Is Astrology Returning to an Age of Endarkenment?

by Robert Currey

How can astrology avoid fragmentation or sinking back into obscurity as sceptical scientists such as Prof. Brian Cox try to debunk what they do not understand? One answer lies in putting more effort into research in an age of evidence-based knowledge.

Astrology has reincarnated more often than Kenny in South Park. Our last decline coincided with the final demise of the Renaissance along with Galileo, Kepler and Lilly during the 17th century. While the West entered the Age of Enlightenment, astrology entered an Age of ‘Endarkenment’. 

Astrologers were forced underground into a counterculture. Benjamin Franklin, like many other astrologers publishing almanacs, hid behind a pseudonym. Some of Ben’s fellow-founding fathers dabbled in astrology through secret masonic membership and left their elegant graffiti in discreet astrological symbols in the architecture of Washington (Ovason 1999).

How did we go from purveyors of the ‘royal art’ to anonymous peddlers of cheap almanacs? Sceptics argue that astrology was no longer tenable under the brilliant glare of the scientific method. Science was the new magic – it transformed the quality and quantity of life without which human lives would have been solitary, nasty, brutish and short (Hobbes 1651).

Science prevails against an undercurrent of religious intolerance

But while materialism became the spirit of this enlightened age, the scientific method hadn’t percolated through to the consciousness of the general public who were still deeply religious. Science posed an existential threat to religion. The 1860 evolution debate in Oxford confirmed that religion could not beat the logic of science, but they still carried the devout masses. So, a deal was reached where the rational and irrational could co-exist in separate faculties. In this great partition, astronomy dumped astrology. Without any academic status, astrology became the unacceptable face of heathen superstition.

Religious intolerance was evident with Kepler whose mother was tried for witchcraft and with William Lilly who prudently named his famous tome Christian Astrology. Two centuries later, leading 19th century astrologers hid behind benign archangels with pseudonyms, such as Raphael and Zadkiel – divine masks to appeal to a God-fearing public.

The point is that fans of scientism never needed to get their hands dirty – astrology was marginalised by religious prejudice. Even when I started looking into astrology in the late 1970s, I was surprised by how many people objected to astrology on religious grounds. 

Astrologers come out

But gradually this self-righteous criticism waned as we transformed into a secular society.  Astrologers came out of their closeted observatories – well, our makeshift attic cubbyholes. No need to hide behind pseudonyms. No need to cite Matthew 2:2 to defend our existence. We hitched a free ride on the back of the so-called New Age wave. Astrological societies expanded. Conferences boomed. Schools prospered. Astrology shops opened with over a thousand astrology books. Glossy magazines flourished. The Mail on Sunday newspaper gained over 100,000 readers through an astrology reader offer. I know this because I fulfilled the offer with the help of a factory in Swindon. These were heady days for astrologers and all things celestial.

But it was the seemingly irresistible rise of the Sun Sign column in the media that baited 186 leading scientists, including Nobel Prize-winners, to circulate their objections to astrology. Sceptical groups mushroomed around the world. Though their members masquerade as investigators, they want nothing more than to debunk astrology by fair means or foul. In their minds, astrology is the enemy of science and reason, but explaining how or why somehow eludes them.

The irony is that whenever these hardened sceptics orchestrate experiments to disprove astrology, it backfires. Some tests are obviously flawed. But some provide unimpeachable evidence to support astrology. It started when Professor Ertel and Ken Irving reviewed research by sceptical groups who tried to refute M. et Mme. Gauquelinʹs formidable results (1996). Then the sceptics’ flagship experiment known as the Carlson Test was sunk and re-floated with new colours by Ertel (2009; Currey 2011). More recently, Geoffrey Dean’s landmark Extraversion and Neuroticism Test (Currey 2017) was turned on its head to give strong support for the astrological elements in natal charts.

But nobody outside our beautiful walled garden knows and nobody seems to care!

