A sceptical look at Astrology

I find it very difficult to take the claims of astrology seriously. On the face of it, the idea that the relative positions of the stars and planets can have the remotest effect on human life – except on the rare occasion when a lump of rock hits us or there is an eclipse that robs us daylight for a short period – seems absurd to me. However, I think it is worthwhile to analyse exactly what I believe astrology to be, so that I can assure myself that I am being entirely rational and not making unwarranted assumptions.

My intellectual background

I think of myself as a reasonably intelligent and well-educated person. I did well enough at school to get to a middle-ranking University (Bangor, then part of the University of Wales), although I did not come away with a particularly high grade of degree.

I took a joint honours degree in English and Philosophy. The study of English Literature inevitably brings one into contact with Astrology, because many writers of literature, from Chaucer to Shakespeare and right down to J K Rowling, have included astrologers among their characters, and many have believed in what astrologers have said, to a greater or lesser degree.

However, Philosophy is all about examining theories and assumptions and subjecting them to rigorous analysis. Throughout the ages, people have come up with systematic ideas to explain the way the world is and suggest ways in which people could lead better lives. Some of those ideas have proved to be highly influential, but it is the job of Philosophy to point to the weaknesses (should they exist) of schemes of thought that might well be capable of leading us (as mankind) down paths that we really should not be going.

Although my University course in Philosophy did not tackle the subject of Astrology, it is just the sort of belief that could be subjected to philosophical tools and techniques, and it is with the mindset that my course inculcated in me that I want to look at Astrology now.

What Astrology is not

It is very easy to criticise something when one has a totally false notion of what that something is. Politicians do this all the time when they lambast their opponents for holding views that they have never advocated, or distort what has been said and then attack the distorted version rather than the real one.

I therefore want to state at the outset that I do not equate Astrology with Fortune-Telling. That is a mistake that is often made, based on the natural human desire to want to know what is going to happen to them and the dishonest practices of some people who use the Astrology umbrella to provide such a “service”.

“Real” astrologers do not predict the future. It should not take long to see why this is the case, namely that they would soon be discredited if their predictions failed to come true. Instead, they attempt to relate the relative positions of stars and planets to make statements about individual human beings in terms of their personality and potential.

There is a very crude form of astrology that divides the whole human race into twelve groups, based on their date of birth, and then tells each group what their strengths and weaknesses are in terms of their personality, the assumption being that, for example, an “Aquarius” is fated to be a different sort of person from a “Leo”. Advice is then given, for example, on whether it is a good or bad idea for a Pisces man to marry a Capricorn woman.

Leading on from this is the notion that one’s “stars” can determine what sort of day one is likely to have and whether one should or should not leave certain decisions to another day when the stars are likely to be more propitious. This sort of astrology was taken very seriously in past centuries, when monarchs would decide whether or not to go to battle based on what their court astrologer told them. Today, we get “What your stars say” in popular daily newspapers, and there are people who take these statements just as seriously as any medieval warlord.

However, as I said above, I do want to criticise Astrology based on the versions mentioned in the previous two paragraphs. I am perfectly willing to accept these as distorted versions of Astrology that are not worth the effort of trying to refute – although it does worry me that there are many people who cannot see through their nonsense.

So what is Astrology then?

My understanding of Astrology, based on what astrologers themselves say, is that it sees significance in the pattern of the heavens at the exact time that an individual human being is born. Modern astrologers are careful to avoid the suggestion that stars and planets have any sort of direct physical influence on the new-born child – it is not a question of gravitational pulls coming into play, given that those of a doctor’s forceps are far more likely to outweigh anything exerted by Mars or Saturn – no, it is a lot more mystical than that.

What astrologers appear to claim is that the pattern of the planets at someone’s birth (and the moon and the sun counts as planets for this purpose), particularly when seen against the background of the stars, represents a mirroring of the potential personality of that person. What they are therefore doing when creating a person’s astral birth chart is re-creating that mirror and reading what is reflected in it.

