Is Astrology a Religion?

Oddity

Well-known member
Waybread, is religion real, or just a comforting fantasy, in your own opinion? I'm not certain about that, myself.

I guess it depends on your definition of religion. Buddhism is generally considered a religion, but requires no belief in deities. Judaism requires no belief in God (which may sound a little weird, because many Jews do believe in God, but you don't have to), a lot of pagans these days seem to be called to practise rites of some sort but don't believe in a god or gods.

And, hey, there are even star-worshippers. But again, study of astrology is one thing. Worship of stars is something else. Even in hermeticism, the practise of astrology and magic and alchemy are hermetic arts, and knowledge of them is considered important to be able to know God (the One, there's a lot of neoplatonism in hermeticism), but that wasn't about star-worship either.

Ironically, though Waybread notes that Ptolemy was attempting to put astrology on a more scientific footing, at the beginning of his Almagest he says one of the reasons to study the stars is to become divine - like they are.

Religion is definitely a real thing in the world, and I'm sure for some folks it's a comforting fantasy, too, and lots of other things, but it's more complicated than that.
 

waybread

Well-known member
universities are not populated by infallible gods or god-like beings :smile:
who must be worshipped without question
and/or held in awe due to their allegedly somehow superior status
ironically comparable to that of Church/Pope et al in ages past

on the contrary
'academics'/universities are not substitutes for awe-inspiring gods/goddesses

the theories and assumptions of academics/universities are frequently proven mistaken

Individuals conducting their own private research
have produced results that directly challenge Establishment mindset/perspective of “official science/universities”


for example:

Wayne Herschel in THE HIDDEN RECORDS deciphered the Clavicula Salomonis
or Solomon Key manuscript in the British Library.


Ancient knowledge discovered in pyramid star maps in Egypt and Tikal
matches monument layout patterns found at Stonehenge
and sites all around the world
and on Mars.

The original earliest evidence for 'the Lost symbol of Ra'.
Dan Brown dropped the story in The Lost Symbol novel and changed the title.


PART 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEPom...eature=related

PART 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7MR6...eature=related

The deciphered Key of Solomon parchment
leads to two more star maps
the Vatican city
and
Washington DC city layout patterns
outline another star system of the 'gods' near the Pleiades
who Wayne Herschel opines are our human ancestors

thus challenging human origin theory
as well as the foundations of all religions.
Wayne Herschel online
http://www.thehiddenrecords.com


Did anyone suggest that universities are populated by God-like beings to be worshipped? :andy: Heaven help us. Where did this notion come from????

Some academics have big heads, but this is true in any field of endeavour. Academics tend to be highly educated by virtue of their job requirements, but they are as prone to normal human foibles as any other group. Most get into an academic career because of their love of research and/or teaching. Not because of some sort of expectation of God-like authority, for Pete's sake!!!! Regular faculty are subject to teaching evaluations by students, and these become part of their annual performance evaluations. When academics submit an article for double-blind peer reviewed scholarly publications, it won't get published if the referees point out serious flaws in the study. Academics often cut one another down to size, whether due to scholarly disputes or simple personal dislike. I could name further institutional checks on runaway egos, but you get the picture.

People known as "independent scholars" have long made serious contributions to knowledge. I would put in this category someone like astrologer Benjamin Dykes, who has translated a lot of astrology texts. Back in the 19th century, Charles Darwin worked from home and never held an academic appointment. Today, it depends upon the field.

It's hard to be an independent biochemist or molecular biologist, for example, because the average person can't just do this work in her basement the way Frankenstein could. Lab equipment is incredibly expensive. A typical well equipped lab today would cost a few hundred thousand dollars. Moreover, scientific research today is typically done in teams, not by the lone scientist at home.

Of course, a lot of science and social science research is conducted in government agencies and corporate research labs.

Moreover, a danger of independent scholarship in today's Internet era, is that some independents attempt to sidestep the rigorous peer review process and public debate to which academic research is routinely subjected. This isn't true of all independent scholars by any means (notably in fields with far more applicants than job openings, where many highly qualified applicants can't get hired,) but sometimes scholars cannot get hired because their research just wasn't that exceptional. Once they are out of the loop for 8 or so years, it is hard to get back in because they haven't amassed the c.v.

