| Writers'
Guidelines | Archives | Articles
| Book Reviews
Humanity and the Stars:
A Critique of Astronomy, Astrology and their 'Phoney War' - David Porter
Excerpt from Astrology Quarterly Summer 2003 Vol 73 No 3
Part 1
Based on talks given to the Astrological Lodge of London, on the 10th
November 1997 and to the Lewisham Humanist Group, South London, on the
28th May 1998.
Preface: Stars And The Humanists
From my earliest childhood memories I have fascinated by the Stars: by
Astronomy (I was a young fan of Patrick Moore,) and by Science Fiction
and the prospect of space travel. Later, I also became aware of Astrology,
as presented in the magazine and newspaper 'horoscope' columns. However
family members born 'under' the same (Sun-) Sign seemed rather different
from each other and from the personalities they were supposed to have.
This type of planetary 'influence' was never mentioned in the Scientific
books I was devouring, and it was self-evident nonsense that one twelfth
of humanity should share the same fate. It was only in my twenties that
to settle an argument I borrowed a book (Jeff Mayo's Teach Yourself
Astrology), and found that the subject was a lot more complex than
I had previously imagined. It was a challenge to my astronomical, mathematical
and computing knowledge, and, the more I investigated Astrology, the more
it fell into place. After two years self-teaching, Ronald Davison's book
Astrology brought me, in the mid-seventies, to the Astrological
Lodge of which he was then the President.
Another subject, hardly mentioned in the Science textbooks which shaped
my teenage Weltanschauung, was Religion.
Although I respected the importance of the questions raised in my school
RI lessons, I found the conventional Christian answers unconvincing, and
when I first came across dictionary definitions of 'atheist' and 'agnostic'
I wondered which applied to me. The Humanist movement represents people
who are sceptical of Religion, and who strive to solve human problems
without reference to supernatural sources. While at University I attended
Humanist Group meetings, though it was often talks by guest speakers representing
various religions which I found most interesting. When I became disillusioned
with rationalism and materialism, and dissatisfied by Humanist scepticism
as a complete answer to life's questions, I was already too aware of other
spiritual traditions to bounce back into any 'simple faith.'
In 1975 the American Humanist magazine published its notorious
declaration denouncing Astrology signed by 186 Scientists.
In his editorial(1) Ronald Davison wrote: "The
gulf between science and religion still exists, and it is no surprise
to find that this document has been published in 'The Humanist', the organ
of a group of people who reject the scriptures in favour of some purely
intellectual approach to life. I should be very suspicious indeed if these
people were on 'our side.'" You can imagine my mixed feelings: Scientists
(with whom I still identified) attacking something they did not attempt
to understand (an error I could have shared in my younger days;) and the
Lodge President, whom I respected, attacking another group I had identified
with.
In the mid-eighties I discovered and began attending a local Humanist
Group in London: this was an opportunity to enjoy serious arguments about
subjects other than Astrology, and it provided an antidote to a Lodge
which had recently become quite fractious. However by the mid-nineties
I conceived the idea of a talk which could be offered to two audiences,
Astrologers and Sceptics. The substance of the talks is embodied in this
article; a few details have been overtaken in the intervening years, but
I think my key points remain controversial.
Beginnings
To say that Humankind must have been always fascinated by the stars is
rather a cliché. Huddled together through the Palaeolithic night, our
ancestors must have wondered at the dots of light overhead. They must
have become aware first of the Moon, stepping across the Firmament as
it waxed and then waned; they may well also have become aware of how its
phases matched the changing mood of their womenfolk, and, if they were
coast-dwellers, the fluctuating height of the tides. Then they may have
noticed the changes in the patterns of stars visible at night, and how
the appearance of certain constellations seemed to herald the onset of
Winter, the coming of the rains, and the seasonal behaviour of animals
upon which, first as hunters then as herdsmen, their living depended.
