Astrology is a thorny issue for me because so many of my otherwise like-minded friends and acquaintances have believed in it, while I have been a skeptic for many years. In some areas of thought, this might be a non-issue, but I feel that astrology, at least popular astrology vis-à-vis “signs,” is a way of prejudging people based on a singular arbitrary characteristic (in this case by birth-date, but similar to prejudices based on [perception of] gender, race or age). Although I cannot fully articulate it, I see a pattern of how shortcuts like this stifle the ability for humans to communicate and connect (i.e., rather than judging individuals based on their merits as learned through getting to know them, there is a readymade category to pop them into before deciding whether to get to know them). Of course, I am a staunch individualist, owing from many years of being mis-categorized by other people’s presumptions.
First I should clarify what I mean by the term astrology. From Wikipedia: “Astrology (Greek: study on the stars) is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs in which knowledge of the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details is held to be useful in understanding, interpreting, and organizing information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters.” There are three main kinds of astrology: Western, Indian and Chinese. Also from Wikipedia: “In Western and Indian astrology, the emphasis is on space, and the movement of the sun, moon and planets in the sky through each of the zodiac signs. In Chinese astrology, by contrast, the emphasis is on time, with the zodiac operating on cycles of years, months, and hours of the day.”
Although I don’t ascribe much validity to it, I don’t have much of an issue with the complex study of astrology as it’s not at all an easy way of prejudging people (because you’d have to spend painstaking hours/days of research to figure out any individual’s chart and “read” their personality/destiny), but I take particular exception to “popular astrology.” This is a modern form of Western astrology that relies primarily or solely on the “sun sign” (i.e., the location of the sun on a person’s date of birth in the zodiac [which is a division of the celestial sphere based on “signs” of 30 degrees, roughly pertaining to certain well-known constellations, such as Aries]); this form of astrology is what you’ll see in the backs of numerous newspapers and magazines and is what most believers use to make spot judgments (i.e., so-and-so is a Scorpio, they tend to be control-freaks, watch out). That said, I will enumerate my points (some of which pertain only to Western or popular astrology):
1. Popular [sun-sign] astrology appears to be overly simple (the division of all 6+billion people on Earth into a mere 12 personality types/destinies) and that’s because it is. This form (which is based only on the location of the sun) is a very watered down version of real astrology, which is based on the location of all planets in addition to the sun at the point of birth, which would mean that each person has multiple signs. Even with the added complexity of multiple star signs, however, such as “Taurus with Jupiter rising in Scorpio” et cetera, the concept of the zodiac applying irrespective of the year of birth does not make sense (that would mean that someone else born on the same date in a different year would have all the same personality traits and destiny as you, even though the star/planet alignment would’ve been different). Note: I think some astrology does take years into account (especially Indian/Vedic and Chinese astrology), though popular astrology does not.
2. There is an astronomical phenomenon called “precession of the equinoxes” which pertains to a slight wobble in the earth which causes a slight drifting of the celestial body over time (in relation to the earth, i.e., the constellations “move” in the sky), to the tune of one full revolution (360%) every roughly 26000 years (note: this is in relation to the equinoxes themselves, so it applies to any calendar which keeps the equinoxes in the same place from year to year). Since (Western) astrology began roughly 3-4,000 years ago, this means that the “signs” are off by roughly 41 to 55 degrees (or between one and two zodiac periods or signs, each of which is 30 degrees). If Western astrology is based on the actual locations of the celestial bodies, the sun/star signs as used by modern astrologers are all incorrect. However, while researching this online, I came across one astrologer’s explanation that the zodiac signs are meant to correspond with slices of sky and time elapsed from the vernal equinox, irrespective of the location of the stars (and were only named by the prominent constellations at their inception for the sake of convenience), like a geometric diagram on a transparency placed over the actual sky. If this is the case, however, it seems arbitrary and oversimplified, where an astrological chart can be done for a person irrespective of year (and real location of the stars), see my first point.
