Validity of Astrology *split from INFJs and western astrology*

[Cuddle Donor]

I find Astrology a bit silly but ultimately harmless. I basically see it as coming down to the power of suggestion: it works if you want it to, and doesn't if you don't. I only really have a problem with that when it comes to things like alternative medicine or corner-shop psychics, because they distract people from proven treatment and from taking responsibility for their own lives respectively.

 

[Mux]

Personally, I view it as a tool. To be used in the same manner as the MBTI. It is nothing more than a rough draft. A broad stroke portrait of a person. With a few pieces of information I have a rough idea of what to expect of you as a person. It is by no means complete as your life has added details that have effected your life in ways that are unknowable to a casual observer.

I think alcyone summed my personal view up perfectly. Its like you are a hologram comprised of different parts of the spectrum, both visible and invisible, but there is higher order that the different spectra share and however blurred it may be up close, it is still relevant. Astrology and Divination are parts of the jigsaw puzzle of your self. You can interpolate through the many gaps between different parts of the puzzle such as MBTI, astrology or any one of a dozen other psychological pattern finding systems, with a touch of introspection about your deeper self and the trends you see in your life over longer timeframes. Put it all together in your mind to form a fuzzy information sphere (so to speak) of yourself. You can gain from it, by having a map or blueprint to find what you want in life compared to what you might need but never knew you did...

There is a vast difference between the sunsign predictions for the week ahead in your local newspaper/internet media, and the level of detail found in a proper chart that takes precise stats about you into consideration. Then again you have many more astrological systems from other parts of the world to add to the puzzle. It is up to you to decide what parts of them are obviously just animalistic folklore and what parts you identify with, in respect to your particular grouping in said system. Yes you can choose to percieve things into place, and thereby fool yourself, but I can assure you there are Astrologers who could surprise you. There is not really an 'ISO standard' for Astrology so theres plenty of shoddy practitioners and you have to look around, and use your NF to guide you to someone that 'feels right'.

 

[ZenCat]

There is not really an 'ISO standard' for Astrology so theres plenty of shoddy practitioners and you have to look around, and use your NF to guide you to someone that 'feels right'.

i LOVE it. "ISO Standard"!

 

[arbygil]

Duty, I think a lot of what is stated here is also stemming from an issue of what you see as unproven. Just because something is unproven, does that make it necessarily untrue? Some atheists refuse to believe in God because they see no concrete proof that God exists. But just because they have no tangible proof, does that make him not exist until proof *does* exist? I won't even go into the debate regarding what is true and what is not true, because I know we have different definitions.

But now I'm going off topic...this is about astrology. For me, I see the day I was born as a very special, individual moment in history - possibly pivotal. I was important enough to be born, and if I believe the heavens cry out God's glory, then perhaps I equally believe that the heavens were set in motion so I could be born.

I never see random chance, though. I see things as always having purpose, even if I don't understand them as they're posited to me initially. Just because I disagree with something doesn't make that something untrue.

 

[Duty]

Duty, I think a lot of what is stated here is also stemming from an issue of what you see as unproven. Just because something is unproven, does that make it necessarily untrue?

Of course not, but it makes the belief in it unjustified.
On the same token, it's not proven, so why would one jump to conclusions? It's not justified to do so.

Plus, the premises of astrology lead to conclusions that are not true (such as 500 people born with the same chart will not be the same person).

quote=arbygil;46113]
Some atheists refuse to believe in God because they see no concrete proof that God exists. But just because they have no tangible proof, does that make him not exist until proof *does* exist? I won't even go into the debate regarding what is true and what is not true, because I know we have different definitions.

Sure, it's why I'm agnostic. The whole God debate is meaningless (outside decent attempts like the Ontological argument) as no one has any concrete evidence. One is not justified believing or not believing...both sides are pretty ridiculous as they don't suspect judgment.

But now I'm going off topic...this is about astrology. For me, I see the day I was born as a very special, individual moment in history - possibly pivotal. I was important enough to be born, and if I believe the heavens cry out God's glory, then perhaps I equally believe that the heavens were set in motion so I could be born.