They would have noticed how the brightest star of all would appear in
the evening sky after sunset, then disappear; then a morning star would
appear to herald the sunrise: was it the same body? Another star, bright
and very red, would appear every other year. Tracking these wandering
stars or planets would have to wait the invention of agriculture, allowing
settled communities, and the invention of writing. The Astronomer priests
of Ancient Egypt learnt to predict the flooding of the Nile, upon which
their people's lives so obviously depended, from their observation of
the heliacal rising of Sirius: the stars were patently a system through
which the Gods spoke. In the Far East and the Americas other civilisations
developed their own star-based cultures. But it is the Mesopotamian cultures
that are usually given the credit for our traditional star lore.
Throughout the Classical world, 'Chaldean' would become a synonym for
Astrologer or fortune-teller; more significantly for our culture, it was
during, or shortly after, the Babylonian captivity that most of the Hebrew
Bible was either written, or edited into its present form. This Israelite
experience of captivity did provoke a few explicit condemnations(2) of
Astrology, which should be compared with the impressive use of Astronomical
symbolism elsewhere(3) in the Scriptures.
"When Jupiter stands in front of Mars, there will be corn and men will
be slain." If the ancient Mesopotamians(4) seemed obsessed with seeing
omens, they were also efficient chroniclers not only of astronomical phenomena,
but also of the weather and of political events. It was from centuries
of their recorded observations of the Heavens that the rules of planetary
motions were first derived. It is not inconceivable that long time climatic
cycles, mediated through harvests and grain prices, may have lent some
statistical sense to their predictions for their royal rulers.
Some Astrologers like to believe that their science was given to mankind
in a package by a higher power (perhaps called Prometheus, Chiron or Hermes
Trimegistus). I am happy to speculate that the knowledge was acquired
over aeons of observations, and slowly adapted as it diffused away from
the ancient mid-eastern civilisations where it began. Astrological prognostications
were intended for King and Country; state auspices would be taken at the
birth of a royal personage. Although a Babylonian horoscope for a private
person has been dated to 410 BC, the concept of a horoscope for an individual,
like the modern idea of individuality itself, seems to have really emerged
in the Hellenistic period.
Although since ancient times people had been conscious of the cycle of
seasons, the equation of an annual calendar with the cycle of the Sun
(which makes Solar 'horoscopes' instantly accessible from birthdays) is
a recent development. Julius Caesar's calendar reform of 46 BC needed
improvements introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. Caesar had been
advised by Egyptians who had been monitoring the heavens for centuries,
though they had mostly been watching fixed stars' heliacal risings defining
a solar sidereal year. They kept this information secret, allowing for
public consumption a 'mobile year' of 365 days without intercalation which
drifted backwards through the seasons: the Pharaoh had to take an oath
not to interfere with this(5).
The significance of the return of a calendar date predated the use of
a solar calendar. Josephus(6) recorded the destruction of the Second Temple
at Jerusalem by the Romans, on the same day as the destruction of the
First Temple by the Babylonians, but this was a date in a lunar calendar,
Tisha B'Av, the anniversary and memorial day for other Jewish tragedies.
From its ancient beginnings, we must remember that Astrology was not
only the interpretation of the Heavens according to a pre-Scientific cosmology;
it was also the interpretation of the Heavens as observed. The Astrolabe,
which combined features of the quadrant and the planisphere, served classical
and mediaeval Astrologers as both an observational and a calculation device.
When Astrology was based on observation one thing was glaringly obvious,
which is not so obvious from tables: in ordinary circumstances you can't
see the stars during the daytime! It seemed perfectly sensible that daytime
and night-time horoscopes should have different rules and different rulerships
Planets in the daytime half of the sky could only be seen, and their
positions observed, by looking either shortly before sunrise, or shortly
after sunset. If, however, a body was too close to the Sun it was lost
in its rays and could not be observed: one of the worst things that could
happen to most planets in mediaeval Astrology was to be 'combust', a concept
which makes little sense to a modern Astrology which sees the Sun as the
symbolic source of Life. The Sun has to sink about six degrees below the
horizon for the stars to come into view, which is a reason why this is
a natural orb.
