is simply not the case.

The skeptical arguments against astrology would be much stronger if the skeptics would stop making straw man arguments and actually study the theory, the actual techniques and the history of astrology before they make these arguments. This rarely ever happens though, and this was the emphasis of my point in this article on Dawkins. Its not an attack so much as it is a request to engage the topic with the same sort of intellectual rigor that you point out that science advocates.

There is one question that I would like to ask you, and this is a rhetorical question: what if you are wrong? That is to say, what if there is something to astrology? I’m not talking about the Sun-sign columns in the newspaper, or something similar that you are probably familiar with. I mean in a more general sense of there being a correspondence between celestial events and earthly events, and that this correspondence could be studied studied somehow through a theoretical construct specifically designed to investigate those types of correlations. What if it is something that is currently considered paranormal because it is outside of the scope of the current scientific understanding of how the universe works, but something that perhaps will not always be outside of that paradigm? Forget your assumptions of what you think that astrology is about based on what you have seen, and based on your current understanding of what is within the realm of science, and simply ask yourself the question of what if it works, hypothetically? What then?

Ah yes, these healthy reasonable people with their fanatic devotion to the Cult of Rationalism. What’s the whole point of his effort in the making of this argument, anyway? No astrologer is attacking him, nor is astrology harming anyone. So what’s his beef with it, that by being “unscientific” it deludes people? Give me a break. People like to explore themselves, and if their Sun signs help them do that, then so be it. People like this guy are so steeped in their religion of rationalism that they forget we are superstitious, religious, and highly social creatures whose constructs serve purposes outside of their external, practical applications. Jung and his contemporaries take much interest in astrology and other historical systems like alchemy as a means of understanding the psyche. Even if the correlation between the heavens and the Earth is not present, this subject is still valuable and deserves the same respect as any mainstream psychological school or any forms of self-realization, not to even mention its historical interest.

It seems to me people like Dawkins here have a major problem with feelings of inferiority and doubt and is doing nothing more than subjugating a group of people and their beliefs in order to make himself feel better. I think it would do Mr. Dawkins a world of good if he took a look at his natal chart and identified his own problems before he begins putting people below him and making a fool of himself with incorrect historical claims and worn out platitudes.

As far as the whole premise of astrology — that the heavens correlate with the Earth — I have no doubt that if anyone with a basic understanding of horoscopic astrology would find surprising and uncanny correlations between placements in their nativity and transits during major life events. I certainly have, and apparently I am not alone given the huge following of astrology disproportionate to its mainstream acceptance. The astrological community is rife with highly intelligent people; surely they are not devoting their lives to a logical fallacy. The nativity of my sister and I both have the same aspects of the Moon (mother) to the same planets. Two of my best friends’ ascendants are at the exact same degree as my natal Sun, and many of my friends and I share tight favorable aspects or other configurations. Saturn, associated with impediments and difficulties, is tightly conjunct my Mercury, the planet of speech and communication, and I was quite the stutterer as a child. The list goes on. What more proof do I and people like me need? Mr. Dawkins, keep your rhetoric to yourself; astrologers simply don’t care.

Excellent article and response Chris. I can definitely say I pride myself on knowing you and having access to your intellectual expression.

You know a lot more than me with regards to skeptic arguments and rebuttals but it seems obvious to me that Dawkins presents astrology with prejudice. He tries to dispute the relevance of astrology based on “sun-sign” astrology alone.

Scientifically disproving horoscope columns is a walk in the park for any idiot.

Truth is, Sun-Signs aren’t the only pebble on the beach. And if the size of the pebble measured it’s value then sun-sign astrology as seen in horoscope columns would be a grain of sand. Most astrologers are aware of this, but then again, many seem to be oblivious to it.

Dawkins places himself on a pedestal by selecting an horoscope column writer with seemingly little pride or empirical knowledge on the matter. Shame.

John

It seems obvious to me from Mr. Kerss’ comments that he has a visceral, emotional reaction to the very notion of astrology, similar to that one would have if, say, an astrologer had taken a dump on one’s priceless Persian carpet, or called the sexual morality of one’s mother into question. The fact is that, if astrology possesses any virtue at all, it implies that something is going on which is very strange and indigestible to the scientific mentality. Scientists are human beings just like everyone else, and noone likes to have their view of reality undermined. It triggers a reaction which is something very close to that which would be appropriate to receiving a death threat. I find this endlessly fascinating and amusing.
I think that attempts to prove or disprove astrology using scientific criteria constitute something like a drastically mixed metaphor. Astrology focusses elements which began in a mythological mileau into individual relevance. In dealing with the lives of individual human beings, what does it mean to demand a replicable experiment?
If astrology’s scientific critics would seek out a competent, experienced astrologer in order to directly experience what it is capable of, instead of relying on a priori arguments (which historically are based largely on religious or political, not scientific objections) while refusing to examine the actual phenomenon in question (which constitutes intellectual fraud), I feel certain, based on my own experience, that they would receive the shock of their lives.
I have a proposal. Would Mr. Kerss consent to having Mr. Brennan construct and interpret Mr. Kerss’ nativity?

