12 ms·

There is no qualitative difference between belief in astrology and any of the world's religions. Not saying you're not entitled in disregarding astrology believ

by varjag 3y ago

There is no qualitative difference between belief in astrology and any of the world's religions. Not saying you're not entitled in disregarding astrology believers but the cut-off point is completely arbitrary and dare I say irrational.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
I would argue that astrology is in principle testable and it should be able to make concrete predictions. Obviously, popular astrology uses such woolly terms that all of the predictions can be interpreted as accurate to the believer. However, the few times that anyone has tried to verify astrological predictions, it's turned out to be false. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-30007-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-30007-001
- varjag 3y ago
  If we get into this territory all major religions struggle as well. Petty gods from the canon somehow fail to deliver unambiguous punishment for clearly worded insults. The outrage over Bible or Quran burnings is largely driven by the demonstrated impotence of the deity rather than the sacrilege itself. The stories themselves are completely bonkers and self-contradicting in many aspects. But I guess ignoring all religious people in the world is simply impractical.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    I can't think of any religions that make any clear predictions, so they're not even wrong (as opposed to astrology which is clearly wrong). So-called punishments are typically enacted in some other realm (e.g. after-life, rebirth into a lower form etc) which leads to some experimental problems in verifying the claims. I disagree about your interpretation of burning of religious books - surely that's more to do with people getting angry about their beliefs and culture being deliberately insulted. Burning a flag doesn't get people angry because of the impotence of whatever grouping the flag represents - it's because it's a direct insult to the people who value what the flag represents.
    - xvedejas 3y ago
      In college a Christian friend readily gave "evidence" of predictions in the bible as reason why he believes that religion. I think a lot of religious people do think there are clear predictions. I wish I remembered his examples (which I found uninteresting at the time) — I think one was a prediction of an invasion of Tyre?
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        The problem with a lot of historical predictions is that they were too vague to be useful i.e. could someone armed with a bible have known enough about an invasion of Tyre to make a bet with someone before it happened? e.g. I bet they get invaded in the next two weeks. Predictions of that nature are usually just re-interpretations based on knowledge after the fact.
        baremetal 3y ago
        Israel was recreated in one day. As prophesied. "Who has ever heard of such things? Who has ever seen things like this? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children." Isaiah 66:8 On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day.[1] [1] https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-isra...
        ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        A prophecy is different to a concrete prediction. People in the 1930s weren't able to use the bible to predict that Israel would be created in a day in the next 20 years. There's also the doubt over how long a "day" is in the bible, so it seems more a case of it only being a prediction in hindsight. There's a better critique here: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/does-the-state-of-israel-fulfil-biblical-prophecy/ https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/does-the-state-of-...
- WorldMaker 3y ago
  Astrology benefits greatly from the pigeonhole fallacy. With as few as twelve pigeonholes in most astrological predictions, of course there are going to be enough people overfitted to the model that any prediction "succeeds" for enough people that you can claim all the failures were within the bounds of statistical error. It's related to why MBTI lasted so long as "science" because it proved many concrete predictions through overfitting and hand-waving away errors as statistical anomalies rather than the pigeonhole principle at work. There are still plenty of people that think it valid. Perhaps ironically, MBTI even seems to making a comeback among many of the same people that are flocking to Astrology. If you're going to live by one pigeonhole fallacy you might as well live by more than one, I suppose.
valianteffort 3y ago
I'm sure on some level, the position of the earth, moon, sun, and planets has some effect on all life. These things are intertwined afterall. It would be interesting to gather data that could make assertions about someone based on when they were born. However it's clear other things have a far grater impact on someones development, like whether they have a father, financial situation, etc.
- InitialLastName 3y ago
  > I'm sure on some level, the position of the earth, moon, sun, and planets has some effect on all life. Ask any (mostly pre-industrial) farmer or sailor: the positions of the sun and the moon are profoundly influential to their day-to-day lives. Even I, an urban, post-industrial home office laborer make meaningful changes to my activities depending on whether the sun is in the sky.
machina_ex_deus 3y ago
To me there is an a huge difference. I can accept religions, which are adding axioms that aren't falsifiable, and that are usually taught to a person when he is a child. And religions had their roles in shaping society for good. I can accept conspiracy theories and disbelieving the known consensus. I just can't accept a person who, in the age where we know exactly how planets move and what they are, decided to believe they have correlation with psychology. It's the worst. It shows the person doesn't even try to connect cause and effect in a meaningful way, and in astrology this is all there is to it. No epistemology. No logic. It's one thing to believe in unfalsifiable things, and another to believe in falsifiable things that we fully understand and have no causual relationship.