Today in the developed world most of us live isolated from the rhythms
of Nature. Also atmospheric pollution and light pollution, resulting from
industrialisation and urban dwelling, prevents us from really seeing the
stars. Modern Astrology, like modern Scientific Cosmology, happens too
much in the intellect!
On 17 December 1603 the famous Astronomer Johannes Kepler was impressed
by his observation of a close conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, and by
the coincidental appearance of a new star, a 'Nova', mistakenly thought
to be the product of the conjunction: he wondered whether a similar event
lay behind the New Testament story of the Star of Bethlehem.
This is an issue involving History and Theology as well as Astrology
and Astronomy, and no one person is likely to be expert in all these fields.
It can be questioned whether the 'Star' actually appeared: St Mark's gospel,
agreed by most scholars to be the oldest, and St John's, the most theologically
sophisticated, both begin their story with Jesus' baptism. Only the gospels
of Luke and Matthew preface the Markan account with Nativity stories,
respectively featuring Angels appearing to shepherds and Magi chasing
a Star. Similar extraordinary events have been reported heralding the
births of other legendary heroes. However generations of Astrologers,
and Christian Astronomers, have given Matthew the benefit of the doubt,
and, following Kepler, have speculated as to the true identity of this
phenomenon.
There have been two approaches. Astronomers have been seeking something
spectacular and observable: perhaps a grand conjunction, a comet (Halley's
comet would have appeared about 11 BC and again in 66 AD - it was probably
referred to by Josephus(7)) or a Nova or Supernova which could have occurred
any time.
The tendency of Astrologers, presumably accepting the Christian view
of Jesus as the most perfect person, has been to look for the most perfect
chart for His Nativity within the historically plausible timeframe, usually
a chart perfect in terms of an inappropriate modern Astrology. (A perfect
horoscope for the Messiah is also suggested by a Dead Seas Scrolls fragment).
Just as there are different visions of Jesus, (e.g. as Charismatic authority
figure, as gentle Healer and willing victim, or as passionate rebel-with-a-cause,)
there can be as many definitions of the 'perfect' chart as there are factions
within modern Astrology.
The most persuasive proposal I have encountered comes from Astronomer
David Hughes, who argues that the St Matthew story must have been inspired
by something remarkable in terms of the Astrology of the day, which was
of course an Astrology based on observation. There may have been a series
of observations of celestial phenomena, interpreted as omens of a great
event, and none of these events need coincide with the date of the actual
birth. (The triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter of 7-6 BC would fit
the historic timeframe, and the uncertainty of the date might explain
the two-year margin in Herod's reported massacre.)
A planet rises Acronychally if it appears to rise exactly as the Sun
sets. Hughes' pivotal discovery was the simultaneous Acronychal rising(8)
of Jupiter and Saturn on the evening of the 15 September 7 BC. With its
emphasis on the Virgo-Pisces axis for service and spirituality, and on
Scorpio and the eighth house for sacrifice, this is an interesting chart,
but I have no doubt it will not be the last word on this controversy(9).
As I have said, the whole story may be a fictitious interpolation; the
significant point is that it is not just the author of Matthew's gospel,
but also modern Scientific Astronomers, otherwise dismissive of Astrology,
who still feel that the incarnation of a Messiah requires the corroborative
validation of the Heavens.
The Age of Science
We live today in a world increasingly shaped since the Seventeenth Century
by a Scientific Revolution which most rationalists think has completely
discredited Astrology.
Modern Science sprang from the creative tension between Intellectual
Theory and Empirical Practice. The Mediaeval Craftsman, Navigator, and
Gunner learnt their skills through practical experience: it did not concern
them that the Aristotelian physics taught in the universities bore little
relation to the real world. Only from the time of Galileo and Newton,
when Natural Philosophy allowed itself to be tutored by experience could
Theory and Empiricism co-operate to change the world.
