A review of "Christianity and Astrology: The Fallacy of Zodiac Sun Sign Personalities"
This is a short article, available through Kindle,
criticizing astrology from a Christian viewpoint. Although I don't believe in
astrology, I nevertheless consider Robert Alan King's arguments rather weak. He
is criticizing pop astrology of the kind found in daily papers or weekly
magazines, rather than more advanced astrology, where most horoscopes are
unique. Nor does he take on the more “creative” (perhaps too creative) New Age
versions of astrology, which tends to be less fatalistic than other varieties.
To King, astrology is the fatalistic view that all Capricorns are gloomy, all
Librans love pastel colors, and all Leos are all that!
Of course, it's not “wrong” to criticize this kind of astrology – it's very common, after all – but it's not enough to disprove astrology per se.
King's main argument against astrology is that it's condemned in the Bible, but ancient astrology was connected to polytheism and impersonal “karmic” fatalism, making it natural for the Biblical writers to condemn it. Modern astrology tends to be less fatalist, albeit still “pagan” in the sense that its worldview smacks of pantheism (cosmic vibrations, etc). However, since different humans *do* have different personality types, why can't a monotheist god decide to let people be born “under different signs”? Perhaps that's God's way of “creating” the different personality types in the first place...
King makes one good argument: if we believe in static astrological personality types, this could make us excuse certain sins as impossible to deal with, or make us revel in our supposed “strengths” (which may not be strengths at all, or lead to the sin of pride even if real). However, since different personality types undoubtedly exist, this is surely an all-human problem, not just a problem for astrology! Does King believe that born-again Christians have a specific personality type, different from all others? Does he believe that all born-again Christians have the same personality type? Also, does he believe that Christians simply stop sinning when born again?
Somehow, it feels more reasonable to imagine that even a born again Libran still loves pastel colors, a born again Capricorn still prefers the hard parts of the Bible to the softer ones, and a born again Leo still wants to shine…
Of course, it's not “wrong” to criticize this kind of astrology – it's very common, after all – but it's not enough to disprove astrology per se.
King's main argument against astrology is that it's condemned in the Bible, but ancient astrology was connected to polytheism and impersonal “karmic” fatalism, making it natural for the Biblical writers to condemn it. Modern astrology tends to be less fatalist, albeit still “pagan” in the sense that its worldview smacks of pantheism (cosmic vibrations, etc). However, since different humans *do* have different personality types, why can't a monotheist god decide to let people be born “under different signs”? Perhaps that's God's way of “creating” the different personality types in the first place...
King makes one good argument: if we believe in static astrological personality types, this could make us excuse certain sins as impossible to deal with, or make us revel in our supposed “strengths” (which may not be strengths at all, or lead to the sin of pride even if real). However, since different personality types undoubtedly exist, this is surely an all-human problem, not just a problem for astrology! Does King believe that born-again Christians have a specific personality type, different from all others? Does he believe that all born-again Christians have the same personality type? Also, does he believe that Christians simply stop sinning when born again?
Somehow, it feels more reasonable to imagine that even a born again Libran still loves pastel colors, a born again Capricorn still prefers the hard parts of the Bible to the softer ones, and a born again Leo still wants to shine…
No comments:
Post a Comment