- varjag 3y ago
  I feel it's more of a personal background issue. Do you really have objection with planets effects on personality but at the same time feel turning water into wine is plausible in the slightest? To a raised atheist all religions are not far removed from belief in Santa Claus. But to someone with religious people in the family cutting them off may come not as natural as of strangers with astrology brain.
  - throw0101a 3y ago
    Or how about the sun dancing around the sky? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
    - skrblr 3y ago
      On the page you have linked, there is a section titled "Skeptical explanations," which contains explanations of the event that are both plausible and satisfying. If you stare at the sun for a while you're going to see some weird stuff. Don't try it at home.
  - Footkerchief 3y ago
    Saying water/wine happened exactly once 2000 years ago is much harder to falsify than claiming a present, ongoing, and universal correlation between planetary bodies and psychology.
throw0101a 3y ago
> There is no qualitative difference between belief in astrology and any of the world's religions. Some of the world's religions can start off from a basis of logic: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-the-existence-of-god https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-...
- rcme 3y ago
  How is this not bigger news? He actually proved God exists???
  - 4gotunameagain 3y ago
    Because it is impossible to prove such thing. All arguments of this kind rely on some kind of shaky or dubious foundation.
    - throw0101a 3y ago
      > All arguments of this kind rely on some kind of shaky or dubious foundation. No, they do not. Aristotle's Argument from 'Motion': 1. Some things in the world are changing. (Observation) 2. Whatever is changing is being changed by another.[1] (Lemma 1) 3. There cannot be an infinite regress of instrumental changers.[2] (Lemma 2) 4. Therefore, there must be a changer that is not itself being changed by another. * https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/11/first-way-part-iv-cascades.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/11/first-way-part-iv-casca...
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        I'm not clear on the meaning of 2 and how would it apply to something such as atomic decay? Who would be the "another" that causes an atom to decay?
        throw0101a 3y ago
        See perhaps "Causality and radioactive decay": * https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/causality-and-radioactive-decay.html https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/causality-and-radio...
hardlianotion 3y ago
One of those world religions being the irrational belief in the power of science.
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  > It is not the greatest of modern scientists who feel most sure that the object, stripped of its qualitative properties and reduced to mere quantity, is wholly real. Little scientists, and little unscientific followers of science, may think so. The great minds know very well that the object, so treated, is an artificial abstraction, that something of its reality has been lost. -- C.S. Lewis
  - vacuity 3y ago
    Tell that to the "little unscientific followers of science". They really need to hear it.
- commonlisp94 3y ago
  Not only science itself, but humanity being a grand progression of scientific progress leading to our year 2023.
  - kergonath 3y ago
    You’re reading more than he wrote. Science is an abstraction, a model of our world that we use to make prediction. It is true that the model is not the world, but it is also true that we have made unquestionable progress in our models and understanding of the reality we inhabit. We just can predict and explain a lot more than we could a century ago.
    - yadingus 3y ago
      We can also harm and destroy a lot more than we could a century ago.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
rcme 3y ago
How is believing in religion rational?
- flkenosad 3y ago
  Is it not rational to partake in activities which make one feel good?
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    Not if those activities end up causing harm to yourself or others. e.g. drugs can make you feel good, but is it rational to keep taking them until you are addicted?
  - rcme 3y ago
    Yes, “X is true because it feels good to believe so” is not a rational basis for belief. Most people act rationally and irrationally. So you can hold an irrational belief, i.e. that your religion is the One True Religion, and then take rational actions like going to church based on that irrational belief.
- throw0101a 3y ago
  > How is believing in religion rational? By having personal experience(s) of things that cannot be explained in any other way? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun By employing one's sense of logic? * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-the-existence-of-god https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-...
  - gochi 3y ago
    There's an entire explanation section on that link, I don't know why you're using it as proof that "it cannot be explained in any other way". Choosing to believe something happened is one thing, choosing to believe that is undeniably attributed to a larger power is an added layer that isn't rational at all. You are misusing logic in the same way. You are disconnecting it from its value in order to justify a belief in a larger power. This is neither logical or rational. The entire idea that religion is rational or logical is one that's been pushed since the late enlightenment era upon realizing that you cannot control others through religion unless they believe that you are operating rationally on behalf of a larger power. This is the trick. It's very effective!