Two different "heavens" are being spoken of here. One is "the heavens" as in astronomical entities, the other is "the heavens" as an extradimensional "metaphysical" realm that houses various supernatural entities. So (no offense), your statement is inconsistent as it deals with different concepts.

Plus, no offense, but you're menial and nothing in the end (I really don't mean that to be demotivational, but...You're one of 6.7 billion people, on an insignificant planet, which is one of 100s of astronomical bodies that orbit a star, which is one in 300 billion stars that orbit a common center of mass that make up this galaxy, which is one of several billion galaxies racing outward from a common point).

I never see random chance, though. I see things as always having purpose, even if I don't understand them as they're posited to me initially. Just because I disagree with something doesn't make that something untrue.

"Everything has a purpose," is a proposition that has many, many reasons that it just isn't justified.

First, it's not even true or false...as there is no such thing as objective purpose. Anywhere there is meaning, it is only given meaning by people. There is no intrinsic property of the world called "meaning." So, we can't call it objectively true or false, and the statement falls into a unique category.

Second, I've run across little evidence in favor of this proposition. Maybe you have evidence you'd like to share that proves everything has a purpose? (I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, I'm trying to be fair to you as you may know something I don't). If we have insufficient evidence, then we are not justified to believe a proposition.

 

[Quinlan]

Plus, no offense, but you're menial and nothing in the end (I really don't mean that to be demotivational, just. You're one of 6.7 billion people, on an insignificant planet, which is one of 100s of astronomical bodies that orbit a star, which is one in 300 billion stars that orbit a common center of mass that make up this galaxy, which is one of several billion galaxies racing outward from a common point.

Both inspiring and sad, it's scary being a non believer!

As for there being a purpose to everything I haven't seen it, people love to have things tied up and related into nice big loops but sometimes things just happen for no good reason, a good person dies in their prime for no other reason than they had cancer, it has no rhyme or reason, it's just the harsh reality of life and death. Humans are very good at creating a sense of order in chaos, when no such order exists in reality.

 

[arbygil]

No...offense taken (she says, although part of her has to be reminded why).

Um, let's put it this way: Nothing I say will bring anything new to the table, because you've decided truth can be learned in only one way. Semantics aside (heavens versus Heavens, love, peace, joy, crabs, and all that) - it's really a debate now between whether feeling something is indicative of truth, or not. You're definitely a hardcore NT, Duty, so I doubt anything I say in regards to feeling will sway you. You need hardcore evidence to be proven anything, and the evidence and perspective you need (no offense here, honest) must be so incredibly narrow, that there's no way I could give you anything from my perspective, to make you believe one side or another.

I mean (again, I don't mean any offense here), it feels like I can't broaden your horizon, or help you see more, or help you envision something new because you've closed your mind to anything except the path you've chosen. That's the problem I have with trying to talk with you about anything - whether its religion, philosophy, or metaphysics: You know what you know, and that's it. You want to debate others if they don't match up with what you believe. And that's frustrating. If I choose to believe in astrology as a means to enlightening my world view because it consistently works, or if I believe in a God of the Universe because He consistently works in my life, then why question what I feel is rational to me, and true? Why would I want to talk about any of it with someone who wants to convince me that everything I believe is wrong?

And this is why I find debate frustrating.

 

[Duty]

No...offense taken (she says, although part of her has to be reminded why).

Um, let's put it this way: Nothing I say will bring anything new to the table, because you've decided truth can be learned in only one way. Semantics aside (heavens versus Heavens, love, peace, joy, crabs, and all that) - it's really a debate now between whether feeling something is indicative of truth, or not. You're definitely a hardcore NT, Duty, so I doubt anything I say in regards to feeling will sway you. You need hardcore evidence to be proven anything, and the evidence and perspective you need (no offense here, honest) must be so incredibly narrow, that there's no way I could give you anything from my perspective, to make you believe one side or another.

Well, feelings aren't a judge of truth. If they were, then there would be no objective truth, and any proposition could be called untrue just because someone doesn't like it. The more practical applications of truth, such as in court for example, would not be held up...I could say I don't feel like I ever shot the guy, and it would suddenly be true that I didn't shoot him. No, feelings have other purposes, and are valid for many reasons, but as a judge of truth they are not.