The elements of that re-creation include certain characteristics that belong to the individual planets – for example, Mercury influences the way you learn and handle information, and a strong showing for Jupiter in one’s chart is indicative of a an optimist.

Another interesting aspect of the claims of astrology is that the birth chart does not predestine the individual to be any specific sort of person – as I said before, astrologers are not fortune-tellers. All it does is indicate potential strengths and weaknesses and it is up to the person to forge their own path through life, but with the knowledge that they should find themselves more naturally inclined to go into some directions than in others.

Reasons for scepticism – 1

Modern astrologers do not claim that Astrology is a science, although this was not always the case. They therefore see themselves as being beyond the reach of reasoned scientific argument when it comes to defending their “art”. They see Astrology as having to do with the realms of spiritualism and mysticism which they expect people to accept on trust.

I’m sorry, but for me that is just not good enough. Astrology is in the same bracket as religion, magic and wicca – you can believe in it if you like, but it will never be open to having its claims proved to be true. Belief in Astrology is a matter of faith, with no evidential grounding whatsoever.

Reasons for scepticism – 2

There are many factors that affect someone’s personality, the strongest of these being upbringing, environment, education and life experiences, as well as genetics. There is no reason to give precedence to yet another – in my view highly dubious – factor, namely their birth chart.

Given that astrologers gladly admit that the birth chart does not predestine, it would appear that they recognise that it is the weakest of the factors that I have listed above. That being so, why bother with it at all?

Reasons for scepticism – 3

The qualities that are assigned to the various planets, as having roles to play in the birth chart, are pure inventions. Granted, they are based on ancient beliefs that go back thousands of years, but they are inventions nonetheless. There is not the slightest reason to believe that Mercury is the “information handling” planet – but then reason has nothing to do with it, of course.

It is also interesting to note that ancient astrologers had fewer tools to play with than modern ones, because many more celestial bodies are known about now than was the case before the days of powerful telescopes. I find it fascinating – not to say ridiculous - that newly discovered planets and planetoids seem to have been fitted into the astrological cosmos and appear to have roles to play in birth charts.

Reasons for scepticism – 4

It worries me that some people take the statements made by astrologers far too seriously. I will repeat that I do not hold astrologers guilty of being fortune-tellers, but the same cannot be said of the expectations of some of their customers.

People will pay good money to have a complete birth chart made, and one has to ask why they do so. If you only regard Astrology as being a bit of harmless fun, which makes no difference one way or the other, then fair enough – but there are plenty of much cheaper ways of having harmless fun.

It should come as no surprise that people who have paid good money for a chart should treat it with a good measure of respect and believe what their astrologer says it means. If they then let that meaning rule their lives – for example by basing their relationships with others on its findings – then they are in danger of being guided along paths that might not be in their best interests. They might make life choices that they would not otherwise have done, simply because they had paid for advice that was based on the extremely flimsy evidence (as I would see it) of an astral birth chart.

People who seek advice from others on how they should lead their lives are often emotionally vulnerable and are prime targets for manipulation by people who are stronger than themselves or who appear to have the answers that they cannot discover for themselves. These clients are the sort of people who can end up in weird religious cults or be brainwashed into taking dangerous and/or violent actions. I see Astrology as being another area that offers respite for vulnerable people, and it therefore presents another source of danger.

An experiment?

I know that Astrology sees itself as being outside the realm of science, and so it is not really susceptible to proof by scientific method, but can I suggest an experiment that could produce some revealing results?

If you take two people who were born at exactly the same time and in the same place – such as in different rooms of the same maternity hospital – then the two babies should have had identical astral birth charts. If after, say, thirty or forty years, they were to approach different astrologers and ask to have their birth charts prepared and interpreted, it would be very interesting to see how alike those results were.

It would also be very interesting to see how those two people, as adults, were alike or different in terms of personality. If Astrology is all about determining potential personality traits, should not those two people have exhibited very similar ones during the intervening thirty or forty years?

If this is the case, despite all the other influences that they have been subjected to over the years, then maybe – just maybe – there might be something in it. However, without such evidence I would continue to remain as sceptical as ever!

© John Welford