Is Astrology a Religion?

Oddity said:

Astrology isn't technically a religion; it's one of the hermetic arts along with magic and alchemy.

Astrological magic will get you pretty close to there, though, even books like Picatrix written by those good Muslims will tell you about the angels and plantetary intelligences and how to contact them.

Click to expand...

Contacting a planetary intelligence... Do they assign "energetic beings" to planets then? And then ..since it's magic, try use this intelligence, as it were, to shape their destiny?

Doesn't bare bones astrology do the same thing? I don't see why they would need magic. If it's not promised to them in this life, via their chart, well end of story, no?

No, it doesn't except that electional astrology comes pretty close, picking the best time to embark upon a project. That might be considered a form of magic.

A common example would be if you wanted love in your life, but Venus is a mess in your chart. You probably don't want to create a talisman for Venus. because you and Venus don't have the best relationship. But there are other things you can do, like creating and consecrating a talisman for a fixed star or lunar mansion that would help you to attract love. This does require some work, and you'd need to do it at an astrologically auspicious time. So that's a matter of astrological election as well.

For a bad planet, it might be somewhat repaired by doing planetary charity. Your moon *****. So you work at a women's shelter on Mondays, or during moon hours, or give money to women or to organisations that help women at those times.

Or say that a planet is in good shape in your chart, and you need some of its power to be more focussed because you're working on a specific goal. You could create a talisman for that (again, at an auspicious time) to help you.

Making and consecrating talismans, as well as keeping that connection open can be a fairly involved process, is, if you're doing it right. It won't take up your whole life, but it does involve offerings of incense, candles, meditation, and perhaps other things during the appropriate planetary periods. The idea being to bring you into a good contact with the spirit (energy if you prefer) that the planet represents.

This bears no resemblance to the mail-order, mass-produced, back-of-the-magazine adverts announcing 'hey you're under a curse buy this to break it' type of charm!

If you're not good at electional, you'd go to an astrologer who is, and who is versed in astrological magic so they can show you how to proceed. But you'd still need to do the consecrations, offerings, and meditations to get and keep that channel open between you and the spirit/energy of the planet.

In my experience, it's a pretty powerful form of magic. It doesn't always act in extraordinary ways, but it certainly can do - I've experienced that myself.

If it reminds you of Jyotish remedies, well, you're not too far off.

Even though astrological hermetica was carefully kept in different books, astrologers of the past knew about this stuff. I have often wondered if it is the missing key to the astrology we practise today. I do think there's a place for astrologers to prescribe astrological remedies in today's world. It may be a bit out there for some folks, but for a lot of people, it can be quite helpful.

ETA: Talismans need not be expensive objects. Hey, if you're a goldsmith and you can afford gold and gemstones - go for it! If not, sigils scratched into a wax talisman that's then annointed with the proper oil/incense and wrapped in a bit of silk in the corresponding planetary colour work, too! For that matter, you could do talismans on paper if pressed.

Star-worship, roundly condemned in the Old Testament, was practiced back in the days when people thought the planets literally were gods, or were under the special direction of gods.

Few astrologers think this way today.

I think it's a good idea not to turn astrology into some kind of fetish. Yes, there are planets out there, but the astrological planets are inside of each of us, not somehow "out there." So many people externalize astrology when the place to look is deeply within.

Sometimes the conscious act of making and consecrating an object is simply an aid to that kind of introspection. But there is a danger in assuming that the object somehow has power apart from the beliefs that its maker invests in it.

The reason why the OT scoffs at star- and idol-worshippers is that investing power in stars and idols is simply misplaced. Rather, place one's faith in the creative divine consciousness variously known as God, All-That-Is, Brahman, and other names.

Oddity wrote:

For a bad planet, it might be somewhat repaired by doing planetary charity. Your moon *****. So you work at a women's shelter on Mondays, or during moon hours, or give money to women or to organisations that help women at those times.

Click to expand...

This makes a tremendous amount of sense. In modern astrology, this would be the variant known as choice-centered astrology. We can all find empowering interpretations of troublesome planetary placements, and then seek to incorporate the more constructive meanings into our everyday lives. Ideally, this will be a way that benefits other people.

rahu said:

establishment science is a fraud. ...

rahu

Click to expand...

Rahu, if this is what you believe, then isn't it hypocritical to use so much "establishment science" in your daily life? If you take medication, eat food produced by farmers, wear synthetic fibers, drive a car or take mass transit.... and use a computer to type your messages on this forum, you rely on "establishment science."

