Is it in the nature of astrology for it to 'perform' on command in order to win $1M for an astrologer? Personally I'm very much inclined to think not.
I would never expect astrology to do this in the kind of astrology I practice. Astrology gives me evidence of connection to a spiritually animated environment that responds to our needs, and from what I have experienced, the greater the need, the more earnest we are in our attempts to find a way to manipulate difficult situations with consideration of others as well as ourselves, the more directly it responds. I am not against the view that natural astrological factors are capable of proof, but I don?t believe that anyone has yet found an efficient way to isolate those factors in a way that responds to independent testing. Rather than being disheartened by that, I?m comforted by the knowledge that there is intelligence inherent in astrology that expects us to raise ourselves up to it.
It is a lively and interesting exchange and I lie somewhere in the middle where I recognise both viewpoints as being equally sincere. I first read Elwell?s detailed response to ?The Researchers? and think that, as ever, Elwell deserves to be congratulated for being prepared to challenge the critics on their own terms. He does an admirable defence job in demonstrating that if their interest is to deride astrology?s claims than he can just as easily deride theirs. And nobody does that better than Dennis Ewell.
But what we seem to end up with is a never ending stalemate of disproof. These are really academic mind games that circulate around the shallow perimeters of astrology. The problem is that those shallow perimeters attract all the attention. A great deal of the argument revolved around the issue of whether it is possible to identify our sun signs through knowledge of personality traits. How futile can we get? Yet look how many people are out there trying to make a quick buck on the back of perpetuating this simplistic nonsense. James Randi gave the example of one astrologer who tried to claim the prize this way. If I had a million dollars to spare I would love to be the one saying ?what rubbish ? let?s see if you can prove astrology that way ? put up or shut up?.
I don?t have a problem with the criteria of James Randi?s challenge at all. Astrologers wouldn?t even feel the need to defend themselves against the fact that the prize has never been claimed were it not for the way we allow astrology to be presented to the public, as if it is the simple solution to all of life?s mysteries: just pay enough money and astrology can tell you anything you want to know. It is because we have allowed astrology to be marketed as a black and white subject that our critics respond with cynicism, ridicule and challenges comprising of black and white tests.
Unlike Elwell, I don?t feel the need to defend astrology, I suppose I feel that the astrology I most admire and respect is above and beyond the academic attacks. But for the rest of it, there is much that I am happy to have criticised and in fact I believe that a certain criticism plays a useful part in deflating the sometimes irrational ego of the astrological community at large. We are too full of presenting astrology in an exaggerated and over-simplified light. Dennis Elwell is quite right where he states that one of the problems of astrology is that it is client-driven and panders to the self-absorbed. There is an element within the accepted image of astrology today that I am embarrassed to be a part of, and I am sure I am not the only one. Rather than rushing to the defence of astrology every time it is attacked, why don?t astrologers act collectively to enforce a more realistic and sophisticated understanding that astrology has great potential for benefit but is also riddled with great potential for misuse, misunderstanding and oversimplification? Our main organisations and associations only seem interested in ways to make astrology more popular, but to whose benefit? (As an example I am thinking of the recent suggestion, promoted at the last AA conference, to have astrology redefined as a religion in order that it receives less stringent controls over its presentation on TV. Well no thank you - in my opinion the public have enough open doors to find their way through to astrology if they are interested without having to contort astrology into something it?s not just to get a few celeb astrologers a bit more air time).
Randi?s challenge seems to have been accepted as a criticism against astrology whereas in fact it is not. It is a simple statement that if anyone can prove astrology is unquestionably verifiable in a simplistic application of some of its established laws they will be the first to do so. It does all astrologers some good to remember that. We shouldn?t treat astrology as infallible and independent of the need for great consideration and judgement, or be unaware of the great mystery that remains in this subject. Those that take astrology too literally will sooner or later face a massive crisis when rules they thought were simple, constant and reliable call for us to stretch our consciousness up to the next level of understanding. Like Elwell has commented on many occasions, if the case for a reliable astrology had ever been proven we would all be driving around in limos and drinking champagne in our tea breaks.
Ultimately I think it is a healthy state to have astrology surrounded by critics because at the moment they seem to be the only ones that are acting to stop some of the outrageous claims that are being made under ?commercial astrology? becoming ever more popular. So I don?t mind if they are reminding us of scientific limitations, the difficulties of proving astrology statistically or observably, or taking a stance on moral obligations. (I actually found myself agreeing with Pope John Paul II?s New Year warning two years ago against those who rush out to diviners to foresee what the future holds instead of developing an attitude that seeks to use well the time that each one of us has available, motivated by understanding and a commitment to being responsible on a daily basis.)
Astrology has its place and within that place it deserves ? and gets ? respect. Whenever it becomes over-exposed or simplified to make it ?easier? and more popular, the claims of what astrology is capable of become naturally more extreme, creating an ever increasing scope for critics to justifiably come in with their attacks.
Most of them are only doing what I?d probably do myself if they weren?t there doing it for me.
(I also want to say Garry, that you deserve a lot of credit for making your site such a great platform for debate).
) but I can't quite see how this works because I thought the Super Bowl was up for grabs each year with no one being considered the rightful holder of the trophy each year. Tom, perhaps you could enlighten me on this.
