Science and Astrology the Meta-Science

Science continues to scoff at Astrology as anything more than superstition while continuing to insist that what they do and speculate about is real science. Thus we are treated to dark energy which no one is really sure what it is, dark matter which must exist because our equations don’t work otherwise, a big bang which must have happened although no one knows exactly how or why, evolution without any understanding of how life began and certainly no way of duplicating it which is the “real” test of science. Instead all examples of life after death are dismissed as endorphins in a dying brain, reincarnation as wishful thinking, and astrology as nothing more than a parlor game at best. Therefore, science is really not as exact and precise as they would have you believe and much of it is really as dependent on faith as religion and other meta-physical studies. For this reason Astrology can be called a meta-science because it doesn’t meet the rigors of the scientific method but then it offers some startling examples of accuracy so how it works or even if it works remains shrouded in mystery – just like the big bang and the origin of life.

Astrology is the study of how conditions in the universe affect everything in the universe, but especially the Earth and the people and events on the Earth. This study and the Zodiac go back to the earliest recorded histories and may actually go back even further given that Atlantis pre-dates most ancient history. Astrology was dignified as a serious study for thousands of years prior to falling out of favor in modern times when “science” became the answer to all questions and the “scientific method” became the litmus test for reality. That is, if the postulation could not be repeated or demonstrated mathematically, then it didn’t exist or was in fact – false. In the parlance of modern science 2 + 2 always equals 4, but then science also says that nothing can travel faster than light, but how do they know? If something is moving faster than light how would they know? Recent studies seem to indicate that things exist beyond the speed of light – imagine that? Perhaps one of these things is ESP or even Astral Rays ???

Astrology can be thought of as a study of events in space-time that consider the Sun, the Moon, and the Planets as the astral-harmonic of a particular moment that marks that event (birth) with a pattern that persists permanently. It is this effect of the stars that is challenged by science because it cannot be demonstrated, but is that really true? A research scientist was working with oysters to see how they would adjust to a changing environment. He had these oysters flown from the Atlantic Coast to Illinois laboratory. At first the Oyster’s attempted to open and close in time with the tides on the East Coast but within two weeks they were opening and closing with high tide in Illinois had Illinois been next to the ocean. Since the Moon is the driver of the tides, the Oysters seemed to be influenced by the Moon as it passed over Illinois.

Michel Gauquelin a French Scientist conducted some statistical studies of the positions of the planets at a person’s birth and their subsequent professions. He looked at the planetary positions when rising and when overhead. He found statistical correlations that people with Mars rising tended to become doctors, scientists, soldiers, or athletes rather than painters or musicians. His study was attacked because other studies did not confirm his findings but the subsequent studies looked at the general population rather than just professional athletes. The assumption was that everyone in the general population with Mars rising should have been an athlete. This represents a fundamental flaw in how science views Astrology and what makes it a Meta-Science. Astrology does not fix people into a set groove because there is no such thing as “destiny” there is only free will. Therefore, a person with Mars rising might be a doctor, soldier, or a scientist and not an athlete at all or none of these things. However, the potential for the person to succeed at any of these things is present. It is this potential that cannot be measured because individuals may choose to go in a totally different direction and decide to do things where they will have to work harder at being successful.

Ironically many of those skeptical scientists know their sun sign and check their horoscopes. Of course they explain that this is just “fun” and they don’t believe in any of it and will cite examples where their daily horoscope in the paper was wrong. This isn’t surprising because the Sun is only one of the astral sources that influence us each day and any reading that attempts to encompass everyone cannot be as accurate as one that looks at all of the planetary influences for a specific person. Even then a daily horoscope can only show the potentials for that day and these may or may not come to pass due to daily decisions and events. For this reason any meaningful study must be conducted using the natal charts because these can be analyzed over the life of the subject.

Is Astrology a science? The answer on the basis of repeatability ala the scientific method must be no, Astrology is NOT a science. But then it isn’t a pseudo-science either because it has some demonstrated predictability, so it falls into the realm of Meta-science. It is more than philosophy because it is more practical and demonstrable but it is less than Chemistry. It falls into a category similar to psychology which is more than guess work but not totally fixed either.