But conspiracy theorists love to think that Big Science suppresses their favourite conspiracy theory, generally ignoring that establishment science is fragmented across a wide range of nations, none of whom has any particular allegiance to NASA, American academics, and other favourite demonic powers. It's one thing to believe that ancient texts have something to say about celestial mechanics or ancient astronomical concerns. It's another to re-write the laws of physics and to mis-translate or spin ancient texts to get one's pet theory to fit.

Don't get me wrong, Rahu. I think it's great that Velikovsky provides you with a lot of mental stimulation. But at the very least, it is fair and honest for us to acknowledge that his views are not supported either by physics or by his interpretations of mythology. We can't just write off the laws of physics as the fraud of establishment science. We can't claim that scholars of ancient languages are scientists.

--Nice term, "Establishment Science"! Since it took form against the backdrop religious institutions, it has some religious undertones, so: "Orthodox Science" fits it as well. And, it's about half and half--both real and fraudulent. Both honest research based on the Scientific Method and con artistry as well. And an honest Scientist's attitude is, "this is what is known so far; we'll learn more later". The frauds claim infallibility they don't have, to gain money, prestige, and power over our lives. There are charlatans in every field of knowledge, and Establishment Science is no exception. The question in this case is, which type of Scientist is in control of the Scientific agenda; is it about more knowledge, or more power at any price?

david starling said:

--Nice term, "Establishment Science"! Since it took form against the backdrop religious institutions, it has some religious undertones, so: "Orthodox Science" fits it as well. And, it's about half and half--both real and fraudulent. Both honest research based on the Scientific Method and con artistry as well. And an honest Scientist's attitude is, "this is what is known so far; we'll learn more later". The frauds claim infallibility they don't have, to gain money, prestige, and power over our lives. There are charlatans in every field of knowledge, and Establishment Science is no exception. The question in this case is, which type of Scientist is in control of the Scientific agenda; is it about more knowledge, or more power at any price?

Click to expand...

So David, if this is what you believe, what exactly is your scientific education? What is your impression of scientists trying to stem global climate change or species extinctions, and trying to cure cancer? I knew many scientists personally during my working career, and none of them wanted an iota of control over your life, believe me.

Generally the people who think science is some kind of fraud, masterminded by the cartoon character Evil Scientist, have no science education since high school. They have no idea of how science today actually works in research or as a collection of human beings who do science.

You typed your message on an electronic device, and sent it out over the Internet. Thank a scientist.

Engineering background; dropped out rather than serve the MIGC (Military/Industrial/Governmental/Complex. Every working engineer I knew ended up there, mostly because of the money and security. Thank scientists for Agent Orange, Hellfire rockets fired from computer guided drones, and Fukushima, fracking, and mountaintop removal to mine coal--as well as for the good stuff. The question is, which scientific agenda has the greatest priority: Making a better world for all of its inhabitants (flora and fauna included); or achieving domination and control at any price. It's about half and half. If I were just starting out now, I might have a better chance at being the kind of engineer I wanted to be then, and I encourage anyone who thinks they can make the world a better place through science to try; just so they know what they're up against.

waybread said:

So David, if this is what you believe, what exactly is your scientific education?
What is your impression of scientists trying to stem global climate change or species extinctions, and trying to cure cancer?
I knew many scientists personally during my working career,
and none of them wanted an iota of control over your life, believe me.

Generally the people who think science is some kind of fraud, masterminded by the cartoon character Evil Scientist,
have no science education since high school.
They have no idea of how science today actually works in research
or as a collection of human beings who do science.

You typed your message on an electronic device,
and sent it out over the Internet.

Thank a scientist.

Click to expand...

Scientists need to consider thanking those non-scientists who build their 'electronic device'


also
'electronic devices' are increasingly miniaturised
and so necessarily partially built by robots
before being checked and completed by factory workers
then stored somewhere, transported, bought, sold by non-scientists
on whom scientists are dependent

waybread said:

So David, if this is what you believe, what exactly is your scientific education? What is your impression of scientists trying to stem global climate change or species extinctions, and trying to cure cancer? I knew many scientists personally during my working career, and none of them wanted an iota of control over your life, believe me.

Generally the people who think science is some kind of fraud, masterminded by the cartoon character Evil Scientist, have no science education since high school. They have no idea of how science today actually works in research or as a collection of human beings who do science.

You typed your message on an electronic device, and sent it out over the Internet. Thank a scientist.