Even with a field like translation and editing a critical edition of an astrology text, the scholar may still need to travel to archives because scarce and fragile manuscripts cannot just be checked out of the library, and all this costs money.

One thing about "mistaken" academics, however: knowledge is a cumulative process. It is also often subjected to the criterion of duplicability. Theories are based upon the "best fit" with the available data. When more or different data become available, then the theory may have to be modified or even replaced to explain the new data. Continental drift is one classic example: It was talked about for decades, yet its acceptance had to await more advanced knowledge of plate tectonics.

A classic source on the problem of knowledge accumulation in science was Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/

Or sometimes a team of scientists will publish a finding, together with the mandatory methodology section of the scholarly article. If the topic is sufficiently intriguing and novel, other scientists will probably try to replicate the findings. If they can't, then the initial article is seriously called into question.

So it's a bit odd to say that "academics are often wrong," without understanding the process through which knowledge gets incorporated, tested, and sometimes replaced.

But I will tell you where both academics and independent scholars "are often wrong." It is on topics where, although they may have a strong background in one discipline, they purport to dispense wisdom about another field in which their background is inadequate.

Academics don't criticize fringe theorists like Velikovsky, von Däniken, or Stichin because they aren't or weren't In With The (Academic) In-Crowd. Academics criticize them because their work doesn't stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

There is a credible field called archaeoastronomy. If Herschel's work can stand up to scrutiny from experts in this field, more power to him. I googled him and could find no biographical information or analysis of his work on line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoastronomy
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Waybread, is religion real, or just a comforting fantasy, in your own opinion? I'm not certain about that, myself.

David, I think it depends upon what you mean by "religion". There is no all-encompassing definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

In my personal belief system, I believe in God as the creative force of the cosmos. Humans have the capacity to draw near to this force and to align with it, or to live in ways antithetical to it. This isn't the same as believing in the God described by specific denominations' doctrines.

I think of God as genderless or as encompassing all genders. I have difficulty with a belief in a God who is somehow defined and thus constrained by human concepts of fatherhood, for example.

I think humans are hard-wired to believe in "comforting fantasies" of various sorts, some religious and some not. But sometimes religious "fantasies" point to deeper fundamentals.

I've read the entire Bible several times, and find comfort in some of it. I also think there is a lot of star lore embedded in it, but the OT pre-dates Hellenistic horoscopic astrology. The NT shows a preoccupation with the visible shift of the spring equinox from Aries ("Lamb of God") into Pisces (loaves and fishes, "fishers of men.") The visionary figures in the book of Revelation can pretty much all be traced to constellations (mostly non-zodiacal,) and it concludes with the "triumph of the lamb," which became our tropical zodiac.

So far as astrology goes, practitioners of all faiths and no faith have found it consistent with their beliefs at various times. Because in many ages past, members of the clergy were the only literate members of the population, it was natural that religious men who believed in astrology would describe it as consistent with their faith. William Lilly, in Christian Astrology, urged astrologers to pray in humility prior to reading a chart.

I think astrology goes best if we consider a horoscope to be like a blueprint or roadmap of the soul. (I don't always keep that spirit of sanctity about it, unfortunately.)

Sometimes religious opposition to astrology seems based upon ignorance of astrology. Sometimes the reasons seem theologically sound, even if I disagree with them. The catechism of the Catholic church, for example, prohibits astrology as tending to lead people away from faith in God. Arguably this could happen if people put more faith in astrological predictions than in God to get them through hard times.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member



Did anyone suggest that universities are populated by God-like beings to be worshipped?
:andy:


Heaven help us.

religion-invention-inventor-inventing-invents-cults-wmi110101_low.jpg


tumblr_m9ce7cYU3F1rdwwtko1_500.png



Where did this notion come from????