There is a misunderstanding of the Scientific method, if an emphasis
on individual 'facts' is thought to be opposed to an awareness of universal
laws. Science will seek and propose general laws which can then be tested
in specific cases ('falsifiability';) if individual cases do not support
the proposed law then it will need amending.
There are criticisms which can be levelled against Science as it is
practised. Most experiments only show the effects they have been designed
to produce; modern atomic particle physics has found that results depend
upon the observer, and the type of measurement performed. Yesterday's
heresy may sometimes become today's orthodoxy, but it can be difficult
to find the resources to support experiments which might challenge the
currently prevailing paradigm, so Scientific prejudices tend to be self-perpetuating.
It may be necessary for ones theory to isolate ones experiment from the
rest of the universe, supposedly eliminating any extraneous influences,
however this may be impossible to achieve in practice.
Thus experiments (conducted by Giorgio Piccardi and Maki Tanaka respectively)(10)
suggest that both the precipitation of inorganic colloids in aqueous solutions,
and the rate of flocculation of human blood, vary according to the activity
of the Sun and its position above or below the horizon, i.e. they vary
according to the time of day. Perhaps mediaeval herbalists were not unscientific
when they checked the phase of the Moon before picking their remedies!
For Astrologers, the real impact of Copernicus' insight that the Sun
is the centre of the planetary system, should be to recognise that the
apparent motion of the Sun is really the reflected movement of the Earth.
The year and the day are two cycles accomplished by the Earth, (equated
in the popularly used secondary progression and in the use of the daily
solar arc as an annual measure.)
As important to the Scientific revolution as the Copernican dethronement
of the Earth from the centre of the Universe, was the discovery by Galileo
and others of imperfection in the Heavens: spots on the surface of the
Sun, a 'New Star' (seen by Brahe in 1572,) irregularities and mountains
on the Moon, 'just like the Earth.' Kepler showed how observation best
fitted orbits which were elliptical, not the perfect circles suiting celestial
perfection. Newton showed how the same universal force caused the apple
to fall from the tree, and held the Moon and the planets in their orbits.
'As above, so Below' was the old adage he reinterpreted!
Isaac Newton has been 'canonised' by rationalists, who overlook the
details that he devoted considerable effort to the study of Alchemy, and
to the demonstration of a biblically based chronology behind world history.
Kepler was a practising Astrologer strongly imbued with the Pythagorean
idea of the 'Harmony of the Spheres:' he famously interposed the five
Platonic solids between the heliocentric orbits of the six known planets,
including the Earth(11).
Kepler's and Newton's Laws of Motion have stood years of Scientific
verification, only recently requiring slight amendment by Einstein's equations.
However the notion that there are Universal Laws of Nature surely derives
from the philosophical, theological and dare I say Astrological antecedents
of these two Scientists.
The Solar System would come to be seen as a mighty clock, which God may
have originally set in motion but then left to its own devices. In the
pre-Scientific world it had been 'soul' (Latin 'anima') which gave things
movement (hence 'animal', 'animated':) the moving heavenly bodies therefore
had souls, and so might resonate with the human soul, or else the spheres
were moved by 'angelic intelligences.' The modern Universe would seem
rather soulless! Not only soulless, but of unimaginably immense dimension
with lots of empty space in between: no wonder that Scientific Astronomers
doubt that bodies could have any influence across these vast distances.
The same Laws of Nature might pertain out there as down here, but the
Universe can no longer be seen as existing for the benefit of Mankind(12)!
A distinction was made in mediaeval times between 'Natural Astrology'
- the study of heavenly bodies in themselves and their possible effect
on the weather and biological cycles - and 'Judicial Astrology', in which
an Astrologer had to make a judgement upon an observation e.g.
the position of the stars at someone's birth. Natural Astrology was tolerated
by churchmen such as St Augustine, as it posed no challenge to the concept
of human Free-will, necessary to the Christian concept of Sin and Redemption.