Click to expand...

your cheer leader support of science betrays the fact you don't know what you are talking about.
the archetype of the Evil scientist first appeared n the 20's In comic books. the evil scientist was modeled after nickolai tesla and in the first editions ,this evil scientist was identified as tesla. if you know who tesla was ,then you would know he was for world peace and a advocate of supplying the people of the world with free energy.

historically science has only been used to create better weapons of war and/or make the rich richer.
aristole designed weapons of war and alexander the great could have not conquered the world had he not sat at the feet of Aristotle and learned these idea. galileo, da Vinci , they were all commissiondr for purposes of war in-between their artistic endeavors. Einstein only became a popular hero after he advised Roosevelt to make an atomic bomb.... he offered this advised before the ww11 even started.

I suggest you read Robert laughlins book a different universe. he was awarded a nobel prize and in this book he describes a few of the "frauds " that science perpetrates to this day.


rahu

Actually I know what I am talking about.

I have a M. S. degree. I worked around and socialized with scientists for 30 years, not counting my education; and was married to a scientist for 20 years. My late brother was an engineer, my brother-in-law is a retired engineer, my husband's late father was an engineer. A dear friend of mind is a retired aquatic biologist. None of these people were involved in the military-industrial complex. As a boomer, I am familiar with the problems of Agent Orange, and we had a tenant who was affected by it. I lost classmates to the war in Vietnam.

50/50 is way off base.

David, how long ago was your engineering program?

What I don't share with you guys is a kind of frisson at conspiracy theories, notably ones that blame an evil group In Control Of Our Destinies re: whatever upsets you.

But here's my challenge to you. Phone up the chair (undergrad advisor, faculty member, or grad student) at the science department of your choice (physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, meteorology.....) at your closest university, and just offer to meet that scientist for coffee. Talk to her about the work s/he actually does, and the research that takes place at her/his lab or field area. Inquire about the big issues in science today.

Then let's talk.

Not a conspiracy theorist, nor am I vehemently anti-science. But it is naive to assume that much, much money and manpower is not being funnelled into the development of weaponry and other highly questionable technologies.

That doesn't mean that all science is bad, but you can't pretend this isn't happening.

Waybread, I was referring to the impact on the world, not the people working and teaching in the fields of science. During the Vietnam War, some people were so frightened by "the Red Menace" they thought the ends justified the means; now it's the "Terrorist Threat". I'm sure those working for Monsanto have been convinced they're doing good work in the area of GMOs, and some universities have had their science departments co-opted by ruthless power-hungry corporations. I don't believe there's an over-arching, masterminded Conspiracy. It's greed, stupidity, corruption, arrogance, and blind obedience to authority which is perverting the course of Modern Science.

Oddity said:

Not a conspiracy theorist, nor am I vehemently anti-science. But it is naive to assume that much, much money and manpower is not being funnelled into the development of weaponry and other highly questionable technologies.

That doesn't mean that all science is bad, but you can't pretend this isn't happening.

Click to expand...

Where did I post that I believe this isn't happening?

Honestly, Oddity. Your slippery slopes http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html are getting very tiring.

david starling said:

Waybread, I was referring to the impact on the world, not the people working and teaching in the fields of science. During the Vietnam War, some people were so frightened by "the Red Menace" they thought the ends justified the means; now it's the "Terrorist Threat". I'm sure those working for Monsanto have been convinced they're doing good work in the area of GMOs, and some universities have had their science departments co-opted by ruthless power-hungry corporations.

Click to expand...

In the field of agronomy, there are some conflicts of interest. The ag program at the University of Guelph (one of Canada's major agricultural colleges) was called into question for its ties with industry. Maybe you are familiar with other cases.

Maybe you are also familiar with the Union of Concerned Scientists, Engineers Without Borders, and "ENGOs" like the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_organizations

I also have to note that a lot of the science research that takes place in universities is called "curiosity-driven," meaning that it is not applied, let alone commercialized, but is directed towards finding out how natural and physical systems function.

waybread said:

In the field of agronomy, there are some conflicts of interest.

Click to expand...

Quite

waybread said:

The ag program at the University of Guelph (one of Canada's major agricultural colleges)
was called into question for its ties with industry.
Maybe you are familiar with other cases.

Click to expand...

ANOTHER CASE OF AGRONOMY AND CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST

the following 98 word QUOTE is well within forum rules

'.....Consider the Honey Bees anticipated replacement, RoboBee
whose frankenbee parents Monsanto and DARPA
are inspired by real-life honey and bumble bees currently plummeting toward extinction.
RoboBee mechanical bee is in design stage at Micro-Robotics Lab, Harvard University
Publicists state: "But we have nothing to do with colony collapse,
and we're sorry that the Honey Bee is dying..."
Nevertheless RoboBee project's top goal is to achieve mechanical pollination.
Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, et al,
those Big Ag companies whose agricultural chemicals are driving the honey bee's die-off
are waiting in the wings with their money-spinner robot bee pesticide-proof pollinator....'