Some academics have big heads, but this is true in any field of endeavour. Academics tend to be highly educated by virtue of their job requirements, but they are as prone to normal human foibles as any other group. Most get into an academic career because of their love of research and/or teaching. Not because of some sort of expectation of God-like authority, for Pete's sake!!!! Regular faculty are subject to teaching evaluations by students, and these become part of their annual performance evaluations. When academics submit an article for double-blind peer reviewed scholarly publications, it won't get published if the referees point out serious flaws in the study. Academics often cut one another down to size, whether due to scholarly disputes or simple personal dislike. I could name further institutional checks on runaway egos, but you get the picture.

People known as "independent scholars" have long made serious contributions to knowledge. I would put in this category someone like astrologer Benjamin Dykes, who has translated a lot of astrology texts. Back in the 19th century, Charles Darwin worked from home and never held an academic appointment. Today, it depends upon the field.

It's hard to be an independent biochemist or molecular biologist, for example, because the average person can't just do this work in her basement the way Frankenstein could. Lab equipment is incredibly expensive. A typical well equipped lab today would cost a few hundred thousand dollars. Moreover, scientific research today is typically done in teams, not by the lone scientist at home.

Of course, a lot of science and social science research is conducted in government agencies and corporate research labs.

Moreover, a danger of independent scholarship in today's Internet era, is that some independents attempt to sidestep the rigorous peer review process and public debate to which academic research is routinely subjected. This isn't true of all independent scholars by any means (notably in fields with far more applicants than job openings, where many highly qualified applicants can't get hired,) but sometimes scholars cannot get hired because their research just wasn't that exceptional. Once they are out of the loop for 8 or so years, it is hard to get back in because they haven't amassed the c.v.

Even with a field like translation and editing a critical edition of an astrology text, the scholar may still need to travel to archives because scarce and fragile manuscripts cannot just be checked out of the library, and all this costs money.

One thing about "mistaken" academics, however: knowledge is a cumulative process. It is also often subjected to the criterion of duplicability. Theories are based upon the "best fit" with the available data. When more or different data become available, then the theory may have to be modified or even replaced to explain the new data. Continental drift is one classic example: It was talked about for decades, yet its acceptance had to await more advanced knowledge of plate tectonics.

A classic source on the problem of knowledge accumulation in science was Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/

Or sometimes a team of scientists will publish a finding, together with the mandatory methodology section of the scholarly article. If the topic is sufficiently intriguing and novel, other scientists will probably try to replicate the findings. If they can't, then the initial article is seriously called into question.

So it's a bit odd to say that "academics are often wrong," without understanding the process through which knowledge gets incorporated, tested, and sometimes replaced.

But I will tell you where both academics and independent scholars "are often wrong." It is on topics where, although they may have a strong background in one discipline, they purport to dispense wisdom about another field in which their background is inadequate.

Academics don't criticize fringe theorists like Velikovsky, von Däniken, or Stichin because they aren't or weren't In With The (Academic) In-Crowd. Academics criticize them because their work doesn't stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

There is a credible field called archaeoastronomy. If Herschel's work can stand up to scrutiny from experts in this field, more power to him. I googled him and could find no biographical information or analysis of his work on line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoastronomy
[deleted graphic with offensive words against Forum rules by request - Moderator]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I'm basically an agnostic, or so I thought.

My relationship with Astrology is intrinsically spiritual, so maybe I am religious after all!

Believing in invisible forces, "communing" with them through the ritual of drawing charts,
and being linked to the past through this ancient practice...and seeking its guidance;
councilling others on their life paths. Gods and goddesses aside!
If Astrology is a Religion, it's noncoercive, egalitarian and very loosely organized!
If Astrology is neither science nor religion :smile:
 

david starling

Well-known member
Scientist: We have to study this unfortunate occurence to make make sure it really happened.
[deleted offensive word against Forum rules - Moderator]
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Scientist: We have to study this to make make sure it really is happening.


Scientist: We have to study this or we won't get any funding :smile:

Religious: We have to study this or we risk h**l
[deleted offensive word against Forum rules - Moderator]

and yet

incorrecthomerquote.jpg


and worse than that

we could pick the wrong house system
 
Last edited by a moderator:

serafin5

Well-known member
religion? no
but it is definitely a science!

