Whether Astrology is ‘Magic’ or ‘Religion’?
Western astrology, since its origins in mediaeval Europe, has become conceptualized, in anthropological theory as ‘magic’. The astrologer, in this discipline, is the ‘magician’, who manipulates objects, scilicet, the horoscope, for ‘outcomes’ on behalf of his client. ‘Magic’ is classified as either black or white. This seems prima facie to be quite simple in theory, but in practice however, this is not so, because both overlap quite frequently. Differentiating between both rather depends on the perceptions of the magician and the recipient. The magician perceives his activities as autonomous, ethically indifferent, and under his full control. This, also, seems simple, but when the theoretical boundary between the preternatural, the supposed area in which the magician operates, and the supernatural is sought; all becomes very blurred indeed. In theory the magician operates within the boundaries of the preternatural, yet in practise makes supplications to the supernatural; under the guise of Christian piety. This is quite transparent in the Kabbalaistic, astrological magic of the grimoire, vid., ‘Les Clavicules de Salomon’ (circa., 16th century), and other grimoire, e.c., ‘Le Livre de Salomon’ (circa 1350).
The question as to the status of astrology – whether its ‘magic’ or ‘religion’ – has prompted various discussions among theorists in the social and anthropological fields. Taylor, in his ‘ Primitive Culture ‘ (1871), perceives an ‘anomalous relationship of causality between magic and outcome’. He also suggests that it is a “spurious system of natural law”, as well as being ‘in concert with religion’. Frazer, in ‘The Golden Bough’ (1890), agrees with Taylor on the former, but disagrees on the latter. His view is that magic and religion, in social evolution, form two distinct areas. Firstly, he suggests that the inefficaciousness of magic gave rise to religion. Man, through supplication to the supernatural – the Deity (or deities) – would accomplish the effectual. Secondly, he believes that magic and religion merged with the rise of empirical science. Durkheim, in his ‘Les Formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse’ (1915) perceives no relationship between magic and religion. He says that ‘the magician’s manipulations are on behalf of a singular client, whereas the priest’s religious rites are on behalf of a congregation’. The fundamental differences are: The magician’s supposed abilities to manipulate natural laws are quite apart from the priests function of, sit venia verbo, ‘placation’, or supplication to intercede with the Deity on behalf of his congregation; for controlling the forces of nature.
~ The Atheistic, Mechanistic Concept, and The Horoscope ~
The Boundary Between Religion and Astrology.
Astrology has a fundamental atheistic concept of a totally mechanistic cosmos that mutes any suggestion of an intervention of God in human affairs. There seems prima facie to be no clear line of distinction, between magic and religion in antiquity. The Mosaic and rabbinical teachings suggest an existence of a boundary between both. Isaiah (circa. 705 BC), makes a very clear pronouncement. “They are confused because of wine. They stagger because of strong drink”. (Isaiah, 28:7. ( cf. Ex., xxii, 18, Deut, xviii, 10, Neh. 6:14, I Sam. 10:10. Jer., xxix, 8; Zach., x. 1-2)). This view was inherited by the Christian tradition eight centuries later. Paul, in his letter to the Gentile Christian community at Colossae (circa 61-63), wrote, “Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths…” (Colossians, 2:15,16. cf. Eph. 6:12). Both Judaism and Christianity, in these texts, have an unmistakable view – of mantic practises – that suggest a boundary between magic and religion.
Astrology was Condemned by The Rabbinical School, The Christian Church, and Islam.
Astrology was considered magic by the rabbis – teachers in the precepts of the Torah – who objected to its practice. Similarly, It was rejected by the Orthodox Church at the Holy Council of Laodicea circa. 364 (Canon LX:XXXVI, CII) , and at Troullos in 691 (Canon CII:LXI) 3. and the Roman Catholic Church (see also St. Augustine’s ‘De Civitate Dei’ , v.1-8 (circa 413-426 )), and also by Islam; in the 13th century.
The astrologer, in sociological theory, is a ‘diviner’ who augurs on the basis of a horoscope by rationalizing, either objectively or subjectively, means of eliciting future outcomes from known recurrent, and potential societal factors and including them into the well-articulated body of astrological lore. Hone says that “astrology is not an innate ability, such as clairvoyance or psychometry..”, yet admits that “many practitioners who have such abilities cannot help but 3. use them… adding intuitively gained detail to their work” 4. Moreover, George suggests “astrology is best acquired by those who have an inborn love of mystical subjects, and who at the same time possess an active six sense, that of intuition” 5.. One of the leading figures in astrological thought was Paris born Dane Rudhyar (1895 – 1985) who agreed with this principle:
“To disassociate astrology from the state of the culture and the society in which the astrologer lives makes his calculations and interpretations is quite senseless… the ‘truth,’ or rather the validity, of an action or a thought can be ascertained only by referring it to the larger social-cultural picture..”. 6.
The number of outcomes, in astrological predictions, are determined by the size of a particular society. Which enables the astrologer to scale the prognosis – usually ambiguous, non-specific and unverifiable – in the interpretation of the horoscope; within the known possibility ratio.
