Should determinism allow for astrology?

[force_redo]

Just for the record: I'm neither into determinism nor into astrology (and I don't know either very well), but since astrology is discussed on this board (from a skeptic's view) I thought about this recently:

If you have a wholly deterministic view of the world that would mean that:
a.) If a person is born tomorrow, his whole life, character etc. is already predetermined and is going to happen this way
b.) obviously, which planet and star is where is also predetermined and coincides with this guy's birth

Now, astrology claims that there is an influence of b.) onto the person, which I think is very unlikely, to say the least. But what if a.) and b.) just correlate, because somewhen in the past (let's say: during big bang) somthing happened that ultimately led to the occurence of a.) and b.) ?

I'm not trying to argue in favour of astrology here (rather the opposite, really), I'm just really curious, if determinists think of astrology as "plausible"?

Any takers?

FR

 

[Anacoluthon64]

There's no reason for determinism and astrology to conflict with one another. The stars and planets can just as well be considered the messengers and auguries of predetermined events, rather than the causal agents.

Alternatively, it could equally well be predetermined that the positions of the stars and planets are de facto causal agents, but since their positions are in any case predetermined, so are the effects they produce, and again there's no conflict between determinism and astrology.

Determinism is a much tougher nut to crack than astrology, however.

'Luthon64

 

[force_redo]

There's no reason for determinism and astrology to conflict with one another. The stars and planets can just as well be considered the messengers and auguries of predetermined events, rather than the causal agents.

Yep, that's my thought, too. However, my question was meant less about whether "determinism and astrology conflict with one another", but could be more specifically put into words like: "Can a determinist deny the plausibility of astrology".

Determinism is a much tougher nut to crack than astrology, however.

You're right with that.
I guess it depends on whether you believe in causality or quantum mechanics...

FR

 

[Anacoluthon64]

"Can a determinist deny the plausibility of astrology".

That will depend on what the determinist believes to be the wellspring of determinism. Clearly, an islamic fatalist will deny that the stars and planets exert any power over the way things happen, whereas an "astrological fundamentalist" will deny that Allah had anything to do with it.

I guess it depends on whether you believe in causality or quantum mechanics...

Be careful here - causality and quantum mechanics are not necessarily incompatible with one another. It depends on the scale being considered.

'Luthon64

 

[force_redo]

That will depend on what the determinist believes to be the wellspring of determinism.

I don't think so. As far as I understand determinism it states that the events follow each other strictly by cause and effect. I don't know if it matters what initially "kicked off" this chain of events. (To the individual it might, but not generally)
(Sorry for my somewhat sluggish language, I'm no native speaker)

But would you say say that there is no way for a determinist to dismiss astrology as nonsense? Because I'm inclined to and at the same time I'm surprised by it, because I think I'm overlooking something...

Be careful here - causality and quantum mechanics are not necessarily incompatible with one another. It depends on the scale being considered.

Sure. It was just meant as a joke...

FR

 

[Anacoluthon64]

I don't know if it matters what initially "kicked off" this chain of events. (To the individual it might, but not generally)

But would you say say that there is no way for a determinist to dismiss astrology as nonsense? Because I'm inclined to and at the same time I'm surprised by it, because I think I'm overlooking something...

It does matter insofar as it constitutes a prior or the first cause. As you say, determinism assumes that a chain of events, even one of infinite length, is at every point precisely determined by (a) prior event(s). If you know all the conditions with infinite precision at one point in the chain, you could foretell the future exactly. Suppose now that causality in the universe, in particular as it pertains to human behaviour, is structured according to the way astrologers say it is. In this case, a determinist who is aware of this (or at least believes it to be so) cannot rule out astrology: the fact that the stars' and planets' behaviours may themselves be predetermined does not change the fact that they affect human behaviour. Also, the stars and planets would be a prior cause of human behaviour, having been placed in their specific configurations by still earlier causes.

'Luthon64