Reviewing Richard Dawkins

It's always good to receive comments on old posts. As well as being a reminder that these don't just disappear into the ethers, it brings back to mind the topics I've felt were important. I received a couple of such comments recently, on a post from January 2008. I'd been complaining bitterly about Richard Dawkins and his treatment of astrology. As this is an on-going debate - as far as I know he hasn't changed his stance on the topic - I decided to re-air that old post along with some of the comments received. I didn't include a natal chart in the original post, so here's a 12noon version for Dawkins' date of birth, in Nairobi, Kenya - 26 March 1941. I can find no time of birth, so ascendant and exact Moon degree remain a mystery.

Stand-out feature, for me: there are no planets in an Air sign. Unless his ascendant is in Air, it's a missing element in his makeup....which is a bit odd as he fancies himself as such an intellectual. He's certainly not a free-thinker though. Those three stubborn Earthy Taurus planets could present a kind of barrier to his three Pisces planets which, in most cases would indicate someone with at least a passing interest in the paranormal/astrology, maybe even someone who had psychic ability.



POST FROM January 2008:

I tripped over this video of a BBC TV programme in which Richard Dawkins derides and tries to discredit astrology, psychics and belief in the paranormal. I forced myself to watch it to the end, even though it made me angry.

Richard Dawkins claims to be scientifically minded, and a seeker of "the truth", but in investigating astrology he insisted on discussing only the Sun sign variety. If he has done even minimal research, he will know that this isn't the fair and reasonable way to investigate astrology.

Astrologer Neil Spencer was very patient, as shown in the programme, but in my opinion he was far too nice. He reminded me of many American Democrats - no fighting spirit, too passive. But perhaps this programme was edited to exclude anything which could put astrology in a more positive light.

Richard Dawkins is making money from his books and TV shows. In my opinion he's doing so just as fraudulently as some less genuine psychics conduct their businesses. He is not giving viewers the full picture, not presenting sufficient information for them to decide for themselves. He cherry picks those parts which are negative, to support his own skewed opinions.

Why hasn't some brave astrologer stood up and told him that he doesn't know everything about the universe and its workings? Astrologers don't know either, of course. They don't know now, and they didn't know in past centuries. What astrologers could, and can, see is that something is going on. Something, using astrology's main principles, works. Something relies on movements as recorded in an ephemeris.

"Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?" (Bob Dylan)

A set of astrological tools has been developed over many centuries, these tools are all there is with which to make any semblance of sense about that elusive something.

I believe the future will reveal the source of that elusive something. Some tools astrologers have used will become redundant, new and more efficient ones will replace them. This is my prediction, and I'm sticking to it. What we now call astrology will, one day, be found to be a small part of the way the universe works. Richard Dawkins and I will not be around by then though. I shall never have the satisfaction of seeing him eat his words.

SOME COMMENTS dated from January 2008 to June 2009
I've omitted most of my own responses to the comments, as they were mainly in thanks and agreement. I've added hyperlinks and an image of the chart that commenter Rog kindly provided via a link.

Out the Comet's Ass said...
Thanks for the video Twilight. If his practice of Science is as superficial as his understanding of Astrology I don't think we need to worry what this guy "thinks." I think he's just a "Pop" scientist. People go for 20 years to a psychotherapist and don't improve at all. I wonder why these guys don't attack the psychologists. That seems much more criminal.

******

January 08, 2008 Adrian Fourie said...
RICHARD DAWKINS IS A STUPID, NAIVE ARIES ON AN ARIES EGO TRIP. HISTORY DOES AND WILL REMEMBER GALILEI, COPERNICUS, KEPLER, BRAHE AND NEWTON, NOT THIS SILLY LITTLE MAN WHO IS THE BIGGEST FRAUDSTER OF ALL.

THE SAD THING IS THAT THE WORLD CURRENTLY REGARDS HIM, CHOMSKY AND ECO AS THE LEADING THINKERS OF OUR TIME. WHAT A JOKE! IT SHOWS YOU HOW WELL OUR CREATOR HAS HIDDEN ESOTERIC SCIENCES FROM IDIOTS FOR OUR OWN PROTECTION.

******

February 01, 2008 Rog said...
The "God Delusion"'s 'mother of all burkas', the dramatized hyperbolic metaphor by Richard Dawkins.

Using the 'artistic expression' of Dawkins as astrological (alchemical) material for chart rectification we get a chart like this:
Click to enlarge



I wonder if he knows when he was born...too bad we'll probably never find out...:)

Rog

******

November 21, 2008 Twilight said...
Interesting, Rog. I get a distinctly Virgo feel to the man, his voice and manner of expression.
But he annoys me so much that it's impossible for me to be objective! ;-)

******

November 22, 2008 Gabriel Pender said...
I have done a bit more detailed natal chart for Richard Dawkins. I discovered to no surprise that he is an Aries with a Moon in Pisces and an Ascendant in Pisces. Goodness Gracious Me!!! It's no wonder people are so damn well swayed by his projected ideals because Aries are very persuasive. They can have very black and white views without seeming arrogant. Because he has a moon and rising in Pisces which notably represents scepticism he achieves success in flaunting his very skewed ideas of astrology to those who bother to listen. Like the main writer of this article stated he didn't confront astrology in full total. I wish some very genuine astrologer would have a good hour talk on that TV show "Ted". I wonder how many people would turn up to listen to it. A Nobel Prize winner once said "If people think as much to astrology as there is, then there would be no need for any other science, yet if it were little as people think it is then it would not have survived for 6000 years". Hopefully the Age of Aquarius will sort everyone out.

******

June 08, 2009 Rog said...
I think that I find comfort in viewing our all-too-human attempts at faithfully describing what-goes-with-what-and-why as basically a 'religious' exercise. So, Science is but part of that mental spectrum--the part with most (if not all) of the truly objective evidence....:) To not concede this 'truth' is itself a kind of unforgivable 'blasphemy', a flaunting of one's weak reasoning skills, and essentially of no service to the greater good.
I never forget that my affection for astrological 'truth' is but an informal membership in a theocratically inclined bunch of radical dogmatists...a political party of sorts...none of who I actually agree with of course...:) Astrology belongs to Art , not Science. Art, itself, is no less than the 'reason' for all of creation. In short, I would rather watch how Dawkins unconsciously expresses his natal chart, and simply enjoy this feeling of having earned, for myself, an holisitic, priviledged, sacred, perspective...rather than trying to imagine the egoistic and unholy task of re-creating that particular man in my own image...:)
Rog