I mean (again, I don't mean any offense here), it feels like I can't broaden your horizon, or help you see more, or help you envision something new because you've closed your mind to anything except the path you've chosen. That's the problem I have with trying to talk with you about anything - whether its religion, philosophy, or metaphysics: You know what you know, and that's it. You want to debate others if they don't match up with what you believe. And that's frustrating. If I choose to believe in astrology as a means to enlightening my world view because it consistently works, or if I believe in a God of the Universe because He consistently works in my life, then why question what I feel is rational to me, and true? Why would I want to talk about any of it with someone who wants to convince me that everything I believe is wrong?

See, that's just the thing...there's no "it's true for me," or "rational for me" here. It's essential to determine what reality consists of...otherwise we can just believe in any old thing. I mean, what would stop me from believing in such things as Nation of Yahweh, the Ku Klux Klan, or Nazism as being ethically true? What would stop me from believing geocentrism or that demons are what cause disease? Now sure, you can believe these things, as in, you're physically capable, but you can't believe these things and at the same time be right about them.

I mean, a Nazi can claim that killing Jews "works for him." Another person can claim that geocentrism "works for him." Granted, these are extreme examples, but it sheds light on where this line of reasoning goes to. We have an obligation and a duty to properly justify our beliefs; to believe things to be true with proper method.

Those things that are proven to be true we are obligated to believe to be true. Those things whos negation is proven true we have an obligation to believe the negation. Those things that have not been proven true or false we have an obligation to suspend judgment, and not just think them true because it is convenient or "works for us."

 

[Quinlan]

*idolizes Duty*

 

[arbygil]

But see, that's the thing, Duty: Innately, I think all human beings know in their hearts what the right thing and wrong thing to do is unless they have a psychological disorder. If you've ever had to observe a child, especially one between the ages of 3-5, you'll see that they know when they've done wrong - and sometimes it doesn't take any verbal cues. You tell a child not to touch that cookie on the table, and dang if they don't sneak up there and try to touch it. And they know they shouldn't! They look around, trying to figure out who's watching them, and then they take it.

But I think inside we have a moral code we're born with. There are varying degrees of it depending on different societies, but even when a majority of a society does wrong, there are people saying, "no, this isn't right" and they'll give a reason.

In my opinion, right and wrong isn't taught - it just is. And every society shares some of the same basics because they couldn't exist as a society if they didn't.

In areas where people don't do the right thing, I think they justify their actions. The Nazis had to find a way to break down the regular moral code of their people by blaming innocent folks for their economic crisis. I think, and this could be my opinion, that we all have a conscience. And we can choose to stop listening to it and commit heinous acts, but I feel we all have a choice to do X or Y - and that it's innate. Not taught.

But that's me...I have a feeling you'll see it another way (there's that feeling again!).

 

[KingOfSpades]

I've kind of lightly been following this thread so I hope I haven't said something that otehrs have mentioend..... Duty, I can see your need to look for a concrete Truth, but in my experiences sometimes there ins't one. Have you seen Rashoman? It's a great old samurai flick by Akira Kurosawa that kind of explores the nature of Truth, and how so much of our Truth depends on our perspectives...

or as Obi Wan Kenobi once said, "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Reality depends very much on perspective, which in turn is a function of experience...no two people share the same experiences. This is why there's so much disagreement about reality amongst everyone. It's not just as easy as saying there's "one reality" that we all share, when so much is a function of our own sensory input.

If there was really one reality and one truth we all shared, then we would probably have discovered it many thousands of years ago....but still there are questions. Even Einstein could not unify the physical forces....today there is no agreement about even the most basic forces in the Universe...if scientists cannot even agree on that, how can we possibly agree on what is real and what is not, or claim that such reality even exists?