I wouldn’t waste my time like that. I’m actually fine with guys like Tom assuming that astrology is rubbish. From my perspective it is his loss, not mine. I don’t need to ‘convert’ anyone.

Chris,
I apologize for my presumption in making the suggestion. My main point is that if people who pride themselves on their objectivity refuse to examine the phenomena they are passing judgement on, well, perhaps you are right, it’s a waste of time.

It´s hard to me to make some points in english, so I will be brief.

Dawkin´s it´s a terrible scientist. He may be good in his field (whatever it is, I think even he doesn´t know anymore) but he has the problem that he think he can talk about everything.

Example, in his Egotist Gene, he talks about “memes” thinking he had come with a great invention. Hardsciences fans love this concept, and repeat it ad nausean, they think is very “scientific”. Let´s forget that he doesn´t have any factual empirical to sustent that theory, let´s just look to the fact that the “meme” theory has been circulating with different names through social sciences since, at least, early 20 century, I suspect that since 19th century.

Other thing is that, as Dawkins fell he is a scientist, and so he is “neutral” he is always putting his own ideological agenda as if it was political free stuff, and it isn´t: for example he tries to put as a scientific truth about humans concepts as competition and free market, but these are 18th century concepts, from liberal economics. Nothing apolitical there. He also tries to put natural selection as a guideline to understand human behaviour. Nothing new here too. From Spiritsm to Hitler several people try to adapt natural selection to human behaviour.

And to Tom, no, he is not a great scientist, at least when he is talking about things he doesn´t know, and I personally don´t respect him at all, as he and Randy uses the same kind of sophisms that they acuse others of doing. If astrology is true or false is the least of my considerations… When you want to be the guardian of the castle of truth, you have to be the one to set the standards.

Whenever Richard Dawkins appears on UK TV, I change the channel. I’d rather watch cereal advertisements. When he appears in UK newspapers, I’d use the article to line hamster cages, if I had hamsters.

People fear what they don’t understand. And then they seek to understand it even less, because it would mean facing the fact that they fear at all.

Good science, like good astrology, begins with having a healthy respect for what we don’t know.

Thank you for your post.

Now I don’t always remember how all the tropical and sidereal zodiacs and vernal points and all the rest of them work. What I think I know, however, is that the constellations we claim are behind the planets and give them their signs and degrees are not what is actually there if you look, and they never were divided into neat 30 degree chunks in the first place. And it is this sort of thing, perhaps, that Dawkins is driving at, even though (like me) he’s not so hot on the theory and the astronomy. And in this he is right.

But that doesn’t mean astrology doesn’t work, because we know it does.

It’s just that to some extent astrology is a system of signs and omens that you can see – i.e. the planets are in real places you can actually see – and to some extent it is a system of abstract divination, like tossing coins for the I Ching, because the constellations have become abstract, they are not what you see.

And if we’re going to bother answering fundamentalists like Dawkins – and personally I don’t think it’s worth arguing with a fundamentalist, because ultimately they don’t respect reason – then we also have to address this abstraction in astrology.

Personally I don’t like this abstraction, I want a system that corresponds to what you see in the sky, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.

Nevertheless, astrology works, but I think the reason it works lies in a way of thinking that is too alien for science to grasp, and I think it is not necessarily unreasonable to dismiss astrology if you are from our culture. I sympathise with such skeptics. You need to have a sense of how omens work, of Jung’s ‘acausal connecting principle’, or synchronicity, a sense of there being a symbolic relationship between outer and inner.

Excellent points, Chris – my objection to Dawkins is simply that he attempts to talk about subjects in which he just isn’t qualified. He may be a good biologist, but that doesn’t qualify him to talk authoritatively about astrology, or even cosmology (another field – a “hard” scientific one in this case – into which he’s wandered, making some bizarre statements), without bothering to do his research first.

It always amazes me that scientists can be so unobjective and emotional when it comes to astrology, and their usual methodological rigour just goes out of the window.

Tom Kerss seems to be very wound up about astrology, too. I found it interesting that he felt the need to tell us how clever he was on several occasions. I’ve always felt that intelligence is rather like beauty; if you possess it, it’s obvious, and you don’t need to tell people explicitly.

Tom, I’ve never heard such drivel in all my life. Tom, I am older and more experienced than you and have more qualifications than you will ever have and possess a massively superior understanding of how science conducts itself. However, that’s not saying much in your case. No scientist wakes up one morning and says they are going to prove smoking kills you. They provide the results they are paid to get. It should come as no surprise to anyone (apart from you) that when Imperial Tobacco “conduct” such research that it turns out smoking has no effect on your health. Are you naive or something?

