Why People Believe in Astrology
There are some people that take astrology incredibly seriously, some claim that astrology is only a source of entertainment and still others view it as a science of magic. Despite the wide range of views, "Easily one-quarter of the nearly four billion people living on earth believe in and follow astrology to some extent." (Jerome) While this may seem to be a fairly large percentage, the fact that so many people are exposed to horoscopes in the media makes it nearly impossible for someone to be unaware that astrology, at the very least, exists. If people are exposed to something repeatedly in public media, it is more likely that they will believe it simply because of the repetition of seeing it over and over. Jerome's book states that, "more than three quarters of all newspapers in the United States carry a daily horoscope column." This is why most people know their sign, whether or not they take astrology seriously. Whether people believe their horoscopes are accurate or not, quite a few people read them and most do because they are curious to see what their future may entail. Most people think about their future, and most people would love to know what is coming. Horoscopes, accurate or not, give us an answer to the question that nobody seems to be able to answer. What will tomorrow bring?
Are Some People More Likely to Believe?
Many different people believe in astrology all around the world but are some people or groups of people more likely to believe in astrology? That is the question being addressed in Bauer and Durant's study conducted in 1988. They had three basic hypotheses. First, that astrology is most attractive to people with
some knowledge of science but not significant amounts. Second, that astrology is something people believe in if they have a religious orientation but are not strongly invested in that religion and third, that a belief in astrology is associated with an authoritarian personality.
This study to determine how one's belief in astrology was related to scientific knowledge was conducted by interviewing people face to face for forty minutes to an hour about their knowledge of science and technology as a whole. There was one question pertaining to astrology but the rest were just about science in general. Respondents were asked ‘Do you sometimes read a horoscope or a personal astrology report?’. People who gave a positive answer were then asked two follow up questions. The first, how often they read the horoscope report and second, how seriously they took that report.
These were the results: 73% of respondents claimed to read a horoscope. 21% said that they would read it ‘often’, 23% ‘fairly often’, and 29% said ‘not often’. Hence, 44% claimed to do so often or fairly often. Only 6% of the respondents said that they took what
horoscopes said 'seriously' or 'fairly seriously', 67% took it not very seriously, and 27% took it not at all seriously. Bauer and Durant, after seeing these results, recognized that determining who believes horoscopes and who views them can be a challenge. This is because the answers to 'if you believe their credibility', and 'if you read them', do not have black and white, yes and no answers. This first test was intended to measure popular belief in Astrology.
The first hypothesis, whether or not someone's knowledge of science dictates their belief in astrology, was tested in these interviews by asking questions about science. The results concluded that the original hypothesis was correct. Those with low levels of understanding had a strong tendency to avoid a definite judgment about astrology; while those with high levels of understanding had a strong tendency to state that astrology is unscientific. Amongst those with intermediate levels of scientific understanding, there is less obvious consensus: some think astrology is scientific, some think it is not, and some do not know.
In order to answer the second hypothesis, whether your religious orientation affects your belief in astrology, the same people were asked ‘Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion?’; and if yes, ‘Apart from such special occasions as weddings, funerals and baptisms, how often nowadays do you attend services or meetings connected with your religion?’. This is to establish how well the person is integrated within their religious affiliation.
This study discovered that the highest belief in astrology comes from people who have strong beliefs about their religion and have low to intermediate amounts of integration into the religious organization they belong to. What Bauer and Durant took from this is that, as strange as it may sound that a religious person would be more likely to believe astrology, there is the possibility that, "having one foot in the church and the other outside it," causes people to feel uncertain about their beliefs. These people then find astrology as a source of comfort. The second hypothesis was proven true.
Whether or not a person with an authoritarian personality is more likely to believe astrology is the next concept that Bauer and Durant tested. Using these same interviews they were able to determine and authoritarian personality because, "Authoritarianism is indicated by consistently agreeing with statements such as ‘censorship of film and magazines is necessary to uphold morality’ or ‘school should always teach children to obey authority’." The results of this aspect of the study proved hypothesis three to be wrong in that there was no correlation, in either direction between belief in astrology and an authoritarian personality.