taylorius 3y ago
At least the world's great religions have a track record of acting as a code of conduct that helps to build and grow societies and nations. Astrology - not so much.
- varjag 3y ago
  Let me put it this way, their track record is mixed on that.
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    It seems many improvements to our world view and value system had to be pushed through against the pushback of religion. IMO the value of religion is to have a forcing function to enforce consensus around certain norms without renegotiating them every generation which is hard since it exceeds the capacity and willingness of much of society.
swayvil 3y ago
Take away the experiments, mess up the models a bit, throw in a little Harry Potter fan-fiction, and even Physics would look like Astrology.
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
That is simply false. The first problem is the word "religion", which, in common usage, is as if we were talking about different flavors of ice cream, and the atheist or "unbeliever" is some version of someone who simply doesn't like ice cream. Man is a religious animal in the sense that, as a rational animal, he must worship something he takes to be the highest good. The question is never "do I worship something" but "what do I worship" and "is what I worship the proper object of worship to which I owe worship". How do you know? Well, as in all cases, if no rational defense can be made of the claims of a religion, then there is no rational basis for giving our assent to those claims. So the question is: can a rational defense be made? Too often, people lazily assume such a defense cannot be made of any religion in principle. They simply take it for granted that that is the case. So, if we interpret astrology as something explanatory, and there is no strong rational basis for it, then that means it is unlike those religious traditions that are rationally defensible. If astrology is a practical art, specifically, if it makes predictions based on some correlation between the positions of the stars and planets and whatever else, and this correlation happens to hold, then astrology is a more or less predictive model. (The "whatever else" also matter, as you could call the science of tides a kind of natural astrology because the moon does in fact have an effect on the tides.) (FWIW, the Catholic Church rejects astrology, not as some "competing" doctrine, but as a pseudo-science and a superstition [0].) [0] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02018e.htm https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02018e.htm
- varjag 3y ago
  Astrology makes its predictions in a vague and personally flattering way as to overwhelm critical facilities. This is not very different in how religion uses the language of threats and social coercion to deliver doctrine over one's senses. In both cases it's a defeat of rationality (and sorry I dismiss your whole first paragraph as sophistry). > (FWIW, the Catholic Church rejects astrology, not as some "competing" doctrine, but as a pseudo-science and a superstition [0].) Russian Orthodox church also rejects astrology as a superstition, or rather manifestation of paganism which is a competing doctrine. It also blesses missiles with holy water.
- gilbetron 3y ago
  You diluted "religion" into something basically like "belief". Religion is the belief in some supernatural power (and, I would add, that requires faith because there is no evidence). Believing in ideas, in "highest good" is not religion, although religions include them as part of their dogma.
lnxg33k1 3y ago
No qualitative difference but a huge substantial difference, you are born to believe in a religion, its 24/7 in television, in school, in politicians talk, its much harder to protect yourself from religions than it is to stay away from astrology, astrology is a thing you pick up, religion is served/forced upon you from the day you’re born, when you swear in court you swear to god not to sagitter
- varjag 3y ago
  How many people who believe in astrology but are not otherwise spiritual/religious have you ever met?
Georgelemental 3y ago
I read a survey once (can't find it now) that measured people's belief in astrology vs religious convictions. Committed atheists were least likely to believe in astrology, but committed religious people (go to church every Sunday, etc) were close behind. Most likely to believe in astrology were agnostics and the weakly religious.
- kergonath 3y ago
  I would like to see the survey, but what you say is not really surprising (which is why it would be interesting to check, of course).
briandear 3y ago
“Thou shall not kill” is far different than “Capricorns love bunnies!”
satvikpendem 3y ago
By going to your logical conclusion, perhaps we should not accept any of the world's religions then either, given that they are also arbitrary. Just because many are old and have many followers does not give them credence over astrology.
- varjag 3y ago
  I mean, sure? Fine by me.
ravenstine 3y ago