These significant victories are not enough to undo three centuries in the academic wilderness. A recent Press Gazette article(1) (that included a response from the editor of The Astrological Journal, Victor Olliver) is typical of most of the criticism of astrology today. No longer are we angels of darkness predicting a future that only God should know. Now, the new yardstick is that astrology is not evidence-based.

This has and will continue to marginalise astrology in online searches and dictionaries such as Wikipedia. Schools such as Kepler College should never have lost its accreditation.  We can blame the Internet as to why astrology books are no longer profitable and why long-established magazines such as Prediction and Dell Horoscope were forced to close.  However, there are still bestselling books on Amazon on pop psychology. And magazines glorifying appearances, image and material goals proliferate on newsstands.

This closed mindset has contaminated the chatrooms of power. In the UK, astrology is regulated out of existence on television and radio by the Office of Communications (Ofcom). 

Brian in the brain-clone recycling factory

The prejudice is fed by a vicious circle. Generations of science educators teach students that astrology is bogus – without ever looking into it or reviewing current research. This factory churns out oven-ready bigots. As our technology expands, more students are studying science and maths. So, this pre-programmed clone is multiplying and coming to a home near you. Now, most families have at least one sophist prepared to ruin our warm and cosy family Christmas or other festivities to validate his or her disenchanted universe.  So, this trend is marginalising astrologers personally and socially.

For the ultra-sceptic, astrology is a closed book. All their impressive claims about open scientific enquiry and self-questioning of assumptions mean nothing the moment you mention the ‘A’ word. It’s a wonderful hypocrisy.

Professor Brian Cox is the archetypal product of this brain-clone factory. Every time he attacks astrology with no evidence or reasoning, one has to wonder what qualities earned this good-looking celebrity popstar (and host of BBC Two’s Wonders of the Universe documentary series) with a D in maths ‘A’ level, a professorship in physics. It’s fine that he is a science professor, but he needs to act like one. His nonsense is typical and reveals that there is something rotten in the heart of academic science. Yet, scientists are astonished that so many people no longer trust their advice – even when they present us with trustworthy facts. 

Astrology could fragment to stay under the radar

But that is not our problem. Even without the negative publicity of Professor Cox or NASA’s 13th sign hoax, we are losing traction with the general public. Our current trajectory could lead astrology to fragment into three fields. The first is into an ‘astro-psycho-therapy’ where the practitioner ‘explores’ nebulous themes in the chart that are meaningful to the client. A second route is that we go strictly divinatory – where errors are down to the reader misinterpreting ‘spirit’. Our third path is to study astrology as a dead subject, as history or as a sociological phenomenon. These routes stay under the sceptical radar since testable claims are avoided.

Resisting cherry-picking and how to qualify our claims

All three options are valuable in their own way, but most practitioners work with claims.  Every firm statement in a cookbook is a claim. For example, without specifics, vocational advice is hopeless. 

And what’s more, we know these claims work. The problem is that it’s so damned hard to verify them objectively. Nowadays, in the minds of the public, a claim without evidence is fake news.

But what qualifies as reliable evidence? For most practising astrologers, evidence is mostly from our written tradition or anecdotal. Go to any conference and presenters will produce example charts to prop up their new theory. This is cherry-picking, and like anecdotes, is biased sampling to scientists. And this is not unreasonable because we can claim anything if we select and reject evidence – even if we do it unconsciously.

Speculation is fine, even entertaining among astrologers. But we need to qualify our published claims if we want credibility outside our bubble. Who was the original astrologer who made the claim – Ptolemy or Liz Greene? And how can the author support the claim? Is it:

• Intuitive – based on psi?
• Theoretical - based on planetary symbolism?
• Anecdotal – based on personal experiences and people?
• Exemplar – based on examples of public figures?
• Empirical – inferred from statistical studies?

This way the student, consultant or researcher can know how reliable the evidence is and how strong the effect to gauge how it can be applied.

