ASTROLOGY IS RUBBISH

Northern Advocate, 23 July 1938, Page 12

ASTROLOGY IS RUBBISH

DR. H. SPENCER JONES, F.R.S., Astronomer Royal, has written a most interesting article in which he declares that Astrology is rubbish. Dr. Jones, in the course of this article, said: Astrology claims that the heavenly bodies—the sun, moon, planets and stars —have an influence on human affairs. It is assei’ted that the disposition of these bodies at the moment when a person is born has a direct influence on his personality, and that, by studying their positions at any time after birth, guidance for the future can bo obtained. These claims are sufficiently extensive and startling. But they do not nearly exhaust what astrology can do, or, rather, what it claims that it can do. Diseases can be diagnosed, weather can be predicted, suitable times for sowing seeds or setting eggs can be indicated, the course of world events can be foretold. There seems to »e nothing, however great or however small, however important or however trivial, that is not controlled by the stars. This cult has so many adherents ■ that several daily and Sunday papers | hi;vc an astrological column. There are magazines devoted to it. They pander to the desire, inherent in many of us, to know what the future holds in store, the desire that sends people to the palmist and to the crystalgazer. The astrologer will cast and progress a horoscope and will advise about the future —'rx a fee, of course. It is significant that I do not know of any astrologer who is an observer of the stars; nor do I know any serious observer of the stars who is an astrologer. It is the task of the astronomer to ( observe and to study the star.:, and by slow and patient observation to learn something about them. On the basis of what he has learnt, it is his duty to come into the open and to declare firmly and unreservedly that astrology is rubbish, a mere collection of empirical rules that have come down through the dim mists of past ages. I do not deny the antiquity of astrology. Its lineage can be traced back to the Chaldeans, several thousands of years ago. The science of today has gradually emerged from the confused ideas and arbitrary assumptions of past ages. Francesco Sizzi, in the Middle Ages, argued that there must necessarily be seven planets because “there are seven windows in the head, two nostrils, two eyes, two ears and a mouth; so in the heavens there are two favourable stars, two unpropn’tious, two luminaries, and Mercury alone undecided and indifferent. From which and many other similar phenomena of Nature, such as the seven metals, etc., which it were tedious to enumerate, we gather that the number of planets is necessarily seven.” We may smile at the lack of logic in such an argument, but it is quite as logical as astrology.

The early astrologers, unlike those of today, were at least observers of the stars and planets. Though many of their interpretations of what they observe were valueless, their observations were of great value and paved the way for the science of astronomy, just as the alchemists in their mistaken search for the elixir of life and the philosopher’s stone, which would turn everything that it touched into gold, paved the way for the science of chemistry. Astrologers frequently assert that John Flamsteed, the first Astronomer Royal, was an astrologer and that he oast a horoscope to guide the erection of the Greenwich Observatory. It is convenient for them to ignore Flamsteed’s own verdict about astrology, gwen two years before the Observatory was built: “In 1673, besides my usual task, I wrote an ephemeris. wherein I showed the falsity of astrology and the ignorance of those who pretended to it.” It is true that he did cast a horoscope for the erection of the Observatory, but this he did merely for the diversion of his friends, and he wrote on it (in Latin): “My friends, can you forbear to laugh?” If any serious student of science wishes to be amused, let him read any book on astrology. I am sure that he will be unable to forbear to laugh. We are told that humanity is divided into twelve great groups, each one of which is governed by a sign of the zodiac. The movements of the planets during the two hours after birth are said to condition the first month of life; the movements during the first day to condition the first year of life,

during the second flay to condition the second year of life, and so on. When the planets come within certain distances of one another, events take on a definite pattern, either of good or ill, according to the distance. I I have sought to find in books on astrology some justification for the supposed all-pervading effects of the heavenly bodies on human life and activities. I have found general statements such as that there is a coincidence of earth events with those taking place elsewhere in the solar system (the only exemplification given for this is that weather on the earth is influenced by spots on the sun}, and that all men are subject to the laws by which the earth is governed. I have found nothing more substantial. Surely a slender foundation on which to base such far-reaching assertions. Astrology is rubbish; but because of human credulity and the profit to be made out of It, astrology continues to flourish. A Challenge to Astrologers. On May 11, 1941, Mercury will be in conjunction with Venus, Saturn and Uranus; Venus will be in conjunction with Jupiter and Uranus; and it will be full moon. Saturn will be in conjunction with Venus and Mercury, and Jupiter will be in conjunction with Uranus a few days previously. Mercury, Venus, Jupiter,Saturn and Uranus will all be close to the sun. Let astrologers say well in advanced precisely what world effects will be produced by this unusual series of conjunctions occurring at about the same time.