Also Natural Astrology was perfectly compatible with Scientific Astronomy:
Isaac Newton, while disapproving of Judicial Astrology, can be seen as
reforming Natural Astrology. The title of Newton's great work translates
as 'the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy': Newton
quantified Physics! (Kepler, despite his decisive contribution to the
Scientific Revolution, retained a traditional mystical and qualitative
attitude to Number.)
Newton was 'canonised' by the Enlightenment, but it would be a couple
of centuries before there would be a comparably serious attempt to quantify
the Human Sciences. Auguste Comte, the founder of statistical Sociology,
sought to explain human behaviour with mathematical laws similar to those
with which Newton had constrained the planets. As knowledge exploded,
it was no longer possible, as in the Renaissance, for one man to be expert
in everything, Astrology fell between the two stools of Physics and Metaphysics,
between the disciplines which can be quantified and those which perhaps
should not be. The various schools of Sociology and Psychology have, in
their time, attracted their share of scepticism: Astrology is not alone
in facing criticism for seeming to deny human Free-will!
Nonetheless Astrology fell into disfavour at a time when Astronomy was
becoming more quantitative while the Humanities were still qualitative.
Now that the Human Sciences are more 'rational' and quantitative a correlation
with Astrology might seem much more feasible. Astrology might become a
powerful tool for stereotyping human beings and predicting their behaviour
but is this desirable? The other problem is that as Nature is now seen
as amoral: Natural Science has no moral dimension. The consequences of
unrestricted Scientific interference in the environment and in human life
are rightly questioned, and often provoke an irrational anti-Science reaction.
Astronomy versus Astrology could be seen a phoney war because the real
battle lines should perhaps be elsewhere!
Astrology Revived
In the same period as the new Scientific discoveries were undermining
the pre-Copernican assumptions of Astronomy, innovations such as printing
had been propagating Astrology, previously available to the privileged
classes, to a wider public. During the Enlightenment Judicial Astrology
had fallen out of fashion among the intelligentsia, but it survived in
the popular Almanacs(13). Hitching onto the burgeoning Theosophical movement
at the beginning of the twentieth century, Alan Leo attempted to invigorate
interest in Astrology, founding, in 1915, our Astrological Lodge.
Public interest in Astrology really revived in 1930 with an item in the
Sunday Express on the horoscope of Princess Margaret: this was soon followed
by the first newspaper Astrology columns. Instead of making a judgement
on the positions of all the planets at the moment of birth, these so-called
'horoscopes' make the same prediction for everyone sharing just one Astrological
factor - the Zodiacal Sun-sign - this being the only traditional factor
it is possible to know automatically from the birthday. (An emphasis on
zodiacal signs arguably continues the over-simplification of Astrology
begun by Alan Leo in the cause of popularisation. Much of the tradition
has been neglected, for example the 'Joys' of the Planets in houses, very
different from their dignities in the normally associated zodiacal signs.)
A few decades ago most 'real' Astrologers tended to distance themselves
from the Sun-sign columns of the newspapers. Nowadays many of these columns
are written by serious Astrologers (including friends of this Lodge.)
A well-written column may help to promote a deeper Astrology; also it
may be the only feature catering for the metaphysical needs of the general
populous in a post-religious and materialistic age. Serious Astrologers
may tend to be better educated than the masses, however newspaper Astrology
does have a dubious role. If 'dumbing down' is seen as a problem, Sun-signs
can be seen as part of the 'dumbing down.' Along with an emphasis on Sun-signs
has been the media policy to view Astrology solely or principally as entertainment:
a perception which can deter the intelligent from bothering to investigate
what Astrology is really about.
When Scientists do bother to look into Astrology, the newspaper 'horoscopes'
are often the only Astrology they have heard of, and Statistical surveys
almost always only consider the annual cycle.
