An Enemy of Reason

[Kjell Pettersson]

As you may know, the Charter states that skeptics arguing against
astrology do not have a place in this newsgroup. However, it IS
allowed to bash skeptics, especially so when they are uninformed and
unreasonable. The other day I posted a link to the blog of astrologer
Chris Brennan. Here is another, an article about Richard Dawkins, an
enemy of not only astrology, but also of reason.

http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/08/18/richard-dawkins-advocates-science-neglects-history/

/Kjell

[unknown]

Post by Kjell Pettersson
As you may know, the Charter states that skeptics arguing against
astrology do not have a place in this newsgroup. However, it IS
allowed to bash skeptics, especially so when they are uninformed and
unreasonable. The other day I posted a link to the blog of astrologer
Chris Brennan. Here is another, an article about Richard Dawkins, an
enemy of not only astrology, but also of reason.
http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/08/18/richard-dawkins-advocates-science-neglects-history/

Four howlers in one sentence - that's bad even for Dawkins in full rant!
He's brilliant on biology, you must give him that, but not historical detail
(and logic often deserts him when he gets onto his hobby-horse). I had a
funny book a while ago called "The Dawkins Delusion" by Alistair McGrath.
He details all the historical gaffes in "The God Delusion"; at one point he
tracks down a mistranslation of Origen to the particular website Dawkins got
it from.

I came across another of his astrology articles while trying (and failing)
to get his birth time. It's rather pitiful to see a scientist I admire
talking such tosh in public. He seems to think that because (he thinks)
astrology is beneath contempt, he doesn't actually need to know anything
about it to refute it. Not wise...

I've his chart here:
http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?rs=3;btyp=w2gw&nhor=1&cid=a5ofileHfH5gn-u1327695884
Sun in Aries (of COURSE), but Mercury (and Venus) in Pisces - he's rather
disconcerting if you see him on TV, making inflammatory remarks in a voice
like a very mild-mannered stage vicar! The Pisces influence shows in his
misty-eyed writings on "the wonder of science", and his fondness for
poetry - especially, of all people, Yeats. He does get embarrassed when
taken up on that; Neptune influences him, but not comfortably (opp Sun &
Venus). The two sides are rather noticeable if you pay attention, and
they're right there in his chart, though no doubt he would be purple to hear
it!
--
A. B.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
<>

My e-mail address is zen177395 at zendotcodotuk, though I don't check that
account very often.
Post unto others as you would have them post unto you.

[unknown]

Post by unknown

Post by Kjell Pettersson
As you may know, the Charter states that skeptics arguing against
astrology do not have a place in this newsgroup. However, it IS
allowed to bash skeptics, especially so when they are uninformed and
unreasonable. The other day I posted a link to the blog of astrologer
Chris Brennan. Here is another, an article about Richard Dawkins, an
enemy of not only astrology, but also of reason.
http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/08/18/richard-dawkins-advocates-science-neglects-history/

Four howlers in one sentence - that's bad even for Dawkins in full rant!
He's brilliant on biology, you must give him that, but not historical
detail (and logic often deserts him when he gets onto his hobby-horse). I
had a funny book a while ago called "The Dawkins Delusion" by Alistair
McGrath. He details all the historical gaffes in "The God Delusion"; at
one point he tracks down a mistranslation of Origen to the particular
website Dawkins got it from.
I came across another of his astrology articles while trying (and failing)
to get his birth time. It's rather pitiful to see a scientist I admire
talking such tosh in public. He seems to think that because (he thinks)
astrology is beneath contempt, he doesn't actually need to know anything
about it to refute it. Not wise...
http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?rs=3;btyp=w2gw&nhor=1&cid=a5ofileHfH5gn-u1327695884
Sun in Aries (of COURSE), but Mercury (and Venus) in Pisces - he's rather
disconcerting if you see him on TV, making inflammatory remarks in a voice
like a very mild-mannered stage vicar! The Pisces influence shows in his
misty-eyed writings on "the wonder of science", and his fondness for
poetry - especially, of all people, Yeats. He does get embarrassed when
taken up on that; Neptune influences him, but not comfortably (opp Sun &
Venus). The two sides are rather noticeable if you pay attention, and
they're right there in his chart, though no doubt he would be purple to
hear it!