If your reality is that Jews (or whoever) are inferior or the Sun rotates around the Earth, I think you're entitled to that reality -- so long as it doesn't hurt me, or anyone else. That's why we have constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech in the US, because we feel it's important that all ideas, even wrong ideas, have a place. So yes, if people want to join the klan, let them -- so long as their ideas don't unnecessarily affect others.

anyway, back to this topic....i have mixed feelings about astrology but at the end of the day i remain open minded. there are a lot of forces in the universe that we can't account for. Think about something as simple as coincidence. Coincidence is a force that is outside the explanation of logic. That's why we call it "coincidence" -- something meaningful has happened, but there is no logical/rational explanation for it. Some people just treat it as random force, others say there is something behind it ("serendipity", "synchronicity", etc.) I don't think one explanation is necessarily more "right" than the other; it's just a matter of point of view. ALthough I want to add that one explanation sees the world as a much more magical and miraculous place than the other

Anyway this reply is a bit of a punt but just my $.02...and of course no disrespect intended to your POV.

 

[Quinlan]

But striving for objective truth/reality achieves great things! I have seen more "magic" and "miracles" performed by doctors and scientists than I've seen performed by priests and fortune tellers (hows that for subjective evidence!).

We do things daily that before science would have been considered miraculous.

 

[Duty]

But see, that's the thing, Duty: Innately, I think all human beings know in their hearts what the right thing and wrong thing to do is unless they have a psychological disorder.

Then, no offense, you're wrong. I know in my heart that no one has sufficient reason to study astrology like it explains the world in any truthful fashion. You believe the opposite. I don't have a psychological disorder. People can be wrong about things without being demented or screwed up.

In my opinion, right and wrong isn't taught - it just is. And every society shares some of the same basics because they couldn't exist as a society if they didn't.

Right and wrong in the descriptive or normative sense? If the descriptive sense, I agree that truth is just there. It's our duty to discover it. We also have proper methods for discovering it. Astrology does not fit into that, and so must be rejected.

If you mean the normative sense, then I once again agree...there is an objective ethics somewhere, although it's much much harder to establish then an objective view of reality.

However, I have to say that it does not differ from society to society. Sure, there are different customs and mores and different views of what is "acceptable," but what is truly ethics does not differ. The fact that people have rights is universal. What those rights are may not be (although I'd be inclined to argue that certain rights, such as the right to not have your life taken from you by any other person or organization of persons, are fundamental rights).

In areas where people don't do the right thing, I think they justify their actions. The Nazis had to find a way to break down the regular moral code of their people by blaming innocent folks for their economic crisis. I think, and this could be my opinion, that we all have a conscience. And we can choose to stop listening to it and commit heinous acts, but I feel we all have a choice to do X or Y - and that it's innate. Not taught.

But that's me...I have a feeling you'll see it another way (there's that feeling again!).

This is getting to a tangent, as a conscience has nothing to do with objective truth beyond morality. That's a normative sense of truth, we're talking a descriptive one. Belief in astrology, in the descriptive sense, is unjustified. Now, I take it further and say that now that I've pointed out how/why it is unjustified, if you still choose to believe it despite having little justified reason for doing so, you cross an ethical line. It's intellectually dishonest then. But in a purely descriptive sense, it's just an unjustified belief.

 

[arbygil]

*Oy.*

*Throws hands up in the air*.

We just don't see eye-to-eye, and I'm not going to talk to you about it anymore. I'm not here for debate; I'm giving you what I feel is true. There is no exact science here, and you're going to have to accept that. Full stop. It's semantics, and I won't get into a semantic debate. It's pointless.

PS: You misunderstood me: I am not saying people have a mental disorder if they choose to believe one thing or another. But certain things - homicide, molestation, rape, etc - are considered personal violations, and ultimately EVEN if the person is doing it for the "right reasons," it's considered wrong in most societies. Folks who choose to violate those fundamentals are either put in prison, or treated as mentally ill. And that's what I meant.

 

[IndigoSensor]

I can't help but to chime in again. This is soooo frusterating to read! I mean, sheesh! You just keep going don't you. You need to understand that we don't view "truth" in the same light as you. Things don't have to be concerete in our eyes.

For the last time:
Logic ≠ making sense
If it works for you, regardless if others agree with it (and I will add this in, and does not cause harm to others), THEN SO BE IT! Not every single tiny thing in this world can be proven as right or wrong, there is much unknown.

