The downside of skepticism
It turns out there isn´t one …if you get it right
As a student of Astrology, skepticism is something I come up with every couple of days; and while many modern prophets and sages either pity or condemn those who prefer hard facts and concrete evidence, I do not see anything wrong with it. All men have the right to believe whatever they choose to; that is the world we live in today. And what a great world it is. However, from time to time I find myself thinking about the mechanics of belief.
Science, for example. We now know that atoms are but clouds of vacuum that kind of collapse with each other forming magnetic fields that, to us mammals, mimic the impression of matter. We are perfectly aware of the cascading gravitational forces that make the earth move around the Sun, and the Sun around the Milky Way, and so on. But then again, did we really went through Newton´s Principia Mathematica, checked all his calculations, made sure they made proper sense, and then agreed that yes, that is how gravity actually works?
If you are like me and most of mankind, you just took Newton´s word for it. After all, he seemed like he knew what he was doing.
But then again, how is this not an act of faith for anyone who is not a part of the scientific community? Most self-proclaimed skeptics waggle scientific theories with the same blind faith that moved some early Christians to burn every single pagan book they could not understand. It seems fanaticism is something humanity just cannot shake off. Either for the sake of faith or for the sake of knowledge.
So, back to Astrology. Many may think there once was a golden era of acceptance, where everyone just worshiped Astrologers and trusted their lives to the stars; in truth, if such era existed at all, it was long before written language was invented. Instead, when we look back at the history of the Art we keep noticing the same regular skepticism. Astrology was never popular, and actually it was a dangerous science to study. When ignorance and illiteracy where the norm, the trade of the stars was looked upon with resentment and mistrust. This is one of the reasons why most Astrologers used nick names, leaving the study of the sky as a night job. You really did not want to get caught reading obscure manuscripts filled with heretic symbology.
Luckily, that was before. We now live in a world where we can find every sort of knowledge quite easily, if we set our minds to it. I would stress the if in the last sentence. If an skeptic were to read about what Astrology is really about, if he really could understand it and put it to the test, he would have sufficient proof to claim its falsehood. But of course, they take the shortcut instead. As much as I love the TV show Cosmos, Carl Sagan’s take on Astrology was a little lacking. He just compared two newspaper horoscopes to prove the (obvious) vagueness of their claims, spoke a bit about the planets and their characters, and declared that Astrology died pretty much with Kepler. I will not get into details here, but tackling Astrology from that angle would be like criticizing the fine arts through a thorough analysis of a motel room painting.
On the other hand, if a motel room painting is all you ever saw about fine arts, your judgment could be a little richer.
At this point is when I wonder about the mechanics of belief; if we live in an era where we have access to virtually every source of information possible, would it not be possible for us to really stop taking everyone’s word for things and start making an effort to know for sure? At the very least, why not try to understand the things we do not agree with? I cannot be against something I do not fully understand. That is not what a skeptic is. A skeptic doubts everything. But does a skeptic really deny anything?
As feeble as it may be, all the answer I get from these reflections is that, in essence, nothing really changed in thousands of years of human evolution. We still prefer to be told what to think, what to do. How to live. We only change the way we like to be governed. But the basis will remain. And as everything in the universe turns to decay, the philosophical basis of skepticism decayed to a simple excuse for a vague disbelief. Seems easier that way.
As an astrologer, I consider myself a skeptic. Not because I do not believe, but because everything I believe, I looked for myself, in my own terms, not bowing nor nodding mindlessly to any authority. I keep following Nicholas Culpeper's advice: Keep your knowledge in your head, not in your books, for that is the place God intended it to be in.
Javier Guelfi
Dublin, June 2014