3. Location on the earth doesn’t seem to be a factor in astrology, but, logically, it would be a factor in terms of planetary/solar influence. Astronomically, the sky beneath the equator versus above the equator is very different. Additionally, if planets exert influence over one by their location at the time of birth, wouldn’t the earth count? One might argue that all people are on earth and influenced roughly equally by it, but that’s not taking into account relative positioning. For example, if you were on the other side of the earth at the time of birth from a planet (i.e., between you and mars is the entire earth) versus being on the same side of the earth as the planet (i.e., nothing between you and mars but empty space), wouldn’t that change the equation? Without taking time of birth and exact location on the earth at that time, I cannot see astrology as being scientifically valid.
4. Rising sign astrology is based on the moment of birth, which was long ago believed to be the moment that life began (or that the soul entered the body). Modern science has shown, however, that life begins much earlier than actual birth and if one is taken with the idea of the soul, why posit that it enters exactly at the moment of birth? Why not earlier or later? If we’re talking planetary influence on a human life, it would seem logical that this begins at the moment of conception, not at birth. If it were truly at birth, what is to stop people from altering their children’s destiny by artificially accelerating or delaying the birthing process (with modern methods)? It seems likely that astrology uses the time of birth solely because it is usually available data (unlike the time of conception).
5. Finally, we come to the issue of twins. Regardless of astrological flavor, if astrology is really based on the date, month, year and time (even location) of birth, then twins (often born minutes apart) would always have the same personality and destiny and that’s not true, even of identical twins (sharing all genetics). And if one were to argue to me that those few minutes of differentiation are significant in terms of astrology, then I’d counter that this claim alone disproves all astrology because most clocks are one or more minutes off of standard time (even in hospitals), so there is no way to usefully compare any individuals by reported time down to the minute, even if the humans reading/reporting the time were infallible to the clock second.
This is not to say that I’d deny that the time/date of birth has any influence whatsoever, but that as a singular attribute, it does not itself hold significant sway over the course of events. Chaos theory is often oversimplified to the example of the “butterfly effect” where one butterfly flapping its wings in China could cause a colossal weather event in North America (such as a hurricane), but what the theory actually posits is that in a very complex system every small factor has an effect and that seemingly large factors don’t necessarily control the course of events. Although the time/date of birth and location of the stars may exert some influence, there are innumerable other influences, such as the culture you are raised in, your genetic makeup, events that occur (accidents, good fortune, deaths, political upheavals, etc.) that determine what happens in your lifetime (i.e., your “destiny”). You can add free will to that mix or not, but astrology doesn’t account for the other factors and is, I believe, akin to a religion in that it is a faith-based way for people to simplify the universe and meaning into more understandable and spiritually satisfying chunks.
All that said, I will readily admit that astrology in its original form (from Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese and Indians, if not more) gave rise to much of what is modern astronomy and mathematics (and navigational systems, starting with the sextant) and has therefore made profound contributions to the pool of human knowledge, due entirely to the industrious intelligence of long-ago civilizations in the pursuit of understanding the heavenly bodies. Also, without my very open-minded friend Scott, willing to debate long and hard on this subject (he’s more inclined to believe astrology), I would not have been able to refine and articulate my arguments above. In conclusion, I say astrology is not all bad (though I contend popular astrology is), but I’m not a believer.
Bad Astronomy blog has this post about Astrology: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html
There’s a lot of scientific argument there, but here is the gist. [Astrology essentially says that there’s a force from the stars/suns/planets which has an effect on human beings] “…If there is an effect, and it’s real, it can be measured. That’s pretty much by definition. Maybe it’s not directly measured on an individual basis; maybe there is only a statistical effect. In other words, the effect cannot be shown for an individual, but only for groups of people (like saying that I cannot know what the weather will be like where I live exactly ten years from today, but there is a high probability it will be clear and sunny that day). But even that can be measured using statistics, and predictions like that can be tested for their accuracy.
First, let’s see if there can be any effect from the planets and stars as astrologers claim. Then, after I show you that there not only isn’t any, but cannot be any as they claim, we’ll take a look at the claims astrologers make about measured effects (I’ll give you a hint: they’re wrong). Then finally, I’ll talk a little bit about the real effect of astrology, and how it is eroding people’s ability to think clearly.”