THE PROMISED LAND OF THE ROBOBEE - MONSANTO AND DARPA http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reverend-billy/the-promised-land-of-the-_b_5441190.html

waybread said:

Maybe you are also familiar with the Union of Concerned Scientists, Engineers Without Borders, and "ENGOs" like the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_organizations

I also have to note that a lot of the science research that takes place in universities is called "curiosity-driven,"
meaning that it is not applied, let alone commercialized,
but is directed towards finding out how natural and physical systems function.

Click to expand...

Note also that current research at Harvard MicroRobotics Lab on the Robobee
may well be "curiosity-driven"
however
the intent on the part of Monsanto et al is clearly commercial application

I have been very active in the local food movement where I live; and trust me-- Monsanto here is equated to the Evil Empire. One of our neighbours who grew organics had a sign in the driveway saying, "No Mr. Monsanto: you do not own this land!" Please don't get me started on Roundup or "Terminator" seeds. A local organic dairy is highly concerned about the potential of GMO alfalfa contaminating its organic cattle feed.

And let's also not forget the role of government approval agencies for new products. Their bosses come up for periodic re-election by the public, in case nobody's noticed.

Let's at least be balanced about this. There is no uniformity amongst scientists. They don't all march to the same drummer. Some work for Monsanto. Others actively criticize Monsanto and promote more environmentally sustainable solutions to honey bee colony collapse and other Big Agribusiness problems.

What saddens me on forums like this one is the knee jerk reactions against scientists and science in general. Most of the reactors appear to be people with no serious science background, who fail to acknowledge their own role as consumers of ecologically harmful products. If you buy mass-produced monoculture-raised food crops from California at your local supermarket, point the finger at yourself. You're driving the problem of colony collapse. Buy organics and non-GMO foods. If they're more expensive, you'll at least put your money where your mouth is.

The science-haters really haven't a clue about science or scientists today.

And no, the science of yesteryear is not the science of today. Incidentally the earliest "mad science" stereotype was not based on Tesla. Mary Shelley's first edition of Frankenstein came out in 1818, and the myth of Dr. Faust (who sold his soul to the devil in exchange for genius) goes back to the Middle Ages.

I personally knew scientists who were doing the basic research to measure (and thus hopefully countering) global climate change and destruction of coral reefs. Others were involved in wetland restoration and water quality enhancement. One engineer was studying aircraft safety, another was looking at the safety of the highway infrastructure. Another was engaged in work to help lame people walk better. Most were engaged simply in the "curiosity-driven" fundamental research of finding out how different systems work.

And let's be honest. "Evil scientists"? Compared to what or whom? Jesus? Show me professions characterized by their utmost attention to integrity. The clergy? Used car salesmen? Bogus astrologers have the capacity to harm vulnerable people. A recent major scam involved an astrologer promising incredible help for people-- for fees well beyond the norm. She then gave them worthless readings that appear to have been computer-generated.

The problems of evil-doers have been noted since ancient times, long prior to the emergence of modern science. (Read Ecclesiastes.) It's not like the US military-industrial complex is unusual in this. But it's easier to blame them, than all of the voters who put the hawks into office.

From the Department of Reality Checks, W.

rahu said:

your cheer leader support of science betrays the fact you don't know what you are talking about.
the archetype of the Evil scientist first appeared n the 20's In comic books. the evil scientist was modeled after nickolai tesla and in the first editions ,this evil scientist was identified as tesla. if you know who tesla was ,then you would know he was for world peace and a advocate of supplying the people of the world with free energy.

historically science has only been used to create better weapons of war and/or make the rich richer.
aristole designed weapons of war and alexander the great could have not conquered the world had he not sat at the feet of Aristotle and learned these idea. galileo, da Vinci , they were all commissiondr for purposes of war in-between their artistic endeavors. Einstein only became a popular hero after he advised Roosevelt to make an atomic bomb.... he offered this advised before the ww11 even started.

I suggest you read Robert laughlins book a different universe. he was awarded a nobel prize and in this book he describes a few of the "frauds " that science perpetrates to this day.


rahu

Click to expand...

But this has nothing to do with science itself.

Science is merely the study of our natural laws, using the approach of testing different hypothesis based on evidence to understand how our world works, and through research see how we can modify it.

The fact that a portion of human beings choose to use this knowledge and its derived tools to kill each other, has nothing to do with what science really is.