Meta-Science and Evolution

By way of disclosure the ideas being presented here are not original with me but represent a melding of a wide variety of opinions, speculations, and beliefs, but it must be noted that the belief system is not limited to those who believe in God but encompasses much of the scientific community as well.

The battle between Evolutionists, Creationists, Darwinists, Atheists, Scientists, and religionists rages on with no quarter being asked or given. The problem seems to lie in the inflexibility of all concerned and no one seems willing to accept any compromise. You are either pro-science or pro-God and there is no middle ground. After considerable reading it seems to me that we have entered the realm of Meta-Science a place where science and God seem to meet. The Creationists believe that the Bible is revealed truth and literal and some even believe Bishop Usher was correct and the Earth is only 4000 years old. On the other hand there is a large population who believe that God or any spiritual involvement in anything is not just misguided but the height of ignorance. Then there are the Darwinists who have raised Charles Darwin to godhood, much as “Brave New World” did for Ford. However, if you actually read current theories in Quantum Physics and Cosmology and then read other theories and the Bible with an open mind, you begin to see that these things are really not that far apart and it is this area that I call “Meta-Science”.

Of course the first issue is the “First Cause” or “First Singularity” depending on your point of view. The Steady State theory that the Universe has always been as it is has been discredited by Science with the emergence of the Big Bang theory. However, the flaw in this theory is that where did all of this energy come from? Since it created space, time, and mass, all of that had to have existed somewhere and if it occurred spontaneously then how – what was the “First Cause”. The Metaphysicians believe in the beginning there was only a mind-force, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, which was the source of all. This was the “I AM THAT I AM” – the eternal God mentioned in the Bible. The “First Cause” was the self-awareness of God and the Second Cause was desire for creation.

The Book of Genesis Chapters 1 – 5 states that the Earth was without form and God created light. This essentially describes the Big Bang, which was an explosion of energy that established space, time, and mass. Genesis goes on to establish the order of things as the Earth evolved from a molten state through the various stages of evolution – from the bumping and thumping of electrons and protons to the creation of life, in the form of fishes, plants, and animals. This is poetically delivered but does not vary from the current scientific thinking if the term “day” is not taken literally but poetically. Of course the real stumbling block here is the creation of “life” those simple little microscopic collections of primitive electrons and protons that miraculously not only sub-divide and grow but procreate in the more advanced forms.

This problem of “Creation” was first addressed by Thales in 600BC who postulated that water was the source of all things which is not too far from the current position of science who postulate that life began in the seas. Then Plotinus who postulated that from a pure God came emanations or beings as light flows from the sun. This view corresponds with later metaphysical views that God created all souls before he created the universe. But then modern science maintains that the Earth is just an accident and independent of any external cause and that man emerged from some simple state through the natural evolution described by Darwin -- however progressive this idea may be viewed as it was first postulated by Epicurus in 306 BC. But alas the rub is that “simple state” from which all derived is left unexplained by all but science believes it was simply a coincidental collision of random atoms and events – with belief being the operative word. So there you have it – you can believe that God created the life force in those microscopic organisms or you can believe in the scientific view of random coincidence but both require unproven belief. The pivotal issue really seems to revolve around homo sapiens and where did he come from.

The Darwinists believe that man evolved from ape-like animals into hominids which went through various evolutionary stages culminating in homo sapiens. Most of these branches on the human evolutionary tree seem to have gone extinct and gradually mankind evolved from primitive beginnings into the five races of man today. God was never involved and everything happened by pure chance which is what is believed by the Darwinists. However, in a reading of other sources including the Bible we find a very similar description, which can be summed up as follows: God created man in his image but since God is not human that image – whatever it is can be described as “energy”. However, God also created humanity which could be viewed as these first hominids – no one knows how this happened but it is possible it was God as well as evolution. We are told that God created Adam and Eve, the first perfect humans, which means that His first try didn’t work out. The descendants of Adam and Eve mixed with these early humans, which resulted in God destroying humanity in the Great Flood. The human race today is descended from the survivors.

