One of the most attacked ancient worldviews by modern science is that of astrology, the belief that the star signs we are born under can and do determine our characteristics and the kind of person we will be. Some have even declared the ideal to be "debunked," even though it's anything but. Some will also simply state that there's no evidence for it, despite the fact that countless humans measure up to their signs. I remember a few years back when I visited a local space museum and entered the star exhibit. The guide began talking about astrology and everyone started discussing their own signs. The guide, just for fun, then described our traits to us to see if they would be correct, and they were. The interesting part is that she kept stating repeatedly that she did not believe in it, all the while showing time and again that it had validity. The problem was that her mental construct as a scientist that was probably drilled into her, had told her to just keep saying it's not true, even as she proves it over and over again. It's the love of denial and the art of dismissal, no matter what happens. Science today simply refuses to accept any evidence of anything that is beyond a mundane outlook.
In the past, some have attempted to debunk astrology by showing that a person can have traits different than what their zodiac says, but what the "researchers" have failed to grasp is that astrology isn't about the exclusion of all things except the sign's character. Any given person out there can have all the traits of every sign. What astrology is about is identifying a dominant set of traits that exist in most people born under a given sign. So just because I am a Scorpio, doesn't mean I may not have some traits of an Aquarius or a Leo, but my dominant character is that of the Scorpio, which tends to often overrule or overpower all the other traits. If there are indeed some people who fail to measure up to their sign, we have to consider the fact that nature always has anomalies, but that doesn't mean the general rule doesn't hold true.
One of the most compelling pieces of evidence for me is the fact that my zodiac describes me with 100% incredible precision, right down to the last detail, and I have always been that way even before I discovered and studied my sign. So my point is this: If a scientist gave me a medication for an illness that cured it and went on to cure many others, that medication would be declared a valid success, so why then is astrology also not determined to be valid when it not only hits me on the mark, but also millions or billions of other people around the world? Well, the answer to my mind is simple. Going back to what I was saying earlier, science today simply refuses to accept something that shakes up the way most scientists prefer to see the world.
The most pressing question, however, still remains, and that is, how do the stars actually have an impact on us? In other words, we know that they do, but why? How do they do it? The first thing, I think, to realize is that everything came from stars, even us. But ultimately, you'll have to ask an astrologer, not me. And perhaps if science is ever allowed to go there, we might just find out.
In the Goodness of the Gods,