An exception was in 1955, when Michel Gauquelin(14), Astrologer turned
Statistician, set out to prove or disprove Astrology Scientifically. Using
sets of birth data of Frenchmen prominent in various fields of achievement,
he found that none of the traditional Astrological indicators, such as
zodiacal signs, deviated significantly from chance expectation. Then he
investigated the positions of planets in the diurnal circle: their apparent
path (caused by the Earth's rotation) from Nadir, to rising on the Ascendant
through culmination and then setting. He found in his sample of sports
champions that the planet Mars occurred in the sector just past ascension
(just above the horizon) or the sector just past culmination (the highest
position in the sky), significantly more often than could be explained
by chance. He then extended this research to other professions.
Did his results confirm traditional Astrology? Yes, insofar as the planets
found to be effective their traditional meanings do match the occupations:
Mars in Sports personalities and Soldiers, sober Saturn for Scientists,
expansive Jupiter for actors, reflective Moon for creative writers. But
no, not all traditional planets were found to have an effect, traditional
tools such as signs and aspects failed to score, and most importantly,
the positions in the diurnal circle found to be sensitive in Gauquelin's
research immediately clockwise of the traditional angles of the horoscope
chart, corresponded to the cadent houses, traditionally areas of the horoscope
in which many of these planets would be weak.
Another problem was that these effects seemed strong only in the charts
of those who were most eminent in their fields. An important criterion
for Scientific research is replication, and Gauquelin succeeded
in replicating his results with samples from other European countries
where the time of birth is recorded. However when the sceptical organisation
CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal)
attempted to replicate his work using American Sports personalities the
Mars effect only scored at chance level. In an atmosphere of mutual recrimination
it was pointed out that if a subset of the most eminent champions was
separated out, the Mars effect, no longer diluted by the lesser athletes
CSICOP had used to bulk out their sample, would reappear, reproducing
the findings for European sportspersons(15). We may have to wait another
generation to find a clean sample of really top champions large enough
to replicate the work to everyone's satisfaction.
Which must not ignore Gauquelin's other findings, which used the birth
data of 'ordinary' people. Firstly, comparing charts of parents and children,
he found that if a parent was born with a planet(16) in a Gauquelin sector,
their child was significantly likely to be born with the same planet indicated,
a result fitting the statistical laws of heredity. (Practising Astrologers
are well aware of the inheritance of configurations.) Secondly this effect
was strongest in samples of natural births: induced births or births compromised
by other medical intervention scored only at chance(17). The implication
is that the foetus is sensitive to the planets and elects its own birth
time - inheriting the planet it tends to use as trigger.
My own fascination with the stars, from childhood, embraced Astronomy,
Space travel and Science fiction, but did not extend to Astrology until
I learnt there was more to it than the self-evident nonsense of the newspaper
Sun-sign columns.
I am in favour of Science when it seeks universal laws to explain a variety
of phenomena as simply as possible. I am critical of Science when it deliberately
ignores phenomena which do not fit its existing theories. The Scientific
attitude to Astrological research is often comparable to that of the theocrats
who refused to look through Galileo's telescope.
However in the 1950s John H Nelson had noticed that the heliocentric
position of the innermost planets and the heaviest planets seemed to modify
the sunspot cycle and its effect on radio interference. Also Dr Frank
A Brown discovered that oysters in closed tanks were sensitive to the
movement of the moon, opening in anticipation of a tide even when relocated
far inland(18). In 1960 Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island NY hosted the
first international conference on the subject of Biological Rhythms(19);
in 1972 Dr Arnold Lieber, a resident psychiatrist in a Miami hospital,
had a research project sanctioned to study correlations between behavioural
disturbances (homicides, suicides, traffic accidents) and the Lunar phase(20).
Continued >>>
Writers' Guidelines | Archives
| Articles | Book
Reviews |