When examined critically these two views are truly not in great conflict, of course one is rather poetic but follows the scientific train of thought fairly closely. It certainly allows for the evolution of man from a more primitive form to the superior creature we have today. The sticking points are really rather few. First of course is what caused the Big Bang – no proof on either side but God is probably as logical as any other explanation. The second sticking point is how life was created. In Genesis 20-21 we find God brought forth the moving creatures, having earlier brought forth the dry land and vegetation. Admittedly this view skips over the actual initiation of living micro-organisms and goes directly to plants, which is contrary to the scientifically accepted sequence of events but then the Cambrian explosion of life lies unexplained so we are left with what do you believe – coincidence or God. If you accept God and intelligent design then everything falls into place but rests on belief. If you reject God then you are left with the first cause conundrum and then your position rests on belief that it can be explained independent of God --take your pick. But it seems to me that God is looking more and more like the logical choice because even police detectives don't believe in coincidence so why should scientists?

Astrology Science or Pseudo-Science

Frankly I don’t know if Astrology is “science” or a “pseudo-science” but I do know from personal observation that psychic capabilities are real and that what passes for astral influence may be nothing more than a manifestation of psychic ability by the Astrologer. . (I am not an astrologer so I speak from limited knowledge here). Today Astrology is largely regarded as a pseudo-science and ignored as a topic of scientific investigation by scientists on the basis that it has not survived any test using the scientific method. But this has been true of psychic phenomena as well and there are many skeptics who maintain that it is hogwash, even in the face of demonstrated cases.

The crux of the argument against Astrology seems to rest on the lack of evidence of any known mechanism that would present a causal relationship between celestial bodies and events on Earth. Of course the operative phrase here is “known mechanism” because it is quite possible that – don’t laugh now – that we don’t know everything about the universe or the mechanisms that drive it. After all scientists are already struggling to explain what “dark matter” and “dark energy” are although they are pretty sure that these are not evidence of any divine influence. At a more mundane level there is still some gaps in our understanding of gravity, magnetism, and light. So it would seem that it is possible that there are some energy flows that are yet unknown.

A well known French skeptic (Gauguelins) conducted a critical analysis and discovered a statistical correlation between athletes and the position of Mars in their natal charts. This was described as the “Mars Effect”. In follow up studies the Mars Effect was not demonstrated but these results were disputed because the sample included people of mediocre athletic ability rather than athletes of recognized ability. Gauguelins also found statistical correlations between the position of Jupiter with actors and Saturn for scientists. Although Gauguelins findings were later demonstrated by the Belgian Committee PARA, but these were later rejected on a technical basis regarding how the position of Mars was determined and the controversy rages on. Skeptics maintain that the accuracy of astrological predictions is no greater than chance and that people tend to emphasize the positive “hits” while ignoring the “misses”.

The skeptical view is fully understandable but it seems to me that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle seems to apply here, because Astrology like all other predictive techniques only show the “potential” for something to occur and do not describe the absolute. In the case of Natal Astrology the position of Mars cannot be taken in a standalone fashion but it must be evaluated in relation to all of the other planets. In astrology each planet has specific influence but must be viewed in relation to all others. However, any horoscope only presents the situation at that time but the future is always uncertain so accuracy can never be 100%. The Natal Horoscope is slightly different because it describes the individual’s personality, character traits, and potentials but contrary to the skeptics it does not provide a “cast in stone” view of the individual. Because these variables exist the scientific community dismisses Astrology because it fails to meet the scientific expectation of repeatability and verification. But the reality is that the future is not fixed and destiny does not exist because each of us is granted free will so our decisions – both great and small – determine our future and our condition.

The result of all of this is the dismissal of Astrology by the scientific community as “pseudo-science” because it cannot and never will meet the rigors of the scientific method, because of its innate variability. Therefore, Astrology rightfully cannot be described as a “science” similar to Astronomy or Astrophysics but then it should not be dismissed as fakery either. Therefore, I view Astrology as a “meta-science” similar to “metaphysics” because metaphysics investigates reality that transcends traditional science and explores the intangible and the realms outside of physical science – just as Astrology does. Science cannot demonstrate or prove precisely how the universe came to be or why. Science cannot prove many aspects of science so dismissing Astrology because it cannot be proven doesn’t mean it has no validity, it just moves it into the realm of meta-science.

Metaphysics deals with the nature of reality, why the world exists, and does the world exist outside of our mind. In effect metaphysics deals with God, the inner person, and the purpose of it all. So it isn’t much of a stretch to think that Astrology, which deals with the inner person, life potential, and purpose, is all that different from metaphysics.