Essentially, the results of the study concluded this: that people are more likely to believe in astrology if they have religious beliefs but no religious integration and if they have a low to intermediate level of scientific understanding. People are no more or less likely to believe in astrology if they have an authoritarian personality.
some knowledge of science but not significant amounts. Second, that astrology is something people believe in if they have a religious orientation but are not strongly invested in that religion and third, that a belief in astrology is associated with an authoritarian personality.
This study to determine how one's belief in astrology was related to scientific knowledge was conducted by interviewing people face to face for forty minutes to an hour about their knowledge of science and technology as a whole. There was one question pertaining to astrology but the rest were just about science in general. Respondents were asked ‘Do you sometimes read a horoscope or a personal astrology report?’. People who gave a positive answer were then asked two follow up questions. The first, how often they read the horoscope report and second, how seriously they took that report.
These were the results: 73% of respondents claimed to read a horoscope. 21% said that they would read it ‘often’, 23% ‘fairly often’, and 29% said ‘not often’. Hence, 44% claimed to do so often or fairly often. Only 6% of the respondents said that they took what
horoscopes said 'seriously' or 'fairly seriously', 67% took it not very seriously, and 27% took it not at all seriously. Bauer and Durant, after seeing these results, recognized that determining who believes horoscopes and who views them can be a challenge. This is because the answers to 'if you believe their credibility', and 'if you read them', do not have black and white, yes and no answers. This first test was intended to measure popular belief in Astrology.
The first hypothesis, whether or not someone's knowledge of science dictates their belief in astrology, was tested in these interviews by asking questions about science. The results concluded that the original hypothesis was correct. Those with low levels of understanding had a strong tendency to avoid a definite judgment about astrology; while those with high levels of understanding had a strong tendency to state that astrology is unscientific. Amongst those with intermediate levels of scientific understanding, there is less obvious consensus: some think astrology is scientific, some think it is not, and some do not know.
In order to answer the second hypothesis, whether your religious orientation affects your belief in astrology, the same people were asked ‘Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion?’; and if yes, ‘Apart from such special occasions as weddings, funerals and baptisms, how often nowadays do you attend services or meetings connected with your religion?’. This is to establish how well the person is integrated within their religious affiliation.
This study discovered that the highest belief in astrology comes from people who have strong beliefs about their religion and have low to intermediate amounts of integration into the religious organization they belong to. What Bauer and Durant took from this is that, as strange as it may sound that a religious person would be more likely to believe astrology, there is the possibility that, "having one foot in the church and the other outside it," causes people to feel uncertain about their beliefs. These people then find astrology as a source of comfort. The second hypothesis was proven true.
Whether or not a person with an authoritarian personality is more likely to believe astrology is the next concept that Bauer and Durant tested. Using these same interviews they were able to determine and authoritarian personality because, "Authoritarianism is indicated by consistently agreeing with statements such as ‘censorship of film and magazines is necessary to uphold morality’ or ‘school should always teach children to obey authority’." The results of this aspect of the study proved hypothesis three to be wrong in that there was no correlation, in either direction between belief in astrology and an authoritarian personality.
Essentially, the results of the study concluded this: that people are more likely to believe in astrology if they have religious beliefs but no religious integration and if they have a low to intermediate level of scientific understanding. People are no more or less likely to believe in astrology if they have an authoritarian personality.
*Most of the facts in the previous section are from the academic paper "Belief in Astrology: A Social-Psychological Analysis" by Bauer and Durant. If you wish to read the paper in its entirety click the button below
A True Believer
Finding a person who believes whole-heartedly that astrology works is difficult. However, Robert Currey is one such man. His opinion is this, "Though we don’t know how it works physically, astrology is not a faith. You can experience, observe and know how it applies first hand." Currey believes that all scientists who have attempted to test astrology have made flaws that make their finding worthless. He does consent to the fact that, "Some simple experiments have yielded results that are consistent with a scientific basis to the fundamental premise of astrology," but he believes that astrology is an art and not a science.