There is a lot of overlap, but there's also a big difference. In my experience, when you get an individual in the right setting, there's a high likelihood you can get them to admit doubt in the reality of their own religion, upon which they may also state that they still "choose to believe" anyway because their religion gives them both a moral framework and a community. Astrologists are usually the opposite. They start out by telling you something like "I don't know if I believe in any of it, but I find it interesting." However, upon further conversation revealing more mystical thinking, it becomes apparent that they do believe to at least a fair extent, but are just too embarrassed to reveal their belief until they know you won't act judgmental towards them. On the face of it, yes, religions are (from my understanding) largely made up of beliefs that are just as non-scientific as astrology. The escape hatch that religions have is that they are founded on a question that is largely unprovable. What astrology is based on is a fraudulent attempt at answering questions through what should be demonstrable mechanisms, and it doesn't matter whether facts disprove every single assertion in front of their very own eyes. Hell, at least religions have largely managed to change their views on the age of the Earth and whether dinosaurs existed, even if they still get aspects of those facts wrong. Astrology doesn't adapt to new information at all. For those reasons, I see Astrology, unlike most other religions, as a black hole of belief. If someone believes in it, I really do feel sorry for them, and I also have no interest in having a conversation with someone that irrational. Even flat-earthers, whose beliefs are just about as dumb as that of Astrology, are more interesting to talk to and will at least be able to display flawed reasoning. Astrology is about as irrational as it gets, and people whom I've known who believe in it usually are either set in their ways or are extremely gullible that you can convince them of practically anything. Sorry, but the average religious scholar is at least 1000% smarter than Astrologists. I try to be even handed with everything, but I can't here. Astrology is just a trap. EDIT: Another difference between Astrology and other theological beliefs is that it is not based on faith. Astrologists, once they've been convinced there's something to it, usually lack sufficient doubt. Having faith means admitting that one doesn't know for sure. In that sense, there is a certain rationality to a religion like Christianity, even if I don't think that god exists in reality. Most astrologists only speak in uncertainty because they don't want to be judged for believing something so unreasonable. It's not because they know what they don't know; they actually think that they know. Just try the next time you have a conversation with someone who says they believe in any form of Astrology; the more you talk to them, the more they will reveal their certainty. And yes, there are plenty of religious people who think they know the truth with certainty, but chances are they don't understand their own religion if that's how they think, and true belief doesn't really describe the majority of people. Most religious people have faith, if they aren't just going along with the song and dance.
rayiner 3y ago
Most secular researchers agree that Jesus, Mohammad, the Buddha, etc., were real historical figures, so that’s a qualitative difference. Moreover, there are entire civilizations built on those belief systems—including the one you live in. Comparing those civilizations is an empirical basis for comparing the underlying belief systems.
- gochi 3y ago
  Those civilizations were built in spite of not based off those beliefs. We wouldn't have created anything more than mud huts if we were to rely on adhering to belief systems. You cannot control people while also pushing the limits of humanity, they are mutually exclusive. To ignore this is to ignore religious systems were always about control and order, not progress.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > Those civilizations were built in spite of not based off those beliefs. Islamic civilisation would have never existed without Islam the religion. Even if we suppose the Arabs might have expanded into an empire under someone other than Muhammad, the end result would have looked very different. Islam was the glue that held together an empire composed of many different ethnicities, cultures, languages, tribes; without Islam, they would not have had that glue. > You cannot control people while also pushing the limits of humanity, they are mutually exclusive. To ignore this is to ignore religious systems were always about control and order, not progress. The first few thousand years of human civilisations were all about power and control. They did a perfectly good job of pushing the then-existent limits of humanity despite lacking individualism. It is only as we get into the modern period that individualism began to produce real benefits (new ideas, science, technology); but without that earlier anti-individualism, it would never have had the economic foundation it needed to produce those benefits. Even in the modern period, the benefits of individualism have mainly been something pursued by the upper and middle classes, economically sustained by the exploitation of the working class and by colonialism. We also really don't know what the future holds. The religious fundamentalism of the Puritans led to the founding of the English colony of Massachusetts; maybe decades or centuries from now, religious fundamentalists will end up playing a major role in colonising our solar system – they may have motivations to establish colonies that secular people lack.
pxc 3y ago
> There is no qualitative difference between belief in astrology and any of the world's religions. Religion pretty much always involves beliefs that are as easy to problematize epistemologically as astrology is, but there are real differences in the kinds of people who are into astrology or neopaganism and the kinds of people who are Catholics. When a religion is established and dominant, a lot of people engage with it in a detached way just because it's expected of them. They 'believe' essentially by default. They submit themselves to certain absurd beliefs as part of the tradition, but not all of them (e.g., the existence and presence of demons, for many Christians) are operative in their lives. People who participate in religions in that way can be very rational in a slightly strange way, with exceptions carved out just for religion. I don't see this with 'serious' (i.e., metaphysical realism about the supernatural) belief in woo, at least among people like that in my life.