Science God and Time

Science studies the material world – the physical aspects of our existence and denies the metaphysical because it cannot be demonstrated by any known scientific method; ergo science rejects psychic energy, telepathy, souls, and God. The scientists assure us that their secular world relies on reason and facts while religious people rely on faith. While this is what the scientists would like you to believe – and they probably believe themselves – the reality is that much of science requires the same level of faith as the religious and metaphysical. In fact, Carl Sagan stated “The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be”. This statement was made as if it were a known scientific fact – a fact that he undoubtedly believed in – but is really not a fact and is nothing more than a belief – a faith based argument and in light of current Quantum Theory most probably wrong. The Big Bang Theory has certainly thrown a monkey wrench into the tidy little world of science.

The discovery that the universe is expanding and that galaxies are moving away at an increasing rate led inexorably to the Big Bang Theory. This is a theory that is generally accepted – reluctantly accepted – by most scientists today. But if the galaxies are continuing to accelerate as they move away from each other the implication is that at one time they were closer – in fact compacted into one bundle of energy which exploded. Unfortunately this conclusion led to some very uncomfortable questions with some very disturbing potential answers. How big was this primordial bundle of energy? Apparently it was smaller than an atom and we know how large that would be. BUT, the Big Bang created both space and time so where was this bundle of energy in microsecond before the explosion? If the Cosmos is as it has always been then space and time are not an issue – but then why is the universe expanding at an accelerating rate? The obvious conclusion is that Carl Sagan and his supporters are wrong. But if the Big Bang is a true picture of the beginning of the universe then what initiated the Big Bang and where did the energy come from? Science doesn’t approve of God so that answer is disallowed on the basis that scientists have faith that a better answer will be discovered, but what does God say?

In paraphrasing Genesis it seems that the Earth was without form and void and that darkness was upon the face of the deep and God said let there be light (Bang) and there was light and God divided the light from the darkness. This was God’s work on the first day of creation and it sounds like a fairly accurate description – albeit somewhat poetic – of the first moments of the Big Bang. The scientific community likes to shrug off Genesis as a fairy tale suitable only for the gullible because they KNOW that the cosmos is at least 15 billion years old so it could not have been created in six days. Alas imagination is not a strong characteristic of the scientific community but the actual word translated in the Bible as “day” is actually a word that is much less precise and could describe a period of time from a second to an epoch. So perhaps Genesis isn’t too different from the current paleontological record, but that really isn’t the problem. The problem lies with Darwin and Evolution and the scientific community has replaced the Bible with “The Origin of Species” and God with Darwin. Of course the irony is that “The Origin of Species” does not describe how species come into being and the only explanation provided by science is an undemonstrated theory – a belief in how it all came about. So the Darwinists are not really too different than those ignoramuses who believe in God.

Science does not believe in miracles but only deals in facts – demonstrable facts – so Genesis is out and Darwin is in. First it should be noted that everything in the cosmos is built from the same stuff – protons, electrons, and neutrons – all indistinguishable from each other. It also should be noted that all of these are pure energy and that what we perceive as material is in fact energy fields – and that includes all living things. Now Genesis tells us that God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into his nostrils – a miraculous beginning but science rejects miracles so there must be a rational explanation of how life was formed without bringing God into it. All of those protons and electrons bumped into each other and formed atoms, the atoms bumped into each other and formed other things which coalesced into the sun, moon, and stars and eventually the oceans, which presumably were composed of water and various salts – but lifeless.

At least some of these errant atoms floating around in the ocean either bumped into each other or were hit by some random cosmic particle that caused them to mutate into a complex molecule, which in turn evolved into a self-replicating simple cell and we were off on the evolutionary pathway to life, humankind, and the space shuttle. Of course all of this is speculation and in spite of years of effort science has failed to demonstrate any of this and it remains theory, which is science talk for a belief which is another name for faith and this brings us back to that aggravating Big Bang Theory.

The Big Bang represents the beginning of both space and time, but everything that has a beginning has a cause – some initiating action. This means that since the material world did not exist prior to the Big Bang then the universe must have had a nonmaterial beginning, which would be metaphysical in nature or spiritual – in effect it was MIND not MATTER that was the initiating factor. It was a MIRACLE – something that seems to be the province of God.