Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions - James Randi [33]
Accepting the claims of astrology is much like accepting the laws pertaining to property rights and slavery set up over three thousand years ago by the rulers of Babylon, and using their theories of medicine as well, for that is when the rules that are still used by modern astrologers today were devised. When this rigid set of regulations came up against the Christian faith, there arose a problem that was, as usual, neatly explained away by the practitioners. The one single horoscope that would seem of greatest interest to early Christians was that of Christ, but the astrologers, well aware of the opposition of the church to their art (the priests had their own methods to promote), feared casting such a horoscope because they would be accused of making God subject to the controlling forces of the heavens He had created! Such a paradox was not to be countenanced. But Roger Bacon, a devout astrologer and Christian, saved the situation with a masterpiece of rationalization. He declared, in a letter to the pope, that God had willed his son to be born at a time when the signs were auspicious and in harmony with the constellations. Bravo!
According to Evry Schatzman, president of the Union Rationaliste in France, "The actual social function of astrology is to help isolate the faithful from social and political struggles." He may be right. It certainly serves to release man from having to take the blame for his own stupidities. A bad conjunction of planets can always be blamed for unfortunate occurrences. Whatever its function, astrology is an irrationality that serves mankind poorly. Dennis Rawlins, an astronomer, perhaps said it best: "Those who believe in astrology are living in houses with foundations of Silly Putty."
I was never prouder of a member of my profession than I was when actor Tony Randall appeared on Dinah Shore's TV show on a day when astrology was being extolled. Dinah had been speaking with film star Charlton Heston and had determined that he was a Scorpio. So was another entertainer, Chevy Chase, she enthused, and remarked that she could not imagine two persons as unalike as Heston and Chase. But, she went on, the personalities of the two men must be similar because they shared the same birth sign! Thus was astrology reconciled with hard facts. When Randall entered and sat down, he was immediately asked to tell his birth sign. He snorted majestically and refused to respond, saying that to answer the query would insult the intelligence of the American people. The applause was light in the studio, but in my living room it was loud, considering it came from only one person.
It has become almost impossible to attend a social gathering without being asked your astrological sign. I always ask the questioner to guess, and the guesses are quite funny. I'm always given two or three alternatives, then asked which is correct. If I answer, "Try―," it is immediately discovered that my outward character fits that sign. I counter by saying that I only suggested that my questioner try that sign, and another is chosen. And so on. Second-guessing is a popular pastime, it seems. (For some reason, I'm not very popular at these parties.)
It is one thing to argue that astrology is not a rational belief, and another to show that it does not work. The former is fairly easy to demonstrate. For example, in the unlikely and long-sought event that the sun, moon, and all the planets lined up in a straight line to combine their gravitational pulls, the effect on the human body would be nullified if the person merely sat down from a standing position! Lowering the body a distance of twenty-five inches would bring it closer to the gravitational center of the earth and neutralize all effects of the other heavenly bodies that we are told have such influence!
If we consider the scale of the universe, we begin to see just how ridiculous belief in astrology can be. Astronomers measure