I have always considered Astrology both a science and an art, the art laying in the interpretation, of course. I personally do not "worship" astrology, but I admit to using it as a tool.

It's now feels like cheating, in a way, I don't know, but I'd rather live one day at a time now. For sure for me 2015 has been a HUGE shift.

Serafin5
 

david starling

Well-known member
Astrologers: What time did this unfortunate occurence happen?--We need to construct a chart for it.
[deleted offensive word against Forum rules - Moderator]
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
St. Peter to a new arrival in Heaven: Tiptoe past this section--they think they're the only ones up here. (This is in reference to any religious groups who seriously believe that the "unsaved" will be tormented in the afterlife or will be denied an afterlife altogether.)
 
Last edited:

melleoscorp

Account Closed
melleoscorp,

Nibiru was never an unusual planet. The Akkadian word more generally meant "crossing over." Astronomically it referred to a known planet (usually Jupiter) "crossing over" the intersection of the celestial equator and the ecliptic, not a Planet X beyond Pluto. (The idea that this planet is really out there, but NASA is trying to hide it is just another weird conspiracy theory. All of the major nations have their own departments and agencies of astronomers. If the Russian or British astronomers found a planet Nibiru, NASA could hardly prevent them from publishing their findings.)

We also have to be sceptical of claims of gods mating with women, which were common mythologically in ancient Greece and Rome, and primarily used as national origin myths, as a means of elevating the status of a particular ethnic group. The Romans were also great ones for attributing divine parentage to their emperors or heroes, and deifying their emperors.

Seriously, we can't take this stuff seriously.

https://earthsky.org/space/planet-nibiru-is-not-real

http://cdli.ucla.edu/files/publications/CDLB2015_003.pdf

I don't have the book anymore, this is just from memory.
According to Sitchin, Nibiru is not a planet, it's an orbit
Gods of Nibiru = gods that crossed the heavens and surveyed the solar system
When Marduk (one of these gods) " took for himself Station Nibiru"
He (Marduk) "crossed the heavens and surveyed the solar system"
Marduk is not yet discovered, or perhaps it has, only named quite differently e.g. Ap.Su = Sun, Kishar = Jupiter
There was a time when the Anunnaki had to flee Earth because of a catastrophe, not caused by collission with other planet. In over 400,000 yrs since first arrival, there is no record of Earth colliding with any planet in these tablets.
Sitchin also included Mesopotamian and Akkadian accounts that support his interpretation of the Ancient Sumerian tablets.

As in the mating.mixing genes, Since the ancients considered beings from other planets and star more superior than humans (because of the many abilities they had beyond humans in that time period). It's possible the mating or mixing genes, is not a myth. To the 'gods/goddesses' it's to establish a generation on Earth, for the humans it's to create more superior human. The women had to go through rigorous selection process, and some (probably most) did not survive either the mating or child delivery.
I find mating ritual/mixing genes is way too far, beyond worshipping, but to a true believer of star worship, it's probably a great honor. From my reading, this practice still continues today, in secrecy. I'll share book titles or author names if I come across them again.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
melleoscorp,

Nibiru was never an unusual planet. The Akkadian word more generally meant "crossing over."
Astronomically it referred to a known planet (usually Jupiter) "crossing over" the intersection of the celestial equator and the ecliptic, not a Planet X beyond Pluto.
(The idea that this planet is really out there, but NASA is trying to hide it is just another weird conspiracy theory.
All of the major nations have their own departments and agencies of astronomers.
If the Russian or British astronomers found a planet Nibiru, NASA could hardly prevent them from publishing their findings.)

We also have to be sceptical of claims of gods mating with women,
which were common mythologically in ancient Greece and Rome,
and primarily used as national origin myths,
as a means of elevating the status of a particular ethnic group.

The Romans were also great ones for attributing divine parentage to their emperors or heroes, and deifying their emperors.


