What is the point of Astrology? If I had to know only one thing (or a few things) about Astrology, what would that be?
Well, that's the point. If you want to know about Astrology, there is much you have to at least know (not necessarily understand). But to give an actual answer, it would be "there is too much more to Astrology than just Signs."
So how do you
know it's real?
Okay, so none of this is meant to be taken literally? Are "planetary energy", "spiritual realms", "planes" some sort of poetic/philosophical terms? I mean, you don't actually believe that a chunk of rock hundreds of light years away has anything to do with the genetic formation of traits in an infant right?
Oh and you know those online horoscope apps on Facebook? Would you call them 'valid' sources of astrology? Just curious, I see people use the app everyday.
How does anyone of a particular faith know their religion is real? It's the same idea.
There is nothing physical or measurable about Astrology, so nothing in Astrology is "literal." Everything is subjective and up to the individual interpreter to interpret the chart (placements of the planets at a particular point in time.
The "Belief" is that that chunk of rock (or gas) has an energy not yet discovered or defined that affect the personality of the child born. Personalities are not learned, they are innate, and Astrology helps define and shed light on aspect of a person that are not understood or particularly difficult. (I'm not going to go into how it can predict the future or how events might play out because I have not studied such things).
The basic rule about Horoscopes is that if it's just talking about a sign, it's neither accurate nor necessarily true. That's all just hopeful ignorance of the subject.
A lot of them are full to the brim with
Barnum statements from what I've seen. It's quite easy to write something that's credible to the masses and will generally strike a chord with most people. With horoscopes for instance, seeing their birth month linked to a fortune for them makes them feel slightly more ownership of that particular horoscope.
I've never tried tarot readings, but again, it seems like something you look for a meaning for you personally from what was basically a randomised draw of cards. People can find meanings and guidance in these things, and if it helps them, that's fair enough. I just personally would not take anything too seriously when it comes to these things!
Well, that's kind of the point of basic Horoscopes (Horoscopes that are based off only signs), so that it has some kind of truth. I could said that it's purposefully crafted this way so the individual might do some more research on their own, but that's never the case. But it's also the way in which people get money and some "Astrologers" are in it for the money and take advantage of the gullibility of the masses. It's pretty much like someone charging people for counceling without having a license or degree and being able to get away with it legally. It's neither ethical or true. And this causes many people to become skeptical about an ancient "Science."
OK, so we both agree it's not grounded in any physical reality whatsoever?
Yes, we both agree on this. And anyone who has told you otherwise about Astrology would be wrong.
It's an "art" because it's not disprovable? I'd take a quick whack at the life choices of a fine arts major any other day, but even the most meaning-devoid abstract and modernist paintings and sculptures are physically manifest. I can
see them, and whatever interpretation gets thrown around by critics is based on that physical painting as well as experiences with others. At worst, you could only accuse a critic/fine artist of being deluded about questions of value. Multimillion paintings with two solid colors come to mind here, but there could be a whole other discussion about how/why/when an art has some value, monetary or intrinsic, as opposed to another. But, no, astrology isn't a fine art.
Of course it's disprovable. All scientific theories are disprovable, but just have not been disproven yet. Technically it's a "Science" because it takes theories that are backed by some kind of evidence (emotion/personality/hearsay/etc.) that is unreliable at best and manipulated/manipulative at worst. But because the particular practice of Astrology I'm speaking about (the "cause" for personality at the base level) is not learned or developed. It certainly can change the way in which it is expressed, but it doesn't change the "cause" (in my case, the planets).
Some arts aren't physical. Like Music is expressed on a sheet a paper, but the actual experience is audible. Astrology is expressed through the placements of planets, but that's meaningless unless there's someone to express it and put meaning into it. Someone can choose to place no meaning in music and they can certainly do that with Astrology, painting, sculpture, etc.
Like I said above, Astrology is a religious practice. It has no meaning if you don't share those religious beliefs. Communion, to me, hold no influence in my life because I am not Christian/Catholic. But that does not take away the fact that it holds meaning an importance to those it does. The same goes for Christianity vs. Judaism vs. Muslim. They are the same religion with a few (arguable one) differences (who's the Messiah?).
Of course, by art you might have meant more as a skillset. That would be worse, because if the astrological "art" is not disprovable, that is you can't tell the difference between a universe where it makes a statistically significant and correct amount of predictions, and one in which it doesn't compared to guesses and deductions, then it must be the most convoluted way to get really good at guessing games in the galaxy. But even that isn't my real gripe with astrology and other "psychic/spiritual art" just because we haven't made contact with any other intelligent lifeforms, so the human race can't embarrass itself yet.