The role of Correlation: Journal of Research into Astrology

So, where is this evidence from statistical studies? Well, that’s our job at Correlation – the Astrological Journal’s smaller, younger, (smarter?) sister. We are the premier journal for astrology research. In the current edition (Vol. 32.2 2020), sixty-three published studies that support the fundamental notion of astrology are listed. I am currently editing Volume 33.2 and we have more evidence that will enhance our practice and our credibility. 
We need astrologers who work on the frontline with clients on a day-to-day basis, as I do, to be more involved. We have some truly brilliant researchers providing ground-breaking material, but most are self-taught in astrology and many are not consultants. So, there is a disconnect between theory and practice. For example, simply counting planets in signs, houses or aspects and comparing the results with cookbook snippets does not reflect how we, practising astrologers, look for themes and contradictions within the chart.

To any rational person who gets astrology – it is mind-bogglingly shocking and real. It defies explanation, undermines our education and shatters our perception of reality. But once we are in that bubble where it works so elegantly for us and our clients, we stop caring about how the Muggles in the outside world see astrology.

However, the outside world could once again present us with an existential threat – only this time the witch hunters are anonymous geeks on their laptops. To counter this trend, we must look at astrology from their point of view. How are we different from the flat earthers? It means looking under the bonnet of our car that runs so perfectly but nobody knows how. It can mean looking into the abyss of the possibility that we are the ones who are delusional. This is frightening, but the truth is out there, we know it and there is a consensus.

So, we need to work together to ensure that astrology doesn't return to an underground counterculture in an endarkened age.

Endnotes:
1 Press Gazette, ‘Is there a future for newspaper astrologers in the era of fake news?’, 17 July 2020: pressgazette.co.uk. The article arose following the ‘sacking’ of Shelley von Strunckel from the Sunday Times after 28 years’ service as its star sign astrologer. Victor Olliver said in response to the headline question: “Astrology is not a science. Therefore, it cannot be a pseudo-science. It’s more useful to think of it as a symbolic system rooted in ancient ideas and practices. Many, many people relate to astrology through their star sign – but there’s a lot more to astrology than just star signs. Media horoscopes offer an opportunity to readers to reflect briefly on their lives – to view situations and events as part of something spiritually bigger. This offers a valuable contrast to the world of hard fact that drives a newspaper or magazine – it’s worth remembering that a publication serves many different purposes, as information provider, entertainment and as a thoughtful prompt. Not all life can be driven by literal fact. Sometimes, truths of another kind help to inspire, guide and comfort readers”.

References:
Currey, Robert (2011): 'U-turn in Carlson's Astrology test', Correlation. Vol.27 (2). s
Currey, Robert (2017): 'Can Extraversion & Neuroticism, as defined by Eysenck, match the four astrological elements?' Correlation Vol.31 (1).
Ertel, Suitbert & Irving, Ken (1996): 'The Tenacious Mars Effect'. The Urania Trust.
Ertel, Suitbert (2009): 'Appraisal of Shawn Carlson's Renowned Astrology Tests', Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.23, No:2.. pp 125-137.
Hobbes, Thomas (1651): Leviathan. Chapter XIII.
Ovason, David (1999) The Secret Architecture of Our Nation's Capital. Perennial. David Ovason was a pseudonym for astrologer, photographer and writer, Fred Gettings.

Image sources:
Light into the darkness: Photo by David Huang on Unsplash
Cartoon: Robert Currey

Published by: The Astrological Journal, Nov/Dec 2020

Author:
Robert Currey is described on Wikipedia as “an astrologer and entrepreneur”. In 1981 he founded the astrological company Equinox, and in 1989 The Astrology Shop in London’s Covent Garden. This gained an international reputation with his pioneering of computerised horoscopic reports. His specialism is Astrocartography. Robert also enjoys a high profile in the print media and on TV as an astrological spokesman. In 2016 he won a Lifetime Achievement Award at the 26th International Conference organised by the Institute of Vedic Culture and the Krishnamurti Institute of Astrology, Kolkata, India. In 2017 he won the Charles Harvey Award for Exceptional Service to Astrology from the Astrological Association. He now edits Correlation magazine.

© Robert Currey, 2020

All articles at a glance