4 ms·

I feel you, but at the end of the day I don't think astrology as a belief system is any wackier or more harmful than most mainstream religions. And my capacity

• bobthechef 5y ago
  > I don't think astrology as a belief system is any wackier [...] than most mainstream religions. Statements like these are problematic. Not only are there meaningful differences between religions that make them incommensurate in this context (e.g., a Catholic, while acknowledging that some glimmers of greater or lesser truth exist in all religions, will regard much of them as erroneous and even superstitious), but it seems you haven't done the philosophical due diligence here to make a sensible comparison. For example, we have no reason to suppose that the relative positions of the planets has any effect on how things pan out. And additionally, from a Catholic perspective, not only is astrology generally taken to be superstitious (on account of its irrationality), but the impulse behind astrology is also taken to be evil. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to 'unveil' the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone” (CCC 2116)[0]. (N.b. the catechism is not a defense of these beliefs. I cite it only to show the Catholic position. Defenses can be found elsewhere, as well as pedagogical treatments like those in the Summa[1].) The positions of the Church are rigorously defended over at least two millennia, some before that where natural theology and philosophy are concerned (the existence of God, for example, is knowable through unaided reason; the divinity of Jesus, on the other hand, requires faith in the sense that while the totality of evidence may be very strong in favor of that belief, it is not fully deducible in the way philosophical arguments for the existence of God are). To compare astrology to that intellectual tradition (I ignore here the petty superstitions particular Catholics might entertain) is ludicrous. And part of due diligence is also an understanding of what constitutes an "empirical basis" and where and how it is an appropriate to draw on empirical observation. For example, does the claim "a belief P is reasonable if and only if there is an empirical basis for it" itself have an "empirical basis"? If so, in what way? [0] https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7E.HTM https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7E.HTM [1] https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3092.htm https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3092.htm
  • _bohm 5y ago
    The point of my comment really wasn't to denigrate anyone's belief system or to prop up empirical basis as an absolute standard for establishing the veracity or value of a claim. The parent commenter expressed concern that people holding these unsubstantiated belief systems as truth was inflicting real harm to society. My point was to say that if this is a real concern, why are we singling out astrology as a punching bag? Basically all major religions entail beliefs which are unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. Do we as individuals really have the capacity harbor ill will towards anyone who chooses to believe things outside what can be verified empirically? I don't! Your belief system may be incompatible with Astrology, and it may possess a richer intellectual tradition than Astrology, but this alone is insufficient to convince me that the faith-based beliefs of one system are inherently superior or more true than the other.