Violence has been the economic drive of.... every living organism in the world, given that the biological priority of any entity is to kill and survive. So yeah, maybe a lot of the scientific research is oriented towards war and weapon manufacture, but thats just how life is.

I'm not saying it is a good thing, its just how the world works.

Many of our "good" scientific achievements have come from that. Mainly in the areas of medicine and communication

Dirius said:

But this has nothing to do with science itself.

Science is merely the study of our natural laws, using the approach of testing different hypothesis based on evidence to understand how our world works, and through research see how we can modify it.

The fact that a portion of human beings choose to use this knowledge and its derived tools to kill each other, has nothing to do with what science really is.

Violence has been the economic drive of.... every living organism in the world, given that the biological priority of any entity is to kill and survive. So yeah, maybe a lot of the scientific research is oriented towards war and weapon manufacture, but thats just how life is.

I'm not saying it is a good thing, its just how the world works.

Many of our "good" scientific achievements have come from that. Mainly in the areas of medicine and communication

Click to expand...

since the beginning of the enlightment, science has replaced the concept of god in our consciousness. but as rational creature we reject that observation. But it is true as now a days when problems arise, everyone says "oh science will fix it" rather that god will fix in the times before the enlighten mine.
what you think the potential of science is ,is immaterial ,the fact is science has always been used for war and profits. we as I culture are programmed to believe democracy, science and justice are all synonymous. but this is just cultural propaganda.
look around you, fukishima has killed the north pacific and in a few years the entire pacific will be sterile. the problem with nuclear energy were pointed out in the very beginning, but scientists said" science will find a way to fix that".but science has not.

you should read a different universe as it gives example of the little lies that "science " covers up to keep the populous believing in science's omnipotent power for good.

rahu

Dirius said:

But this has nothing to do with science itself.

Science is merely the study of our natural laws, using the approach of testing different hypothesis based on evidence to understand how our world works, and through research see how we can modify it.

The fact that a portion of human beings choose to use this knowledge and its derived tools to kill each other, has nothing to do with what science really is.

Violence has been the economic drive of.... every living organism in the world, given that the biological priority of any entity is to kill and survive. So yeah, maybe a lot of the scientific research is oriented towards war and weapon manufacture, but thats just how life is.

I'm not saying it is a good thing, its just how the world works.

Many of our "good" scientific achievements have come from that. Mainly in the areas of medicine and communication

Click to expand...

Yay, Dirius! I totally agree with what you wrote.

(I know, I know-- shocking, isn't it?)

rahu said:

since the beginning of the enlightment, science has replaced the concept of god in our consciousness. but as rational creature we reject that observation. But it is true as now a days when problems arise, everyone says "oh science will fix it" rather that god will fix in the times before the enlighten mine.
what you think the potential of science is ,is immaterial ,the fact is science has always been used for war and profits. we as I culture are programmed to believe democracy, science and justice are all synonymous. but this is just cultural propaganda.
look around you, fukishima has killed the north pacific and in a few years the entire pacific will be sterile. the problem with nuclear energy were pointed out in the very beginning, but scientists said" science will find a way to fix that".but science has not.

you should read a different universe as it gives example of the little lies that "science " covers up to keep the populous believing in science's omnipotent power for good.

rahu

Click to expand...

Rahu, nobody denies instances of Science Gone Bad, but what you have here is a straw man debate fallacy. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Are you aware of scientists opposed to nuclear power, from its very inception? Or the admissions of some of its early proponents? Apparently not. In your universe, a monolithic science was in total agreement about its unqualified benefits. But this simply isn't the case. Apparently you are also unaware of the efforts of geoscientists to do a better job of forecasting tsunamis.

Science as it is practiced is a highly diverse field, engaging millions of scientists, technicians, and students globally. It covers all kinds of disciplines, literally from A (astronomy) to Z (zoology.)

Science never replaced the concept of God in modern society. This is called "scientism," incidentally. The US is still an extraordinarily religious country, compared to Europe or China. When I was working, it wasn't at all unusual at my employer to find religious scientists from the world's major religion.

Further, societies were plenty violent prior to the rise of science in the 18th century. Check out the 30 Years and Hundred Years Wars in Europe, the Roman invasions of their peaceful neighbours, and subsequent Teutonic conquests. You cannot blame science for war. Gunpowder, steel, and other weapons of war were developed prior to the Enlightenment.

Please cite your source on the entire Pacific ocean becoming sterile from the Fukashima nuclear disaster. I doubt that it was written by anyone who truly understood the marine science behind such a claim.