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

Reflections of Saturn/Uranus Opposition in Canada & Oklahoma

Two examples of astrological "as above, so below" emerged right before our eyes this weekend. Above us Uranus is opposing Saturn: the red line dividing the circle (left) from approximately 1 o'clock to 7 o'clock. This opposition is interpreted by astrologers as modern or radical ideas opposing the status quo / tradition. The opposition isn't exact today, but it's well within limits. Additionally, Mercury (communication) is sitting close to Uranus - extra publicity. Here are two news items from Below which reflect what's going on Above:

1.
Already addressed by blogging buddy R.J. Adams at Sparrow Chat is the blocking of British Member of Parliament George Galloway's proposed visit to Canada. BBC News reported:

"British media reported the decision was due to his views on Afghanistan and the presence of Canadian troops there.

Mr Galloway said he was not prepared to accept what he described as an "inexplicable decision" and indicated he would challenge it with all means at his disposal.
"This has further vindicated the anti-war movement's contention that unjust wars abroad will end up consuming the very liberties that make us who we are," he said.

"All right-thinking Canadians, whether they agree with me or not, will oppose this outrageous decision."

A spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Canada confirmed the MP would not be allowed into the country on national security grounds.
He said the decision had been taken by border security officials "based on a number of factors" in accordance with the country's immigration act.
Mr Galloway had been due to speak at a public forum, Resisting War from Gaza to Kandahar, in Toronto on 30 March. "

See also George Galloway's own piece, "Canada Can't Muzzle Me" from The Guardian, via Common Dreams. The Right Honorable gentleman has Sun conjunct Pluto in Leo, trine Mars in Sagittarius - he's a force to be reckoned with!

I'm on Uranus' side, with George G. in this! The ideals of such men are the only sane way to the future. Unfortunately few people in the US would agree with me on this. At the rate we're going, it'll be a distant future, but it will come.


2.
Our own Oklahoma State Legislature is throwing a wobbly about a lecture given by Richard Dawkins at the University of Oklahoma. (Dawkins is no friend of astrology, by the by, but that's not the topic here).

Authorities tried to stop Dawkins' lecture but it went ahead anyway. The legislature now has resolutions on the table.
Details here.

A Resolution expressing disapproval of the actions of the University of Oklahoma to indoctrinate students in the theory of evolution; opposing the invitation to Richard Dawkins to speak on campus; and directing distribution.........................

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives hereby expresses its disapproval of the current indoctrination of the Darwinian theory of evolution at the University of Oklahoma and further requests that an open, dignified, and fair discussion of this idea and all other ideas be engaged in on campus which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma.

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.

Far be it from me to defend Richard Dawkins, for he can be as narrow-minded as the worst Oklahoman, when it suits his purpose. This episode, though, does reflect Saturn (the legislature of Oklahoma) opposing Uranus (the relatively modern theories of Dawkins, i.e. evolution).

A related article by George Lukianoff HERE.

Fate has dropped me into a pleasantly peaceful, but one of the most woefully backward, States of the USA, populated by people who seem to be living on a different plane of existence from me. We have to take the rough with the smooth, but I don't have to stay silent!

Who will win the tug-o-war? Saturn or Uranus? Canada or Galloway? Oklahoma or Dawkins?

Richard Dawkins' skewed view of astrology

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.

Astrology

Astrologer Lynn Hayes has written about Richard Dawkins, and his determined skepticism about astrology, in two interesting entries in her blog "Astrological Musings".

I've always found this skepticism a fascinating subject, living as I have for most of my life among, at best, the astrologically indifferent or agnostic. "Why am I different?" I used to ask myself this regularly. I've given up worrying. I am what I am.

American astrologer and excellent writer, Grant Lewi, in his book "Astrology for the Millions", at chapter one said

"I believe in astrology for the same reason that you believe in the multiplication table or the intoxicating effects of alcohol. It works."

That's how I feel too, about the basics. I do harbour doubts about what I call "the twiddly bits" in astrology. The fact that scientists have so far been unable to pin down any kind of proof makes no difference, it still works. Scientists must be looking in the wrong places for the wrong things.

Two favourite articles from the internet, which I'd recommend to anyone who hasn't seen them before, are William D. Tallman's "A Rational Basis for Astrology", and "Another Approach to Astrology".

In the second of those articles Mr. Tallman puts forward a theory that there may be a kind of sensitivity to astrology and astrological effects in some people. What he says kind of supports what I understand Lynn to say in her blog (linked above)- too much sensitivity to "mystical" stuff might turn a person against it. Here's a brief extract from Mr Tallman:

"As the sensitivity increases, so then does awareness in some form. Below that line of demarcation, sensibility is a negative experience, because it isn't strong enough to supply any useful value.
The stronger the sensitivity, however, the stronger the negative response, because the more conscious the awareness. Above that line of demarcation, we might suppose that the sensibility is a positive experience, because it is found to supply some useful value. Actually that line is probably a zone of some size, within which those levels of sensitivity are found to produce discernible angst about the subject in general. So we can conclude that the most vehemently negative views about astrology might actually be held by people whose level of sensitivity is only slightly below the levels of those who have reason to hold positive views. Speculation, of course, but interesting, I think. "

And in summing up, he says, (amongst other things):

"1) There is an astrological "mechanism", a function, if you will, by which celestial configurations are linked to terrestrial phenomena. Although it would be easy to assume that this function is of a cause-effect nature, it seems prudent to avoid doing so. The reason we know that the function exists is because it is necessary to use an ephemeris to practice astrology, which means that a knowledge of the celestial configurations is primary to the process. If this were not true, then a random sort placement of the planets, etc. would serve dependably, and if the tradition of astrology has any validity at all, this is not the case"

It's a great pity that Richard Dawkins would probably be unwilling to open his mind for long enough to read those articles.