conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with what I said.
Is Astrology a Religion?
- Thread starter david starling
- Start date
I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with what I said.
There is only one true Zodiac!
Last edited:
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
Should common parlance be the level that this discussion takes place on? Isn't this a philosophical question?
What does the layperson truly know about the laws of physics that wouldn't make its acceptance as much faith-based as astrological principles? At the common parlance level, a shitload is taken on faith, despite what people would like to think in hubristic disdain of religious nutjobs.
What does the layperson truly know about the laws of physics that wouldn't make its acceptance as much faith-based as astrological principles? At the common parlance level, a shitload is taken on faith, despite what people would like to think in hubristic disdain of religious nutjobs.
david starling
Well-known member
david starling
Well-known member
Scientifically educated Atheists usually put astrology and religion in the same, "ancient-superstition" category, while accepting the "Laws of modern Physics" as being undeniably self-evident.
Richard Dawkins has criticized Gould's position on the grounds that religion is not divorced from scientific matters or the material world. He writes, "it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."[10] Gould's observation that "These two magisteria do not overlap..." does not consider the claims of many religions upon material reality, such as miracles or prayer. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
I side with Dawkins. What do you think?
Of course some things are more evident than others. But everything is based on some hope, as David Hume observed, for example the belief that the Sun will rise tomorrow. According to Buddhism, the answer to this problem of unsatisfaction (or as they call it suffering) is non-attachment.
david starling
Well-known member
Modern science is a materialistic substitute for religion, which places them both in the same philosophical category.
david starling
Well-known member
Does he think astrology works?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSCDfjTDVCk&feature=youtu.be&t=3248 - where I disagree with Dawkins is in the minute I linked. If religion or astrology, or any other superstition has biological or utilitarian function, then we should all partake in it, because truth is defined by value
No, he accepts the scientific evidence of double blind tests mostly back in the 80s, that it has no explanatory or predictive power. Of course you can make a test and prove him wrong.
david starling
Well-known member
The prerequisite would be a way to determine whether the chart-native is individualistic, also called "self-directed", or "other-directed". Also, of course, finding a truly unbiased party, willing to guarantee that the birthtimes are accurate, and that they are actually the real charts of the test subjects.
They had the NCGR agree for some of the tests, so yeah...
http://www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/phillintv.pdf - ex-astrologers explaining why they quit after scientific tests were done
david starling
Well-known member
I'd also suggest multiple-choice questions, rather than having nothing to go on, with only one answer correct, and enough choices to make it statistically significant.
david starling
Well-known member
Did they include Western sidereal along with Vedic and tropical chart-readers?
Nope, they had not tested traditional stuff either as far as I know, but CSICOP recently tested Indian astrologers - https://www.csicop.org/si/show/an_indian_test_of_indian_astrology
''Conclusion
Our experiment with twenty-seven Indian astrologers judging forty horoscopes each, and a team of astrologers judging 200 horoscopes, showed that none were able to tell bright children from mentally handicapped children better than chance. Our results contradict the claims of Indian astrologers and are consistent with the many tests of Western astrologers. In summary, our results are firmly against Indian astrology being considered as a science.7''