Astrology for me is MY own truth, MY version of how this world works, for me it works, I understand it, it explains my world to me, it always has, and it always will. It doesn't have to be a universal thing. I have my own sets of reasons and ideas that others don't mesh with. Do I care if they are wrong in the end? No I don't. I am living my life in a happy, meaningful way. It is what I strive for, if this forfills that, then great! Things don't have to be proven to be believed in. That is how nearly all spiritual/religious things are. It gives us hope, life, and happiness. What is so wrong with that? I will tell you, nothing.

 

[Quinlan]

There is a word for that, I do it myself.

 

[KingOfSpades]

But striving for objective truth/reality achieves great things! I have seen more "magic" and "miracles" performed by doctors and scientists than I've seen performed by priests and fortune tellers (hows that for subjective evidence!).

We do things daily that before science would have been considered miraculous.

I agree that science has made tremendous advancements with regard to technology, but there is much that science cannot do. There is a lot that can't be measured -- we can't measure "love" for example (we can discuss it philosophically, but there are no "love meters" or devices that can "spark love" for example). Science can compare light, and waves, and make technologies based on that. But can it measure a mother's love?
And even if it could, would you want to measure something like that?

Science can't tell us when an opportunity will come our way. Interestingly, and as far as I know, astrology/tarot cards and the like concern themselves a lot with romance and opportunity: exactly the kind of questions that science cannot asnwer for individual people.

Science can do a lot but it can only go so far. The fact that it can't describe the universe, to me, is quite telling. Some of the brightest phycists have admitted that they cannot explain how this universe operates -- all they have are theories, and not very good ones (70% of the universe is "dark matter" and no one really knows what it is).

 

[IndigoSensor]

I agree that science has made tremendous advancements with regard to technology, but there is much that science cannot do. There is a lot that can't be measured -- we can't measure "love" for example (we can discuss it philosophically, but there are no "love meters" or devices that can "spark love" for example). Science can compare light, and waves, and make technologies based on that. But can it measure a mother's love?
And even if it could, would you want to measure something like that?

Science can't tell us when an opportunity will come our way. Interestingly, and as far as I know, astrology/tarot cards and the like concern themselves a lot with romance and opportunity: exactly the kind of questions that science cannot asnwer for individual people.

Science can do a lot but it can only go so far. The fact that it can't describe the universe, to me, is quite telling. Some of the brightest phycists have admitted that they cannot explain how this universe operates -- all they have are theories, and not very good ones (70% of the universe is "dark matter" and no one really knows what it is).

*agreed 100%* and this is coming from a chemistry major science junkie. This also happens to be one of the main reasons I don't get along with the majority of science people, and become friends who are more humanties/artistic :tongue1:

 

[acd]

Wow.. the astrology folks are talking about subjective reality as in: 'It feels right to me, works for me, maybe it's not true for everyone.' AND objective morality, as in: Even children instinctively know 'right from wrong.' My head is spinning.

IMO astrology invalidates a person's experience by relying on coincidence and generalities and then injecting those into the lives of it's followers. At the same time, the mbti can be used to do the same thing.

 

[Quinlan]

I agree that science has made tremendous advancements with regard to technology, but there is much that science cannot do. There is a lot that can't be measured -- we can't measure "love" for example (we can discuss it philosophically, but there are no "love meters" or devices that can "spark love" for example). Science can compare light, and waves, and make technologies based on that. But can it measure a mother's love?
And even if it could, would you want to measure something like that?

Science can't tell us when an opportunity will come our way. Interestingly, and as far as I know, astrology/tarot cards and the like concern themselves a lot with romance and opportunity: exactly the kind of questions that science cannot asnwer for individual people.

Is it really so terrifying to leave these things as unexplained untill further evidence is gathered? To withhold judgement? I suppose it takes a certain kind of person to accept the chaos and unknown...

Science can do a lot but it can only go so far. The fact that it can't describe the universe, to me, is quite telling. Some of the brightest phycists have admitted that they cannot explain how this universe operates -- all they have are theories, and not very good ones (70% of the universe is "dark matter" and no one really knows what it is).

I like the fact that science doesn't pretend to have all the answers (unlike religion/spirituality) it is prudent, reasonable, sensible... believing you have all the answers is tremendous arrogance.