One of the arguments against astrology is that nobody knows how it works. However, Currey gives the example of the compass, which was, "used successfully for two millennia. Yet, no one understood the Earth’s magnetic field until the 20th century." He believes that just because astrology cannot be explained now, does not mean that it will never be explainable. To make this point further, Currey references Carl Sagan talking about astrology, "That we can now think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing. No mechanism was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by Wegener."
There are a few hypotheses about how astrology works and Currey highlights one of them quite nicely. It is known as "Gravitational Resonance" or the effect of gravity on other celestial bodies and, subsequently, the people on earth as well. Currey explains that gravity already has an impact on ocean tides, which has been proven many times and been known for many years. "It is premature to set limits on the effect of gravitational resonance on Earth as there is much we don’t understand. For example, gravity is the one known force that does not yet fit into a Unified Field Theory." The logic behind this is that because we do not know everything about gravity, it may be the reason that astrology works.
Another argument against astrology is that there is no scientific proof. Currey believes that one cannot prove astrology true with scientific evidence because it is too complex a concept to get accurate results. According to Currey, "Science works by the accumulation of empirical evidence to build up a theory. With each replication, the theory becomes more persuasive and established, but since it can also be disproved at any time, it remains a theory and can never become proof or a law." Essentially this means that because there is a possibility that all scientific findings can be proven wrong, any evidence about astrology being inaccurate can be wrong.
The skeptic's favorite argument against astrology is that the signs of the Zodiac are inaccurate because since the birth of astrology the earth's position has been altered so that the sun does not pass through the same constellations of the Zodiac as it did before. (Mughal) Currey believes that our sign has not changed because, "the Signs of the Zodiac are not the same as the Constellations of the Zodiac." However, Mughal explains that, "this zodiac shift is based on astronomical calculations, which are slightly different from Astrology and aren’t considered by Astrologers." Essentially this means that the signs based on astrologers findings are the same but when using astronomers findings the Zodiac signs have shifted and gained a thirteenth sign.
One of the arguments against astrology is that nobody knows how it works. However, Currey gives the example of the compass, which was, "used successfully for two millennia. Yet, no one understood the Earth’s magnetic field until the 20th century." He believes that just because astrology cannot be explained now, does not mean that it will never be explainable. To make this point further, Currey references Carl Sagan talking about astrology, "That we can now think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing. No mechanism was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by Wegener."
There are a few hypotheses about how astrology works and Currey highlights one of them quite nicely. It is known as "Gravitational Resonance" or the effect of gravity on other celestial bodies and, subsequently, the people on earth as well. Currey explains that gravity already has an impact on ocean tides, which has been proven many times and been known for many years. "It is premature to set limits on the effect of gravitational resonance on Earth as there is much we don’t understand. For example, gravity is the one known force that does not yet fit into a Unified Field Theory." The logic behind this is that because we do not know everything about gravity, it may be the reason that astrology works.
Another argument against astrology is that there is no scientific proof. Currey believes that one cannot prove astrology true with scientific evidence because it is too complex a concept to get accurate results. According to Currey, "Science works by the accumulation of empirical evidence to build up a theory. With each replication, the theory becomes more persuasive and established, but since it can also be disproved at any time, it remains a theory and can never become proof or a law." Essentially this means that because there is a possibility that all scientific findings can be proven wrong, any evidence about astrology being inaccurate can be wrong.
The skeptic's favorite argument against astrology is that the signs of the Zodiac are inaccurate because since the birth of astrology the earth's position has been altered so that the sun does not pass through the same constellations of the Zodiac as it did before. (Mughal) Currey believes that our sign has not changed because, "the Signs of the Zodiac are not the same as the Constellations of the Zodiac." However, Mughal explains that, "this zodiac shift is based on astronomical calculations, which are slightly different from Astrology and aren’t considered by Astrologers." Essentially this means that the signs based on astrologers findings are the same but when using astronomers findings the Zodiac signs have shifted and gained a thirteenth sign.