by varjag 3y ago

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

I would argue that astrology is in principle testable and it should be able to make concrete predictions. Obviously, popular astrology uses such woolly terms that all of the predictions can be interpreted as accurate to the believer. However, the few times that anyone has tried to verify astrological predictions, it's turned out to be false. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-30007-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-30007-001

varjag 3y ago
If we get into this territory all major religions struggle as well. Petty gods from the canon somehow fail to deliver unambiguous punishment for clearly worded insults. The outrage over Bible or Quran burnings is largely driven by the demonstrated impotence of the deity rather than the sacrilege itself. The stories themselves are completely bonkers and self-contradicting in many aspects. But I guess ignoring all religious people in the world is simply impractical.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  I can't think of any religions that make any clear predictions, so they're not even wrong (as opposed to astrology which is clearly wrong). So-called punishments are typically enacted in some other realm (e.g. after-life, rebirth into a lower form etc) which leads to some experimental problems in verifying the claims. I disagree about your interpretation of burning of religious books - surely that's more to do with people getting angry about their beliefs and culture being deliberately insulted. Burning a flag doesn't get people angry because of the impotence of whatever grouping the flag represents - it's because it's a direct insult to the people who value what the flag represents.
  - xvedejas 3y ago
    In college a Christian friend readily gave "evidence" of predictions in the bible as reason why he believes that religion. I think a lot of religious people do think there are clear predictions. I wish I remembered his examples (which I found uninteresting at the time) — I think one was a prediction of an invasion of Tyre?
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      The problem with a lot of historical predictions is that they were too vague to be useful i.e. could someone armed with a bible have known enough about an invasion of Tyre to make a bet with someone before it happened? e.g. I bet they get invaded in the next two weeks. Predictions of that nature are usually just re-interpretations based on knowledge after the fact.
      - baremetal 3y ago
        Israel was recreated in one day. As prophesied. "Who has ever heard of such things? Who has ever seen things like this? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children." Isaiah 66:8 On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day.[1] [1] https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-isra...
        ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        A prophecy is different to a concrete prediction. People in the 1930s weren't able to use the bible to predict that Israel would be created in a day in the next 20 years. There's also the doubt over how long a "day" is in the bible, so it seems more a case of it only being a prediction in hindsight. There's a better critique here: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/does-the-state-of-israel-fulfil-biblical-prophecy/ https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/does-the-state-of-...
WorldMaker 3y ago
Astrology benefits greatly from the pigeonhole fallacy. With as few as twelve pigeonholes in most astrological predictions, of course there are going to be enough people overfitted to the model that any prediction "succeeds" for enough people that you can claim all the failures were within the bounds of statistical error. It's related to why MBTI lasted so long as "science" because it proved many concrete predictions through overfitting and hand-waving away errors as statistical anomalies rather than the pigeonhole principle at work. There are still plenty of people that think it valid. Perhaps ironically, MBTI even seems to making a comeback among many of the same people that are flocking to Astrology. If you're going to live by one pigeonhole fallacy you might as well live by more than one, I suppose.

valianteffort 3y ago

I'm sure on some level, the position of the earth, moon, sun, and planets has some effect on all life. These things are intertwined afterall. It would be interesting to gather data that could make assertions about someone based on when they were born. However it's clear other things have a far grater impact on someones development, like whether they have a father, financial situation, etc.

InitialLastName 3y ago
> I'm sure on some level, the position of the earth, moon, sun, and planets has some effect on all life. Ask any (mostly pre-industrial) farmer or sailor: the positions of the sun and the moon are profoundly influential to their day-to-day lives. Even I, an urban, post-industrial home office laborer make meaningful changes to my activities depending on whether the sun is in the sky.

machina_ex_deus 3y ago

To me there is an a huge difference. I can accept religions, which are adding axioms that aren't falsifiable, and that are usually taught to a person when he is a child. And religions had their roles in shaping society for good. I can accept conspiracy theories and disbelieving the known consensus. I just can't accept a person who, in the age where we know exactly how planets move and what they are, decided to believe they have correlation with psychology. It's the worst. It shows the person doesn't even try to connect cause and effect in a meaningful way, and in astrology this is all there is to it. No epistemology. No logic. It's one thing to believe in unfalsifiable things, and another to believe in falsifiable things that we fully understand and have no causual relationship.