Turning to the scientific side, I see Mr Dawkins has Mercury sextile Saturn,
a good placement for a scientist. I wonder what indications would favour
one particular science, such as genetics, over another? I'd favour Mercury
itself for genetics, since it's often said that genetics all comes down to
transmission of information - and also because the caduceus is a double
helix!

If Saturn stands generally for possible scientific ability, then its
condition might show the nature of this. I notice Mr Dawkins has it
conjunct Jupiter, and indeed he's made his name mostly by theoretical
speculation - the "selfish gene" concept, for instance, which is basically
an inspired new way of looking at the same things; also contradictory
theories about why religion should be favoured by natural selection even
without being true, which although sometimes fanciful always go down well.

[Kjell Pettersson]

http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/08/18/richard-dawkins-advocat...

The moderator must have missed checking the link. It does not work for
some reason.

I will return with answer to the post itself later!

/K

[Kjell Pettersson]

I've his chart here:http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?rs=3;btyp=w2gw&nhor=1&cid=a5ofileH...

For those of us who cannot access the above link, I found the chart on
Astrotheme:
http://www.astrotheme.com/portraits/92mam383ET44.htm

Sun in Aries (of COURSE), but Mercury (and Venus) in Pisces - he's rather
disconcerting if you see him on TV, making inflammatory remarks in a voice
like a very mild-mannered stage vicar!  The Pisces influence shows in his
misty-eyed writings on "the wonder of science", and his fondness for
poetry - especially, of all people, Yeats.  He does get embarrassed when
taken up on that; Neptune influences him, but not comfortably (opp Sun &
Venus).  The two sides are rather noticeable if you pay attention, and
they're right there in his chart, though no doubt he would be purple to hear
it!

Looking at the chart I was surprise to someone so confrontational
having such a lack of squares and oppositions. Venus/Moon opposition
Neptune is like the softest possible version of a hard aspect you
could possibly have! But looking at the chart and keeping in mind this
split between professional and highly esteemed all-round and then this
sudden blind spot (because even if other scientists have the same
opinion as he has on astrology, they do not come out making blunders
while frenetic), I think Neptune must be it, after all.

Like Randi, he is found of portraying us as deceivers. What is that if
not Neptune? And Neptune is trine Mars, so—though uncommon—I think it
makes sense for him to direct all his aggression in this direction.

But the thing that strikes me the most is that there are so few hard
aspects. That must be a key, though I must confess I can't completely
wrap my mind around it.

/Kjell

[CFA]

Post by Kjell Pettersson
For those of us who cannot access the above link, I found the chart on
http://www.astrotheme.com/portraits/92mam383ET44.htm
Looking at the chart I was surprise to someone so confrontational
having such a lack of squares and oppositions. Venus/Moon opposition
Neptune is like the softest possible version of a hard aspect you
could possibly have!

I suggest this aspect could suggest a real love-hate relationship with
Mom. This could represent emotional overwhelm, from the conjunction,
and/or emotional betrayal/abandonment, from the Neptune opposition-
pretty violent stuff.

The Sun is part of the aspect, too, so both parents played in role.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
/Kjell

Ken

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by CFA
I suggest this aspect could suggest a real love-hate relationship with
Mom. This could represent emotional overwhelm, from the conjunction,
and/or emotional betrayal/abandonment, from the Neptune opposition-
pretty violent stuff.

I get it. Yes, it does seem like rejection is important, and that
could certainly be it. I didn't think about "too much", but all this
softness can certainly be too much. That would help explain the role
of Science in his life.

Post by CFA
The Sun is part of the aspect, too, so both parents played in role.

It's not far from a New Moon. Perhaps they were not too distinct from
one another. I am thinking of how some raise their kids, never
allowing the kid to see disagreement between the parents. That makes
it hard to accept disagreement later on and may perhaps lead to this
rather immature way of disagreeing that he has.

/K

[unknown]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
I suggest this aspect could suggest a real love-hate relationship with
Mom. This could represent emotional overwhelm, from the conjunction,
and/or emotional betrayal/abandonment, from the Neptune opposition-
pretty violent stuff.

I get it. Yes, it does seem like rejection is important, and that
could certainly be it. I didn't think about "too much", but all this
softness can certainly be too much. That would help explain the role
of Science in his life.

