I recently happened upon an article by a former astrologer from the Netherlands, Rudolf Smit. He lost his belief in astrology. The slippery slide began when he used the wrong natal chart for a client consultation. His full article: Astrology my passion - My life, my personal disaster can be read at Astrology and Science.com
I'm interested to see Mr Smit's own natal chart: born on 5 January 1942 in Amsterdam, Netherlands at 9:53 PM (Astrodatabank).
Elementally he has a predominance of planets/points in Earth, none in Water. There's a starting point for his need of absolute proof, lack of intuitive feel which comes usually via Water signs.
Mr Smit's Earthy Capricorn Sun and Mercury alone wouldn't account for his lapse into skepticism, but allied with Grand Trines linking key planets all in Earth signs, well - I see a potential skeptic here, especially as critical Virgo was rising as he came into the world.
I can relate a little bit to Mr Smit. I too have a Grand Trine in Earth - similar to the one on the left (below) linking Neptune, Uranus and Mercury. Perhaps my own Aquarius Sun, Jupiter in Pisces and Cancer rising provide balance sufficient to ride out any doubts about core astrological principles.
Mr Smit's natal Uranus conjunct Saturn is a bit of a bummer for astrology too. Saturn has a restrictive influence upon Uranus's urge towards astrology. In my own chart Saturn is semi-sextile Uranus, which may indicate less of an impediment.
So, my conclusion: In Mr Smit's case the anti-astrological culprit = too much Earthy input which is too closely linked within his natal blueprint. No emphasis on the Watery element to provide balance. Mr Smit might easily have gravitated into the accountancy or architecture - or writing about same. Or perhaps simply staying with astronomy would have offered him a more comfortable ride along life's tangled highways.
Abstract -- Rudolf Smit, founder of this website (astrology and science.com), describes how, as a teenager, he was an ardent amateur astronomer with many technical books on astronomy in his library. Nearly all of them stressed that astrology had no scientific validity, which led him to believe that astrology was nonsense. Later, in his first job, he argued with his boss about astrology, and was told that he should first study astrology before opening his mouth.I can understand someone "losing faith" in almost anything (except the power of love). For someone as invested in astrology as Mr. Smit apparently was, his lapse is rather surprising. I have niggling doubts about some parts of astrological doctrine myself, but I find the trick is to stand well back. The closer and into ever more detail one delves, the more avenues for doubt open up. I am absolutely certain that there is a core of truth in astrology, but only a core. From that position I shall never lapse. Even so that core is well worth pursuing, and may contain the seed of something quite unexpected - in fact, something that will seem magical.
So he read about his sun sign and was astonished to find how accurate it was. He then had his birth chart read, not once but twice, and in each case was astonished to find how well it fitted his character and circumstances. From then on astrology became his passion.
He taught himself how to read charts for his friends (everything fitted perfectly), formed the first society of professional astrologers in the Netherlands (this was in 1977), and set up as a part-time professional astrologer (he soon had many clients and the future looked rosy). But one day he accidentally used the wrong chart for a client, who was nevertheless happy with the reading. Two years later it happened again. Very puzzling -- weren't horoscopes supposed to be unique?
Later, with a computer, he spent several years testing the statements made in astrology books, especially statements about events, and found to his horror that almost all could not be confirmed. But he had many happy clients so why worry? Then in 1984 came the crunch. He became aware of the many ways in which clients could be convinced that astrology was true even if it wasn't. And all of them were used by him. Just being warm and caring would do the trick. Worse, any chart would do, hence also the wrong chart.
So his happy world of astrology collapsed. He closed his practice and fell into a clinical depression that lasted three years. Without astrology his life had lost its meaning. Afterwards he regained his interest and became editor of the research journal Correlation for six years, trying to find out which statements of astrology were true.
(Above:Mr Smit testing birth charts with his PET computer in Australia in the 1980s)
Then in 2000 he set up this website for those who wish to know more about scientific findings in astrology, but always remaining sympathetic to its beauty and appeal. This is a true story that anyone interested in astrology should read.
I'm interested to see Mr Smit's own natal chart: born on 5 January 1942 in Amsterdam, Netherlands at 9:53 PM (Astrodatabank).
Elementally he has a predominance of planets/points in Earth, none in Water. There's a starting point for his need of absolute proof, lack of intuitive feel which comes usually via Water signs.
Mr Smit's Earthy Capricorn Sun and Mercury alone wouldn't account for his lapse into skepticism, but allied with Grand Trines linking key planets all in Earth signs, well - I see a potential skeptic here, especially as critical Virgo was rising as he came into the world.
I can relate a little bit to Mr Smit. I too have a Grand Trine in Earth - similar to the one on the left (below) linking Neptune, Uranus and Mercury. Perhaps my own Aquarius Sun, Jupiter in Pisces and Cancer rising provide balance sufficient to ride out any doubts about core astrological principles.
Mr Smit's natal Uranus conjunct Saturn is a bit of a bummer for astrology too. Saturn has a restrictive influence upon Uranus's urge towards astrology. In my own chart Saturn is semi-sextile Uranus, which may indicate less of an impediment.
So, my conclusion: In Mr Smit's case the anti-astrological culprit = too much Earthy input which is too closely linked within his natal blueprint. No emphasis on the Watery element to provide balance. Mr Smit might easily have gravitated into the accountancy or architecture - or writing about same. Or perhaps simply staying with astronomy would have offered him a more comfortable ride along life's tangled highways.