varjag 3y ago
I feel it's more of a personal background issue. Do you really have objection with planets effects on personality but at the same time feel turning water into wine is plausible in the slightest? To a raised atheist all religions are not far removed from belief in Santa Claus. But to someone with religious people in the family cutting them off may come not as natural as of strangers with astrology brain.
- throw0101a 3y ago
  Or how about the sun dancing around the sky? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
  - skrblr 3y ago
    On the page you have linked, there is a section titled "Skeptical explanations," which contains explanations of the event that are both plausible and satisfying. If you stare at the sun for a while you're going to see some weird stuff. Don't try it at home.
- Footkerchief 3y ago
  Saying water/wine happened exactly once 2000 years ago is much harder to falsify than claiming a present, ongoing, and universal correlation between planetary bodies and psychology.

throw0101a 3y ago

> There is no qualitative difference between belief in astrology and any of the world's religions. Some of the world's religions can start off from a basis of logic: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-the-existence-of-god https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-...

rcme 3y ago
How is this not bigger news? He actually proved God exists???
- 4gotunameagain 3y ago
  Because it is impossible to prove such thing. All arguments of this kind rely on some kind of shaky or dubious foundation.
  - throw0101a 3y ago
    > All arguments of this kind rely on some kind of shaky or dubious foundation. No, they do not. Aristotle's Argument from 'Motion': 1. Some things in the world are changing. (Observation) 2. Whatever is changing is being changed by another.[1] (Lemma 1) 3. There cannot be an infinite regress of instrumental changers.[2] (Lemma 2) 4. Therefore, there must be a changer that is not itself being changed by another. * https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/11/first-way-part-iv-cascades.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/11/first-way-part-iv-casca...
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      I'm not clear on the meaning of 2 and how would it apply to something such as atomic decay? Who would be the "another" that causes an atom to decay?
      - throw0101a 3y ago
        See perhaps "Causality and radioactive decay": * https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/causality-and-radioactive-decay.html https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/causality-and-radio...

hardlianotion 3y ago

One of those world religions being the irrational belief in the power of science.

johnnyworker 3y ago
> It is not the greatest of modern scientists who feel most sure that the object, stripped of its qualitative properties and reduced to mere quantity, is wholly real. Little scientists, and little unscientific followers of science, may think so. The great minds know very well that the object, so treated, is an artificial abstraction, that something of its reality has been lost. -- C.S. Lewis
- vacuity 3y ago
  Tell that to the "little unscientific followers of science". They really need to hear it.
commonlisp94 3y ago
Not only science itself, but humanity being a grand progression of scientific progress leading to our year 2023.
- kergonath 3y ago
  You’re reading more than he wrote. Science is an abstraction, a model of our world that we use to make prediction. It is true that the model is not the world, but it is also true that we have made unquestionable progress in our models and understanding of the reality we inhabit. We just can predict and explain a lot more than we could a century ago.
  - yadingus 3y ago
    We can also harm and destroy a lot more than we could a century ago.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

rcme 3y ago

How is believing in religion rational?

flkenosad 3y ago
Is it not rational to partake in activities which make one feel good?
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  Not if those activities end up causing harm to yourself or others. e.g. drugs can make you feel good, but is it rational to keep taking them until you are addicted?
- rcme 3y ago
  Yes, “X is true because it feels good to believe so” is not a rational basis for belief. Most people act rationally and irrationally. So you can hold an irrational belief, i.e. that your religion is the One True Religion, and then take rational actions like going to church based on that irrational belief.
throw0101a 3y ago
> How is believing in religion rational? By having personal experience(s) of things that cannot be explained in any other way? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun By employing one's sense of logic? * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-the-existence-of-god https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-...
- gochi 3y ago
  There's an entire explanation section on that link, I don't know why you're using it as proof that "it cannot be explained in any other way". Choosing to believe something happened is one thing, choosing to believe that is undeniably attributed to a larger power is an added layer that isn't rational at all. You are misusing logic in the same way. You are disconnecting it from its value in order to justify a belief in a larger power. This is neither logical or rational. The entire idea that religion is rational or logical is one that's been pushed since the late enlightenment era upon realizing that you cannot control others through religion unless they believe that you are operating rationally on behalf of a larger power. This is the trick. It's very effective!

taylorius 3y ago

At least the world's great religions have a track record of acting as a code of conduct that helps to build and grow societies and nations. Astrology - not so much.