Post by CFA
The Sun is part of the aspect, too, so both parents played in role.

It's not far from a New Moon. Perhaps they were not too distinct from
one another. I am thinking of how some raise their kids, never
allowing the kid to see disagreement between the parents. That makes
it hard to accept disagreement later on and may perhaps lead to this
rather immature way of disagreeing that he has.

The opposition is along the nodal axis, too, but I can't think what that
means off-hand.

[Kjell Pettersson]

I must say the guy completely confuses me. Now I find that he seems to
have said about Percy Seymour’s theory that it is "interesting"...!

http://www.astrologer.com/tests/seymour.htm

/Kjell

Post by Kjell Pettersson

I've his chart here:http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?rs=3;btyp=w2gw&nhor=1&cid=a5ofileH...

For those of us who cannot access the above link, I found the chart on
Astrotheme:http://www.astrotheme.com/portraits/92mam383ET44.htm

Sun in Aries (of COURSE), but Mercury (and Venus) in Pisces - he's rather
disconcerting if you see him on TV, making inflammatory remarks in a voice
like a very mild-mannered stage vicar!  The Pisces influence shows in his
misty-eyed writings on "the wonder of science", and his fondness for
poetry - especially, of all people, Yeats.  He does get embarrassed when
taken up on that; Neptune influences him, but not comfortably (opp Sun &
Venus).  The two sides are rather noticeable if you pay attention, and
they're right there in his chart, though no doubt he would be purple to hear
it!

Looking at the chart I was surprise to someone so confrontational
having such a lack of squares and oppositions. Venus/Moon opposition
Neptune is like the softest possible version of a hard aspect you
could possibly have! But looking at the chart and keeping in mind this
split between professional and highly esteemed all-round and then this
sudden blind spot (because even if other scientists have the same
opinion as he has on astrology, they do not come out making blunders
while frenetic), I think Neptune must be it, after all.
Like Randi, he is found of portraying us as deceivers. What is that if
not Neptune? And Neptune is trine Mars, so—though uncommon—I think it
makes sense for him to direct all his aggression in this direction.
But the thing that strikes me the most is that there are so few hard
aspects. That must be a key, though I must confess I can't completely
wrap my mind around it.
/Kjell

[Kjell Pettersson]

I should have double-checked that. Too good to be true. He was
sarcastic (I am not surprised about that tho!).

http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/20040608_en.html

/K

Post by Kjell Pettersson
I must say the guy completely confuses me. Now I find that he seems to
have said about Percy Seymour’s theory that it is "interesting"...!
http://www.astrologer.com/tests/seymour.htm
/Kjell

Post by Kjell Pettersson

I've his chart here:http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?rs=3;btyp=w2gw&nhor=1&cid=a5ofileH...

For those of us who cannot access the above link, I found the chart on
Astrotheme:http://www.astrotheme.com/portraits/92mam383ET44.htm

Sun in Aries (of COURSE), but Mercury (and Venus) in Pisces - he's rather
disconcerting if you see him on TV, making inflammatory remarks in a voice
like a very mild-mannered stage vicar!  The Pisces influence shows in his
misty-eyed writings on "the wonder of science", and his fondness for
poetry - especially, of all people, Yeats.  He does get embarrassed when
taken up on that; Neptune influences him, but not comfortably (opp Sun &
Venus).  The two sides are rather noticeable if you pay attention, and
they're right there in his chart, though no doubt he would be purple to hear
it!

Looking at the chart I was surprise to someone so confrontational
having such a lack of squares and oppositions. Venus/Moon opposition
Neptune is like the softest possible version of a hard aspect you
could possibly have! But looking at the chart and keeping in mind this
split between professional and highly esteemed all-round and then this
sudden blind spot (because even if other scientists have the same
opinion as he has on astrology, they do not come out making blunders
while frenetic), I think Neptune must be it, after all.
Like Randi, he is found of portraying us as deceivers. What is that if
not Neptune? And Neptune is trine Mars, so—though uncommon—I think it
makes sense for him to direct all his aggression in this direction.
But the thing that strikes me the most is that there are so few hard
aspects. That must be a key, though I must confess I can't completely
wrap my mind around it.
/Kjell