How do stars affect our reality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flyingbanana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Astrology has not a single shred of scientific proof. That said, there’s nothing we could say that would refute any of it. Carl Sagan had a short critique of it in the original Cosmos series (before Neil degrasse Tyson wrecked it). Dr. Sagan’s critique said
More in like 6 minutes than any of us could in 2 hours.
 
From what I understand, learned men have not thought the earth round for thousands of years. Before Christ was born it was kinda shown that the Earth is round.
 
Ancient cultures also believed the world was flat
But this is besides the point

I’ll definitely check it out !

It’s just
Astrology and numerology believers have been growing in size and I Fear that other nonsensical “occult” and sinful teachings will arise within the next couple of years
 
“I find myself going through my day to day activities (at night time) and a wonderful insight comes to mind
And I immediately look towards a star as if that star is the source of inspiration”

It is your guardian angel that is the source of good inspirations. That is one of the guardian angel’s jobs.
 
St. Thomas knew the world was round, as did the ancient Greeks. He was aware of various estimates others had made about its circumference (some more accurate than others) but he didn’t make the calculations himself. They even knew the sun was much, much more massive than the Earth and was just far away. They actually overestimated its size.
 
Last edited:
I am not so sure about astrology anymore. It does make a lot of assumptions about reality. I don’t think celestial bodies “influence us” in any causal ways. What I wonder rather is, if everything is interconnected, that they may “signify” aspects of our lives. This would very likely be the case especially if “there are no accidents” as New Agey people say. Religious believers believe in Providence, don’t they? So in that sense they are astrologers, because they see very often disparate events and happenstance to be “Signs” of God’s benevolent hand. In that sense I don’t see why astrology can’t in some sense be an indicator of some Necessary Providence.

I don’t think anyone can really prove that it is a “exact science” though.
 
Read City of God (book 6 i think) by Augustine. He talks all about this
 
Thank you Benjamin I will look into !

And I don’t think the stars signify any changes
There’s kind of no way for the stars to account for freewill
 
While I haven’t been able to find the section on stars in Saint Augustines City of g-d

I asked classical theist on twitter

And he certainly provided an answer

I’m fairly new to Reading Saint Aquinas

So I would love if somebody could “translate” this just to make sure I don’t lead anybody off with my interpretation of this

To find this go on duck duck go

And type in

biblehub Whether the Heavenly Bodies are the Cause of Human Actions

(I can’t find where exactly In the summa this is if anybody can find out that would be great !

Thank you )

Objection 1: It would seem that the heavenly bodies are the cause of human actions. For since the heavenly bodies are moved by spiritual substances, as stated above ([935]Q[110], A[3]), they act by virtue thereof as their instruments. But those spiritual substances are superior to our souls. Therefore it seems that they can cause impressions on our souls, and thereby cause human actions.

Objection 2: Further, every multiform is reducible to a uniform principle. But human actions are various and multiform. Therefore it seems that they are reducible to the uniform movements of heavenly bodies, as to their principles.

Objection 3: Further, astrologers often foretell the truth concerning the outcome of wars, and other human actions, of which the intellect and will are the principles. But they could not do this by means of the heavenly bodies, unless these were the cause of human actions. Therefore the heavenly bodies are the cause of human actions.
 
Pt 2

On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 7) that “the heavenly bodies are by no means the cause of human actions.”

I answer that, The heavenly bodies can directly and of themselves act on bodies, as stated above 936. They can act directly indeed on those powers of the soul which are the acts of corporeal organs, but accidentally: because the acts of such powers must needs be hindered by obstacles in the organs; thus an eye when disturbed cannot see well. Wherefore if the intellect and will were powers affixed to corporeal organs, as some maintained, holding that intellect does not differ from sense; it would follow of necessity that the heavenly bodies are the cause of human choice and action. It would also follow that man is led by natural instinct to his actions, just as other animals, in which there are powers other than those which are affixed to corporeal organs: for whatever is done here below in virtue of the action of heavenly bodies, is done naturally. It would therefore follow that man has no free-will, and that he would have determinate actions, like other natural things. All of which is manifestly false, and contrary to human habit. It must be observed, however, that indirectly and accidentally, the impressions of heavenly bodies can reach the intellect and will, forasmuch, namely, as both intellect and will receive something from the inferior powers which are affixed to corporeal organs. But in this the intellect and will are differently situated. For the intellect, of necessity, receives from the inferior apprehensive powers: wherefore if the imaginative, cogitative, or memorative powers be disturbed, the action of the intellect is, of necessity, disturbed also. The will, on the contrary, does not, of necessity, follow the inclination of the inferior appetite; for although the passions in the irascible and concupiscible have a certain force in inclining the will; nevertheless the will retains the power of following the passions or repressing them. Therefore the impressions of the heavenly bodies, by virtue of which the inferior powers can be changed, has less influence on the will, which is the proximate cause of human actions, than on the intellect.

To maintain therefore that heavenly bodies are the cause of human actions is proper to those who hold that intellect does not differ from sense. Wherefore some of these said that “such is the will of men, as is the day which the father of men and of gods brings on” (Odyssey xviii 135). Since, therefore, it is manifest that intellect and will are not acts of corporeal organs, it is impossible that heavenly bodies be the cause of human actions.

Reply to Objection 1: The spiritual substances, that move the heavenly bodies, do indeed act on corporeal things by means of the heavenly bodies; but they act immediately on the human intellect by enlightening it. On the other hand, they cannot compel the will, as stated above ([937]Q[111], A[2]).
 
Pt 3
Reply to Objection 2: Just as the multiformity of corporeal movements is reducible to the uniformity of the heavenly movement as to its cause: so the multiformity of actions proceeding from the intellect and the will is reduced to a uniform principle which is the Divine intellect and will.

Reply to Objection 3: The majority of men follow their passions, which are movements of the sensitive appetite, in which movements of the heavenly bodies can cooperate: but few are wise enough to resist these passions. Consequently astrologers are able to foretell the truth in the majority of cases, especially in a general way. But not in particular cases; for nothing prevents man resisting his passions by his free-will. Wherefore the astrologers themselves are wont to say that “the wise man is stronger than the stars” [*Ptolemy, Centiloquium, prop.5], forasmuch as, to wit, he conquers his passions.
 
As regulars know here I am not a believer.

But I don’t believe astrology works in a way I am unable to say about most of Catholic belief.

Because astrology predicts outcomes in the material world it can be tested. And it has been, over and over again. Astrological predictions are of no more value than chance predictions. So I can say absolutely yes, I am an a-astrologist.

Because most Catholic beliefs are not subject to testing in the material world, I cannot be as absolutely certain about those beliefs, although I can say I have seen nothing in the material world that indicates that they are true. Some core beliefs, like the resurrection, or the virgin birth, could have been tested if there was a sufficiently robust testing environment and we happened to be there at the time but that opportunity is gone.

So if I find an astrologist willing to talk to me I try to change their minds because I don’t think they can rationally hold to those beliefs and accurately observe the real world. But if I find a Catholic willing to engage I don;t try to change the beliefs, just to understand them and how they are maintained in the absence of what I would see as positive evidence.

I am a bit more direct with astrologers too. Then asked what my star sign is I always say: ‘I don’t have one. Neither do you. No one does. The configurations of stars are imagined. They are light years apart and could not possibly influence anything’.

Few of my friends are astrologers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top