varjag 3y ago
Let me put it this way, their track record is mixed on that.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  It seems many improvements to our world view and value system had to be pushed through against the pushback of religion. IMO the value of religion is to have a forcing function to enforce consensus around certain norms without renegotiating them every generation which is hard since it exceeds the capacity and willingness of much of society.

swayvil 3y ago

Take away the experiments, mess up the models a bit, throw in a little Harry Potter fan-fiction, and even Physics would look like Astrology.

lo_zamoyski 3y ago

That is simply false. The first problem is the word "religion", which, in common usage, is as if we were talking about different flavors of ice cream, and the atheist or "unbeliever" is some version of someone who simply doesn't like ice cream. Man is a religious animal in the sense that, as a rational animal, he must worship something he takes to be the highest good. The question is never "do I worship something" but "what do I worship" and "is what I worship the proper object of worship to which I owe worship". How do you know? Well, as in all cases, if no rational defense can be made of the claims of a religion, then there is no rational basis for giving our assent to those claims. So the question is: can a rational defense be made? Too often, people lazily assume such a defense cannot be made of any religion in principle. They simply take it for granted that that is the case. So, if we interpret astrology as something explanatory, and there is no strong rational basis for it, then that means it is unlike those religious traditions that are rationally defensible. If astrology is a practical art, specifically, if it makes predictions based on some correlation between the positions of the stars and planets and whatever else, and this correlation happens to hold, then astrology is a more or less predictive model. (The "whatever else" also matter, as you could call the science of tides a kind of natural astrology because the moon does in fact have an effect on the tides.) (FWIW, the Catholic Church rejects astrology, not as some "competing" doctrine, but as a pseudo-science and a superstition [0].) [0] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02018e.htm https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02018e.htm

varjag 3y ago
Astrology makes its predictions in a vague and personally flattering way as to overwhelm critical facilities. This is not very different in how religion uses the language of threats and social coercion to deliver doctrine over one's senses. In both cases it's a defeat of rationality (and sorry I dismiss your whole first paragraph as sophistry). > (FWIW, the Catholic Church rejects astrology, not as some "competing" doctrine, but as a pseudo-science and a superstition [0].) Russian Orthodox church also rejects astrology as a superstition, or rather manifestation of paganism which is a competing doctrine. It also blesses missiles with holy water.
gilbetron 3y ago
You diluted "religion" into something basically like "belief". Religion is the belief in some supernatural power (and, I would add, that requires faith because there is no evidence). Believing in ideas, in "highest good" is not religion, although religions include them as part of their dogma.

lnxg33k1 3y ago

No qualitative difference but a huge substantial difference, you are born to believe in a religion, its 24/7 in television, in school, in politicians talk, its much harder to protect yourself from religions than it is to stay away from astrology, astrology is a thing you pick up, religion is served/forced upon you from the day you’re born, when you swear in court you swear to god not to sagitter

varjag 3y ago
How many people who believe in astrology but are not otherwise spiritual/religious have you ever met?

Georgelemental 3y ago

I read a survey once (can't find it now) that measured people's belief in astrology vs religious convictions. Committed atheists were least likely to believe in astrology, but committed religious people (go to church every Sunday, etc) were close behind. Most likely to believe in astrology were agnostics and the weakly religious.

kergonath 3y ago
I would like to see the survey, but what you say is not really surprising (which is why it would be interesting to check, of course).

briandear 3y ago

“Thou shall not kill” is far different than “Capricorns love bunnies!”

satvikpendem 3y ago

By going to your logical conclusion, perhaps we should not accept any of the world's religions then either, given that they are also arbitrary. Just because many are old and have many followers does not give them credence over astrology.

varjag 3y ago
I mean, sure? Fine by me.