Seriously, we can't take this stuff seriously.

https://earthsky.org/space/planet-nibiru-is-not-real

http://cdli.ucla.edu/files/publications/CDLB2015_003.pdf

Siriusly, researchers who worked for 13 years in the Human Genome Project believe that the so-called 97% of non-coding sequences in the human DNA
is nothing less than the genetic code of extraterrestrial life forms.
Originally referred to as “Junk DNA” Fesenkov Astrophysical Institute now believe our DNA is extraterrestrial in origin.
After extensive analysis by researchers in diverse fields inclluding mathematics, chemistry and programming,

“Our hypothesis is that a more advanced extraterrestrial civilization was engaged in creating new life and planting it on various planets.

Earth is just one of them
http://www.ancient-code.com/scientists-have-found-an-alien-code-in-our-dna-ancient-engineers/

What we see in our DNA is a program consisting of two versions, a giant structured code and a simple or basic code.”
The team of researchers believe for a fact that the first part of our DNA code was not written on Earth and according to them that is verifiable.
and scientists believe we were literally invented “outside of Earth” several billions of years ago :smile:
 

waybread

Well-known member
Siriusly, researchers who worked for 13 years in the Human Genome Project believe that the so-called 97% of non-coding sequences in the human DNA
is nothing less than the genetic code of extraterrestrial life forms.
Originally referred to as “Junk DNA” Fesenkov Astrophysical Institute now believe our DNA is extraterrestrial in origin.
After extensive analysis by researchers in diverse fields inclluding mathematics, chemistry and programming,

“Our hypothesis is that a more advanced extraterrestrial civilization was engaged in creating new life and planting it on various planets.

Earth is just one of them
http://www.ancient-code.com/scientists-have-found-an-alien-code-in-our-dna-ancient-engineers/

What we see in our DNA is a program consisting of two versions, a giant structured code and a simple or basic code.”
The team of researchers believe for a fact that the first part of our DNA code was not written on Earth and according to them that is verifiable.
and scientists believe we were literally invented “outside of Earth” several billions of years ago :smile:

JA, if you believe this about the Human Genome Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project, I have a bridge in New York to sell you. Few geneticists actually believe the ET hypothesis. There is some evidence that some of the chemical building-blocks of life (all life, not just human) had extra-terrestrial origins. But the ET hypothesis is still in a highly speculative state. While David is having coffee with a prof in his nearest physics department, you might wish to do the same with a professional geneticist.

You might also enjoy this 1993 Star Trek (TNG) program from the 6th season called "The Chase," which was an earlier iteration of the extra-terrestrial DNA idea.

And all of this is a very, very long way from the belief that ancient texts from the Near East somehow validate an astrobiology theory. For one thing, Homo sapiens is tens of thousands of years older as a species than chronologies derived from those text.

I opened and read the link you posted and could barely get past the soft-**** pop-ups and ads that came with it. This makes me wonder just which demographic actually reads the Ancient Code website, which clearly comes from an ET promotion perspective. I then googled Maxim Makukov. Here are some analyses of the Kazakhstan hypothesis by scientists who actually do understand the genetics, plus replies by Makukov:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/15/the-genetic-code-is-not-a-synonym-for-the-bible-code/

http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/04/intelligent-signal-embedded-in-our-genetic-code/ (from a sceptical website)

Apparently his research institute specializes in "astral biology" (exobiology, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology ) but as yet this field has turned up no conclusive evidence of extra-terrestrial life.

The Kazakhstan institute's "panspermia" theory was recently published in 2013 in Icarus, a respected academic journal at the interface between science and the humanities. An author-approved free on-line version is at: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.6739.pdf So far only one other author seems to have cited it, but there is a huge delay between a submission of a scholarly discussion or rebuttal and its subsequent publication date. It's early days.

But the kind of thing that gets me annoyed, is when the author claims that he knew his research would be criticized by more traditional geneticists, as though his saying so is actual evidence that the critics are somehow a bunch of close-minded bigots. If the ET work is robust, it will stand up to criticism. And some of the criticism so far suggests Makukov and his associates may have drawn unwarranted conclusions from the mathematics.

Moreover, if the authors thought that their work would attract criticisms, one would hope they could have been at greater pains to address the anticipated criticisms in the body of their publications.
 
Last edited:
Top