Going with my above paragraph, it's very much a spiritual practice. If you don't have spiritual beliefs, then Astrology cannot be used or understood. It's the use of intuition and tapping into the collective unconscious of the world (a spiritual concept). But I was merely saying it was an "Art" because it's not a science in the way our culture believes science to be: a physical, observable reality. Astrology is an unobservable, spiritual reality. Unfortunately for the hyper-realistic, reality is subjective.
Oh, I love how people in general can just write off their ideas as Certified Skeptic-Proof™ like it's a six-sigma nuclear shelter against scrutiny. Even particle physics detections aren't that certain. And I don't have to study Harry Potter spells or even read the books to know that Harry Potter is fiction, because it is clear from the summary that it is unrealistic, and it is clear from the author that she has written fiction.
Astrology is Harry Potter with none of its authors ("practitioners") making it clear that its fiction, because they don't have the mind and integrity to call anything into question, because they won't apply the most reasonable baselines of scientific scrutiny (which isn't just for established sciences. In fact, you don't go far enough, an astrologer just saying they're "advanced" or an "expert" would make me laugh.)
It's unfair to compare Harry Potter to Astrology. Astrology has been practiced before the invention of Judaism. Harry Potter was written two decades ago. And I won't reiterate what I said before because I'm not going to let myself sound condescending because I like this debate. ^^
I'm pretty sure "non-astrology" is a perfectly valid opinion about "astrology." Otherwise, I must have been
really intrusive in all those discussions about God.
It absolutely is a valid option.
And I hope by "theologies" you meant "theories", because I remember saying...
And even just comparing science to religion gets me on a whole other ramble.
No, I meant "theologies" because of the above.
Which is what bothers me, whether it's used as a joke or not. It's like saying a Religion is wrong because it's not yours when you've never studied it before. It's writing off a theology with ignorance rather than attempting enlightenment and writing it off. I'm not saying I'm offended, it's just irritating. Everyone is free to believe what they wish, but insulting/degrading/condescending others with opposing beliefs/opinions is unethical and unfair. But this is straying from the topic at hand.
I mentioned what my gripe with astrology
wasn't. Now let me tell you what it
is.
So fine, you gain nothing from this discussion; I'm just another one of those angry skeptics for whatever reason astrology would predict I am. Life's good, and you spread the word of astrology because it is just an enlightening take on the mysteries of human personality.
Eventually, a young child, a blank canvas yearning for knowledge, comes across these ideas. She doesn't know any better; her elementary school teacher taught an incompetent excuse for science, but perhaps a class in middle school would have done the job. So she could have learned what science is about, and what skills of thought it entails. She could have gone to college to study psychology and neuroscience, and spent her time researching the human personality, while grounded with some standard of rigor. Could you imagine, thanks to her, we could have uncovered some sort of fundamental neurological theory that pertains to the personality? Something that could advance the fundamental question of why or how a "persona" emerges from those ensembles of orchestrated neurons, and is also the effort of decades of sound research on the brain? A whole new garden of questions and answers to advance knowledge in neuroscience, and doubtlessly advance the authenticity of psychology?
But no, instead, an astrologer, or a psychic, or a homeopathic practitioner, makes an impression on her. Instead of critical thinking, she learns about inexplicable spiritual planes. Instead of academic and scientific integrity, she learns to dodge scrutiny. Instead of explaining personality through studies, genes, mathematics, and biology, she attempts to do so through "planets" and fraudulent energy. (I explicitly refuse to omit that adjective.)
Thus, even if you can agree that astrology isn't a science, its principles and practice are an affront to scientific thought. And its not just the act of you and other "practitioners" promoting even the slightest claim of authenticity that is maddening, but the non-action of many scientists and their students--their failure to actively promote scientific ideas to the public and to children, and the skepticism and freethought principles that are required--that is maddening. Richard Feynman's essay,
The Value of Science, and his commencement speech,
Cargo Cult Science, make precisely this point.
And that is why, even if you say you aren't here to debate the validity of astrology, I am.
It's unethical to expose any child or adolescent without the capability of critical thinking to religion. Even science should be introduced with skepticism because, as we've both said, it is not infallable and theorums have been proven wrong/inaccurate/incomplete time and time again. When I have a child, I will not tell them or teach them about any religion unless they ask. I will admit that I don't know everything and that further research should be pursued for further understanding. I will also warn against becoming completely enveloped by anything in particular until they are older and know more. I would even suggest to research other, similar, religions and hope they follow through.
Initially, I wasn't here to debate, but I'm all about debates. I enjoy the critical thinking it makes me do.
And I'm also not debating for the sake of making you or anyone else believe Astrology is universally true. I'm really just debating it for myself, since that's the best way for bettering understanding something I practice.
And I'm not saying I don't think anything about Astrology isn't hoaky or irrational. But I've always been a fan of rationalizing the irrational, because I like to attempt the impossible when it comes to thinking. xP