ravenstine 3y ago

There is a lot of overlap, but there's also a big difference. In my experience, when you get an individual in the right setting, there's a high likelihood you can get them to admit doubt in the reality of their own religion, upon which they may also state that they still "choose to believe" anyway because their religion gives them both a moral framework and a community. Astrologists are usually the opposite. They start out by telling you something like "I don't know if I believe in any of it, but I find it interesting." However, upon further conversation revealing more mystical thinking, it becomes apparent that they do believe to at least a fair extent, but are just too embarrassed to reveal their belief until they know you won't act judgmental towards them. On the face of it, yes, religions are (from my understanding) largely made up of beliefs that are just as non-scientific as astrology. The escape hatch that religions have is that they are founded on a question that is largely unprovable. What astrology is based on is a fraudulent attempt at answering questions through what should be demonstrable mechanisms, and it doesn't matter whether facts disprove every single assertion in front of their very own eyes. Hell, at least religions have largely managed to change their views on the age of the Earth and whether dinosaurs existed, even if they still get aspects of those facts wrong. Astrology doesn't adapt to new information at all. For those reasons, I see Astrology, unlike most other religions, as a black hole of belief. If someone believes in it, I really do feel sorry for them, and I also have no interest in having a conversation with someone that irrational. Even flat-earthers, whose beliefs are just about as dumb as that of Astrology, are more interesting to talk to and will at least be able to display flawed reasoning. Astrology is about as irrational as it gets, and people whom I've known who believe in it usually are either set in their ways or are extremely gullible that you can convince them of practically anything. Sorry, but the average religious scholar is at least 1000% smarter than Astrologists. I try to be even handed with everything, but I can't here. Astrology is just a trap. EDIT: Another difference between Astrology and other theological beliefs is that it is not based on faith. Astrologists, once they've been convinced there's something to it, usually lack sufficient doubt. Having faith means admitting that one doesn't know for sure. In that sense, there is a certain rationality to a religion like Christianity, even if I don't think that god exists in reality. Most astrologists only speak in uncertainty because they don't want to be judged for believing something so unreasonable. It's not because they know what they don't know; they actually think that they know. Just try the next time you have a conversation with someone who says they believe in any form of Astrology; the more you talk to them, the more they will reveal their certainty. And yes, there are plenty of religious people who think they know the truth with certainty, but chances are they don't understand their own religion if that's how they think, and true belief doesn't really describe the majority of people. Most religious people have faith, if they aren't just going along with the song and dance.

rayiner 3y ago

Most secular researchers agree that Jesus, Mohammad, the Buddha, etc., were real historical figures, so that’s a qualitative difference. Moreover, there are entire civilizations built on those belief systems—including the one you live in. Comparing those civilizations is an empirical basis for comparing the underlying belief systems.

gochi 3y ago
Those civilizations were built in spite of not based off those beliefs. We wouldn't have created anything more than mud huts if we were to rely on adhering to belief systems. You cannot control people while also pushing the limits of humanity, they are mutually exclusive. To ignore this is to ignore religious systems were always about control and order, not progress.
- skissane 3y ago
  > Those civilizations were built in spite of not based off those beliefs. Islamic civilisation would have never existed without Islam the religion. Even if we suppose the Arabs might have expanded into an empire under someone other than Muhammad, the end result would have looked very different. Islam was the glue that held together an empire composed of many different ethnicities, cultures, languages, tribes; without Islam, they would not have had that glue. > You cannot control people while also pushing the limits of humanity, they are mutually exclusive. To ignore this is to ignore religious systems were always about control and order, not progress. The first few thousand years of human civilisations were all about power and control. They did a perfectly good job of pushing the then-existent limits of humanity despite lacking individualism. It is only as we get into the modern period that individualism began to produce real benefits (new ideas, science, technology); but without that earlier anti-individualism, it would never have had the economic foundation it needed to produce those benefits. Even in the modern period, the benefits of individualism have mainly been something pursued by the upper and middle classes, economically sustained by the exploitation of the working class and by colonialism. We also really don't know what the future holds. The religious fundamentalism of the Puritans led to the founding of the English colony of Massachusetts; maybe decades or centuries from now, religious fundamentalists will end up playing a major role in colonising our solar system – they may have motivations to establish colonies that secular people lack.

pxc 3y ago

> There is no qualitative difference between belief in astrology and any of the world's religions. Religion pretty much always involves beliefs that are as easy to problematize epistemologically as astrology is, but there are real differences in the kinds of people who are into astrology or neopaganism and the kinds of people who are Catholics. When a religion is established and dominant, a lot of people engage with it in a detached way just because it's expected of them. They 'believe' essentially by default. They submit themselves to certain absurd beliefs as part of the tradition, but not all of them (e.g., the existence and presence of demons, for many Christians) are operative in their lives. People who participate in religions in that way can be very rational in a slightly strange way, with exceptions carved out just for religion. I don't see this with 'serious' (i.e., metaphysical realism about the supernatural) belief in woo, at least among people like that in my life.