~ The Horoscope ~
The horoscope (or natal chart), features the relative locations of stars and planets at a person’s birth, from which the astrologer augurs for his client. An essential understanding of the horoscope is critical for debate. Opinions that are opposed to astrological thought, without at least a rudimentary knowledge of astrological theory and practice, are disregarded, by astrologers, as being “uninformed”, or “invariably (are) persons who know practically nothing about it” (sic.).
” …there is now no excuse for the uninformed attitude of the critics of the art (astrology). Until he has learnt enough to enable him to meet such arguments properly, the student is advised to ask his critic whether he has ever read a serious book on the subject and whether he has ever attended an informative lecture? If the answer is in the usual negative, he can then point out that argument with the ignorant is hardly worth while” 7.
“The few opponents of this science (astrology) are invariably persons who know practically nothing of it and cannot prove any of their arguments by science itself, while on the other hand, those who advocate its study have made investigation and are prepared to demonstrate the proofs of their claims not alone by word of mouth, but in black and white, mathematically”. 8.
Firstly, Hone was incorrect in assuming that an “argument with the ignorant is hardly worth while”, and her assumption that “…opponents of this science (astrology) are invariably persons who know practically nothing of it…”. An ‘opponent’ of astrology is not necessarily “ignorant”, nor “invariably … know practically nothing of it”, but would be keen to learn of “proofs of their claims not alone by word of mouth, but in black and white, mathematically”.
The horoscope is divided – according to the Babylonian system from circa. 1792-1750 BC – into twelve 30° sections (30° x 12= 360°) each representing the signs of the zodiac (Zod.) named after the twelve constellations: Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces; through which the Sun appears to transit. The left side of the chart has the Ascendant (Asc.) where the Sun seems to rise. The apex of the graph is called the Medium Coeli (Mc.) where the Sun is in the noon position. The right side of the chart is called the Descendant (Desc) where the Sun appears to set, and below the horizon where the Sun reaches the midnight position; the Immum Coeli (Ic.). Each sign of the Zod. passes through the point of Asc. at an approximate rate of 0.25° per minute – This has been deduced from the following assumption: 360° ÷ 12= 30° ÷ 120’= 0.25°= 1°per 60s. In latitudes north of the equatorial line, Cancer (Can.) to Sagittarius (Sag.), 90°-270°, are regarded as long ascensions, Capricornus (Cap.) to Gemini , 270° – 90°, short ascensions. Which is reversed south of the equatorial line. The Asc . (and Mc.) are calculated with data from a heliocentric or geocentric Ephemeris to obtain the degree in the appropriate Tables. All of which are based on time, geographic coordinates represented by degrees of hours, minutes, and seconds. Either north or south of the equatorial line; and the longitude either east or west of the Greenwich meridian. The Sun, Moon and planets: Jupiter, Mercury, Saturn, Neptune, Venus, Mars, Uranus and Pluto, and their geocentric, or heliocentric, angular distances, videlicet, conjunction 0°, opposition 180°, trine 120°, square 90°, sextile 60°, semi-square 45° et cetera, as well as to each other; are included in the horoscope.
Supposed Planetary Vibrations and Human Lives.
The so-called 12 houses of the zodiac is an arbitrary concept. Based upon an imaginary ecliptic divided into twelve sections, each of which, in the ‘equal house system’ consists of 30°, and variable in the ‘placidean system’. The initial points of the 1st, 4th, 7th and 10th Houses are, in most charts, similar in respect to the Asc., Ic., Desc., and Mc. Inconsistencies are apparent in the others due to the disregard, by most astrologers, to spherical trigonometry and mathematical computations. The first degree of 1st house is at the point of the Asc. The remaining houses continue descending, below the Asc., and anti-clockwise around the ecliptic. Astrologers assert that the 12 houses of the zodiac represent aspects of human life, exempli gratia: personality (1st), money (2nd), journeys (3rd), death (4th) et cetera. The astrologer interprets the position of the planets in both the houses and signs of the zodiac in the context of the client’s social and cultural background.
George suggested that Astrology:
‘… maintains a place in the front ranks of progress as an agent for development’, and ‘Through improved methods for making observations and more accurate systems… astrologers are able to give better… advice and information than ever before’, and that ‘More is now known of planetary influence and human response because of the greater number of qualified investigators and finer facilities for compiling and disseminating the facts’. 9. 10.
The ‘improved methods’ and ‘increased knowledge of planetary influence and human response’, of which George boasts, are the same today as they have indeed been so for the past 12 centuries. During the 400-year period 800 to 1200, when astrology was at its summit, and with the added advantage of the surrounding Byzantine intellectual environment, it accrued not even one single addition. The twelve 30° degree system, of the zodiac, remains the same today as it was circa 3791 years ago; in Babylonia.
Modern astrologer’s attempts to provide a satisfactory rationale with statistical support does not appear to have occurred. They have not provided one single serious hypothesis to support the alleged relationship between supposed ‘planetary vibrations’ and human lives, nor have they explained precisely how this occurs.