Astrology Debunkers Debunked: Part Two

“Neil Degrasse Tyson disproving astrology in 4 minutes”

I thought it would be fun to do another installment of my “Astrology Debunkers Debunked” series, so I went on youtube and searched “astrology debunked.” Lots of videos come up, but I decided to go with one featuring Neil Degrasse Tyson, because I find his smug, arrogant attitude particularly annoying.

Here’s the video. Watch this first and then read below for my point-by-point critique/rebuttal, or whatever…

I like how the host tells his little story about the person identifying as a “Gemini” and they all have a good laugh at how stupid the woman was. That’s just classy, right? To be fair, it sounds like the woman didn’t really know anything about astrology either, or her knowledge was extremely limited, because I’ve never met anyone who knows anything about astrology that finds any value in one-dimensional, simplistic Sun sign astrology.

Sun sign astrology is a pretty recent development, like maybe a hundred years old. What happened was, some newspaper or other thought it would be fun to print a “horoscope” column and, obviously, they couldn’t do a full chart delineation for all their readers so they just focused on what sign the Sun was in at the moment of birth.

Now, that is one feature you definitely want to look at, but it is just one among many metrics. You’d probably get a fuller picture if you looked at your rising sign, if you simply had to isolate one component of the nativity (try that, next time you read a horoscope column - read the one for your rising sign, not your Sun sign - obviously, it’s only a small piece of a complex picture, but a slightly more meaningful piece than merely the Sun sign, in terms of a quick astrological “check in”).

Then Tyson brings up the tired old “correlation does not imply causation” argument, which is as materialistic as it gets. It doesn’t register for him that celestial events and phenomena might symbolize terrestrial events and phenomena. This is basic Hermeticism. Yes, some astrologers (Ptolemy and others in the Aristotelian manner) take a physically causal view of the art, but they are in the minority. The more common positions are the Stoic, Hermetic and Neoplatonic; these views are predicated on the Anima Mundi, cosmic sympathy, etc. - basically, an enchanted cosmos.

The main problem here is one of domain and perspective; Tyson’s applying the interpretive lens of materialistic, positivistic, scientific inquiry when he should be evaluating astrology from the perspective of, say, art and philosophy. Big difference:

Science doesn’t deal with meaning - but philosophy and art do.

*Bartolomeu Velho, 1568 (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris)*

He then brings up the Copernican Revolution - when the formerly central Earth (geocentrism) was displaced by the Sun (heliocentrism). Which, of course, is a big deal - but it has absolutely no bearing on astrological doctrine. If that’s your argument against astrology, then you literally don’t know what astrology is or claims to do.

It doesn’t matter if the Earth is in the center of the cosmos or not; but we live here and everything else is “out there.” The Earth is the locus of human consciousness and it marks the position from which we observe the cosmos. It’s as simple as this: imagine the solar system, with the Sun in the middle and the planets revolving around it; now take the pin out of the Sun and stick it in the Earth, so everything is relatively revolving around it. Same system; same movements; except the Earth is the primary reference point. Remember, the Sun isn’t stationary either - it’s revolving around the center of the galaxy, which is itself in motion. See? It doesn’t matter who’s revolving around who - the relative positions are the same and the whole thing is in motion. Astrology is georeferential (not necessarily geocentric) because the Earth is our reference point.

Are you Sirius? (duh)

“Do you realize,” he asks, “that the brightest star in the night sky is called Sirius?” No dude, never heard of it - too dumb. I’m not a famous astrophysicist like you.

He pokes fun at the Egyptians for linking the heliacal rise of the star Sirius with the inundation of the Nile, which is perfectly reasonable time-keeping, I think. I don’t recall reading anything that says the Egyptians believed Sirius caused the inundation as much as it indicated it, though Aristotle (the father of Tyson’s beloved scientific approach) may have believed otherwise.

Then, he says, we went on “for thousands of years, believing that the universe actually cares about us.” So, he thinks that this is some form of cosmic humility but it’s the opposite. He looks up at the night sky and sees dead matter, locked in some universal law of motion, that is meaningless - apart from the meaning he and his ilk deem fit to bestow upon it. LOL! Talk about hubris! To observe the planets and stars in their eternal cosmic dance and think that they are devoid of their own objective meaning and purpose is one of the most arrogant ideas I can think of.

Man is the microcosm; the universe is the macrocosm. We sympathize and resonate with the cosmos - we are its image, its reflection. Is that such a crazy idea? Does it make someone an idiot to feel a connection with the cosmos? Neil Degrasse Tyson thinks so, apparently. It’s just sad. He’s a nihilist.

A materialistic, atheistic nihilist.

And this is the sort of mind that we exalt as a culture hero to be lionized? Pathetic.

Next he gets into the constellations and, in his total ignorance of astrology, conflates them with the zodiacal signs. Let me clear this up right now:

The constellations are not the signs of the zodiac.

Constellations are groups of stars forming recognizable patterns, usually based on some mythological figure or other. The signs are 30° sectors of spacetime, dividing the ecliptic into twelve equal parts, marking the seasons (in Western tropical astrology) and the apparent path of the planets.

At one time, the two lined up pretty closely but, due to axial precession, they’ve shifted out of alignment. Yes, these sectors were named after their roughly corresponding constellations, but they are not, nor have they ever been, the constellations themselves. Somebody please teach this basic astrological doctrine to this famous astrophysicist so he doesn’t go around shooting his mouth off about something he has obviously never studied.

Besides, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) recognizes the constellations and calls them by their traditional names. They base celestial coordinates on them (like, Aries being the zero hour right ascension). Why is this so hard for him to grasp? He’s supposed to be an expert - this is just embarrassing.

And what’s all this about “sleepless civilizations” like the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans? You mean, the architects of Western Civilization were sleep-deprived dumbfucks? What is he trying to say here? Seriously, I don’t see his point.

The ancients had a holistic worldview - meaning the quantifiable and the qualifiable existed in a harmonious relationship and the cosmos was animated with soul. How is that a problem? And what is the alternative? (The alterative is being an electric meat-suit in a random, chaotic and meaningless prison of matter. I, for one, definitely don’t subscribe to that worldview.)

His final statement is: “The answer is no, none of this has any effect on us at all.” And that’s supposed to be his big coup de grâce. It’s funny because his heroes - cats like Copernicus, Galileo, Brahe and Kepler - would say otherwise.

*Johannes Kepler - dumbfuck astrologer (1610)*

In summary…

It’s clear that Neil Degrasse Tyson hasn’t even bothered to research astrology. He knows nothing of the art - not even the most basic doctrines. So, how is it that he gets to be its arbiter? I have no idea.

He’s not an intellectual - he’s a smug, arrogant, pretentious, positivistic, materialistic nihilist. And this is your hero?