A dear friend of mine is very entranced by Dawkins and parrots just about everything that he says / writes / etc. Recently at a party, I teasingly told him that he was a fine devotee to the Cult of Dawkins.

My friend was appalled. His wife laughed and laughed.

It is hard to take Dawkins the Rational Atheist seriously when he has formed a new religion. It is even more hard to take Dawkins seriously when his arguments are not factual. Perpetual crankiness can be solved.

“Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low.”–Wallace Sayre

Good job, Chris!

Rob Hand said that he has found that it’s the second rate hacks who waste their time attacking Astrology, the GOOD scientists are too busy doing science.

I am a rare and contradictory creature in that I have strong Objectivist views as well as a deep belief in,and an interest in the study of,astrology. As such, I feel duty bound to comment here.

Firstly, these folks aren’t skeptics. Skeptics don’t have their minds made up. They don’t take things at face value, and simply want more information. Being a skeptic is good. Science based astrology bashers absolutely have their minds made up. They tend to be intellectual snobs who are too lazy and smug to remember the roots of science or it’s true aim.

The attack on astrology, religion, etc., by empiricists is actually a call towards rational thought. I’m on board with that. However, too often for the science types, this gets very regretably bogged down in narrow mindedness. They dismiss astrology out of hand for all the reasons and in all the ways that have been outlined here already. I would like to note that the scientific narrow mindedness isn’t just reserved for us flakes who believe in astrology. The scientific community is notorious for rejecting or refusing to listen to the rebels and radicals among their own ranks. Many are the number of accomplished and brilliant scientists who have been laughed at by “the establisment” whom history has shown to be right. We are in good company.

I’m tired of the Hatfields and McCoys mentality on this subject. There is no good reason why you can’t take supernatural subjects on in a healthily skeptical, scientific way. Look at facts and results and see what possible explainations or hypothesis you can come up with. I think there is a tendancy on both sides to go completely with what you already know instead of asking the questions. Scientists should look more into if it works, and astrologers should really think about why it does.

I love the idea that science might take the time to learn about and begin to test astrology. To start down the path to discovering the reasons why Mercury Retrograde wrecks such havoc. What a wonderful thing to think of a scientist in the modern age (with the advances in equipment and techniques) having an open and questioning enough mind to really study astrology the way Newton and Galileo did in the past! Knowledge comes when you stop stating facts and start asking qustions.

Whenever I read about ignorant attacks on astrology, I smile as I remember a quote of Newton’s on the subject of naysayers.
” I have studied these things. You have not!”

Do people honestly believe astrology is real? If so how? you can’t dismiss science in that people havn’t studied something which is superstition. I don’t have to study a theory which says an entire persons future can be decided by the movement of a planet, to know that it is impossible. Think about it logically. What logical explination can there be to validate that argument? People say that people who dismiss astrology are narrow minded people, who are snobs. I find that statement terribly hypocritical. It’s mere pretencion which astronomers seem to ignore the sheer complexity of the universe. It’s something they can barely even begin to fathom, so how is that such a great benivolent force are there, merely to dictate our futures. THAT is snobery. I cannot even reduce myself to a level where i would even begin to entertain a notion that astronomy could even have ANY legitimacy. I am not in a Dawkins cult before anyone claims i am. I write this because, i feel compelled to defend reason. If you are insulted by people attacking your belief, just remember the true definition of having a genuine belief is to question it. I respect Dawkins that he is someone who is finally speaking out against moronic beliefs, however i havn’t just got these beliefs just because Dawkins says i shouldn’t. I have never had them, whatsoever. Not because of a closed mind, but because of an open one. With my rational thoughts, i have concluded that it is impossible for anything so ludicrous as astronomy to exsist (anyone want to take me up on this view feel free to do so). Why should you be branded to be in a cult of Dawkins, and be mocked for dismissing your beliefs? . I can guarentee that most people who believe in astronomy are highly subjective people, who probably more than half of you will believe in ghosts and other supernatural garbage. Dawkins has not created a religion. People who follow religion have blind faith, Dawkins merely is the first outspoken skeptic who providides reason for his claims. If you don’t want to believe them then that’s fine, everyone’s entitled to their belief. But you cannot dismiss one without reasonable reason. Dawkins may not know much about astronomy, but i would wager he is a vastly more intelligent than anyone commenting on this web page. Evolutionary biology, at Oxford University, is more impressive than anyone claiming they can read my future, by seeing if mars is aligned with Jupitar, therefore anyone claiming to have advanced knowledge in Astronomy gives them no more credit than anyone having an advanced knowledge on the power rangers.

No, you meant to say ‘astrology’. I don’t know why you keep confusing the two words in your comments.

So, to summarize your post, you have made an a priori assumption about the nature of astrology, and now you are wondering how anyone could believe in what you assume astrology to be?

Priceless, Chris, priceless. Thank you so much for taking the time to champion truth in the face of ignorance.