How do I answer this guy concerning astrology?

[quote=Member on another forum]Since I was raised a Christian, I shall venture to make some observations here.

  1. Anyone who declares astrology a pseudoscience needs to produce some evidence. When I was at university, I was taught that the scientific method involved studying the evidence before reaching a conclusion. I have studied astrology: some theories turned out to be false, but the bulk of it works.

  2. I trust that anyone who feels that using astrology shows a lack of trust in divine providence will refrain from listening to the weather forecast!

  3. The current Catholic catechism may be hostile, but when I started studying astrology, the president of the Irish Astrological Association was a Jesuit priest. It has also been endorsed by popes and by saints, namely Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas. I wonder if the author of that passage in the catechism had ever read Aquinas? Or any serious theology? Demons, indeed! Whatever my granny told me, Protestantism doesn’t have a monopoly on idiots.
    [/quote]

(Link removed as per forum rules)

Hey everyone. This man named David posted the above which I think is in reply to my post on the thread linked about astrology. I was just wondering how I should answer this? Also, for those interested, I am ZooGirl02 on the other forums. I posted a couple of paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

What, pray tell, is his evidence that astrology “works”?

How can you argue against his “evidence” when he refuses to present it? How can you even examine that evidence and come to a rational conclusion about it?

Is there some reason why he won’t present it? Like, ummm, maybe it’s really just coincidence after all, but he doesn’t want to admit that?

I would say the following:

  1. Be it a pseudoscience or true science, it is clear that this practices are not rooted in God. Astrology, be it whatever branch, from horoscopes, to conjuring the spirits of the dead, are dangerous, to say the least. It deals in uncertainties, and it leaves a wide door open for mixing in lies with truth. it might sound good and true, but somewhere in there is a lie, or more. The devil is cunning. Use prudence.

  2. Weather forecast isn’t astrology. It does not deal in the supernatural, but in the natural. It takes the information found in nature and releases a forecast that will happen also in nature. There is no guessing the future here, just making a statement. If you take 1+1, then the forecast is 2. There must always be a lie somewhere, a twisted truth. Sounds good and real, but it’s not. And, it does show a lack in divine providence to put your trust in astrology-type practices.

  3. The current Catholic catechism may be hostile, this should be your alarm going off that something is wrong. It’s clear that astrology is against our faith, and he openly states it. But, again, mixing in truth with lies, by calling a Church authority, a Jesuit priest. A priest does not have the charisma of infallibility and may be corrupted by error. But, leaving this aside, who is this Jesuit priest? A name, something. And what was he teaching, exactly? By what this member from another forum was saying that the Church actually doesn’t know Aquinas, it’s popes, it’s raw teaching. He just blasted the entire Catholic faith, quite well, I might add, with few words. Not just on astrology, but on everything. What are the other ares of Catholic faith that are in error? Is the Catechism a summary of opinions? I think not. The Catechism is the will of the Magisterium of the Church, it rests on the two great pillars: Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.
    God bless!

  1. The current Catholic catechism may be hostile, but when I started studying astrology, the president of the Irish Astrological Association was a Jesuit priest.

The priest’s name was Edward Pignot and he was president of the British Astronomical Association - not astrological but astronomical. He was an astronomer and seismologis - a scientist.

And he died in 1929 so the person claiming this would have had to have started studying astrology over 85 years ago.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Pigot

-Tim-

Ask him if he knows the difference between astrology and astronomy. It appears he does not.

Not much I can add to the above replies - but I will make an observation.

I have watched the program “The Star of Bethlehem” Several times now and find it quite interesting. All the “signs in the heavens” indicating the birth of our Lord.

It caused me to consider that if God, who sees all the past and future at once, wished to give us clues as to when things would occur, what better way than through “the stars”. The movement of the heavenly bodies are not dependent on human time measures or language. They remain quite constant over (humanity’s) time.

So - it might be possible to understand certain prophecies as being connected with heavenly events…but not because those events control us somehow…rather because God wished to reveal something to us…

Make sense??

Peace
James

This we find in the bible. The birth of Jesus was revealed to the three magi by the sign of a star. So, it makes sense. At the death of Jesus on the Cross we have heavenly signs. The book of revelation is filled with heavenly signs.

Believing in astronomy, that God made a spectacular celestial event coincide with the birth of Christ, is not a problem.

Believing in astrology, that the alignment of the stars controls whether you will have a “lucky” day, is a problem.

Precisely.

In the first example it might be thought of as God’s way of “telling time”…Of saying such-and-such will happen when you see this-and-that. Not unlike me saying, I’ll be there at 4 o’clock.

In the second case, one is assigning properties to the “stars” that simply don’t exist.

Peace
James

You might consider the example he gave himself: the weather forecast. Let’s say we took a newspaper and read a horoscope and a weather forecast. They wouldn’t be similar. Weather forecasts tend to make clear predictions, horoscopes tend to make very vague predictions and recommendations. We know what natural processes make weather forecasts possible, we have no idea what could possibly connect positions of planets and human behaviour (or something). Finally, weather forecasts are perfectly compatible with free will while astrology seems to have some problems there. Thus horoscopes and weather forecasts are not alike. And this comparison also gives us some evidence supporting the view that astrology should not be trusted. Since he is not offering much in favour of his view, just some evidence should be enough.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.