• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Guardian: I was an astrologer – here's how it really works, and why I had to stop

I love articles written by people about their experiences when they stopped believing weird things! This one's excellent!

I also learned that intelligence and education do not protect against superstition. Many customers were stockbrokers, advertising executives or politicians, dealing with issues whose outcomes couldn’t be controlled. It’s uncertainty that drives people into woo, not stupidity, so I’m not surprised millennials are into astrology. They grew up with Harry Potter and graduated into a precarious economy, making them the ideal customers.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9352794&postcount=201 :)
 
I'm not sure if people - Nancy Regan comes to mind - necessarily are stupid if they are believers. I'm not saying she was Mensa material, but educated. And, as I recall had a personal astrologer at her beck-and-call, making life decisions based on what she was told be him/her.

Probably not the best example, but the point is, I guess, it makes no sense to me.
 
I'm not sure if people - Nancy Regan comes to mind - necessarily are stupid if they are believers. I'm not saying she was Mensa material, but educated. And, as I recall had a personal astrologer at her beck-and-call, making life decisions based on what she was told be him/her.

Probably not the best example, but the point is, I guess, it makes no sense to me.

The best example I can think of is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
 
I also learned that intelligence and education do not protect against superstition. Many customers were stockbrokers, advertising executives or politicians, dealing with issues whose outcomes couldn’t be controlled. It’s uncertainty that drives people into woo, not stupidity, so I’m not surprised millennials are into astrology. They grew up with Harry Potter and graduated into a precarious economy, making them the ideal customers.
Hits the nail on the head there.

Saying "I don't know", or feeling like you don't know, seems to feel like a weakness to people.
 
Last edited:
Really? How interesting. I had no idea and will look it up. Thanks!

Doyle and Houdini collaborated for decades on the debate about mediums. Doyle would nominate candidates he thought were legit, and Houdini would try to debunk them.

Doyle's a good example of another ingredient to belief: emotions, and emotional trauma. Doyle was a science graduate and medical doctor by training. And then his son Kingsley Conan Doyle was killed at the Somme. This is when his philosophy pivoted toward the supernatural. The emotional pull toward believing in a scientifically proven afterlife must have been very strong.


ETA: although the example is a bit off topic. Doyle thought astrology was junk. He was only an advocate of mediumship.
 
Last edited:
Really? How interesting. I had no idea and will look it up. Thanks!

Conan-Doyle wrote:

1918 - The New Revelation: or, What Is Spiritualism?
1922 - Spiritualism-Some Straight Questions and Direct Answers
1921 - The Wanderings of a Spiritualist
1922 - The Case for Spirit Photography (with others)
1926 - The History of Spiritualism 2 vol.
1927 - Pheneas Speaks. Direct Spirit Communications
1928 - What does Spiritualism actually Teach and Stand for?
1930 - The Edge of the Unknown


I have a first edition of Edge of the Unknown, he explores popular ghost stories and alleged psychic events of the time such as the "Dancing Coffins of Barbados. What he does in the book is what you see here; uses stories by what he claims are reliable sources to advance his personal beliefs in Woo.

Evidently much of the story of the Mary Celeste was embellished by him as well.
 
Hits the nail on the head there.

Saying "I don't know", or feeling like you don't know, seems to feel like a weakness to people.


No, no, no. That's not the point at all! Notice the groups of people that she mentions as particularly vulnerable to superstition:

I also learned that intelligence and education do not protect against superstition. Many customers were stockbrokers, advertising executives or politicians, dealing with issues whose outcomes couldn’t be controlled. It’s uncertainty that drives people into woo, not stupidity, so I’m not surprised millennials are into astrology. They grew up with Harry Potter and graduated into a precarious economy, making them the ideal customers.


Other groups "with issues whose outcomes couldn’t be controlled" might be professional athletes (What if my competitors have the edge and I don't?!), actors (What if I suddenly can't remember my lines?) or other artists, soldiers in foxholes - or (and much more important, in my opinion) poor people who aren't sure how they are going to feed themselves or their kids next month.
Those are the kinds of uncertainty that drive people to believe.
I have collected links to other examples and studies in these two posts:

Or did the alleged "gap" or "psychological need" disappear - along with the uncertainty of existence?
See Phil Zuckerman's argument.

I (more than) suspect that the alleged "innate tendency towards magical thinking" is not innate at all, but one that appears only when people are placed in unpleasant (or even life-threatening) situations beyond their control, and they therefore look for solutions to their predicament beyond reality. This is the reason why there aren't many atheists in foxholes. And the solution to the problem of religion is obvious: Do away with foxholes and living conditions that resemble foxholes.
See my references to cases and (mainly) recent scientific studies above:
Opium of the people
Poverty and witchcraft
The children in Beslan (The Harry-Potter religion)
The need for fortunetellers (not innate!)
James Randi and the need to believe (I´ve never heard him claim that the need is in any way innate!)
Competitive sports & religion, lack of control & superstion
Access to proper healthcare as a precondition for discarding witchcraft
People's tendency to deny the explanations of medical doctors when palliative treatment is all they have In view of Zuckerman's studies it would be interesting to know if there are major differences between the USA and Scandinavia in this respect.




You cannot get rid of superstition and religion unless you make sure that people's existential needs are safe and secure. And that includes meals, housing, education and health care.
Only when people have those things and have reason to believe that they can look forward to having them on a permanent basis, only then can you expect them to believe you when you debunk supernatural claims. Only then will the 'opium of the people' lose its grip on them.
However, that won't work for "stockbrokers, advertising executives or politicians," but screw those guys. Let them spend all the money they make on astrologers. Making the world safe and comfortable for the rest of us eliminates those three groups of people anyway.
We can keep the millennials. :)


ETA: I can see that some of the links are dead. I'll see what I can do about it.
How a lack of control leads to superstition
Not the full article, but as good as it gets. The other links seem to be OK. I don't know if the links in my other posts are all OK, but if they are not, I hope that I have quoted enough from them for you to get the essential idea.
 
Last edited:
The course began with the meanings of the zodiac, from Aries to Aquarius.
This is an odd error to make for an astrologer. It misses out Pisces.

It's like saying you "know all the months of the year, from January to November".
 
No, no, no. That's not the point at all! Notice the groups of people that she mentions as particularly vulnerable to superstition:




Other groups "with issues whose outcomes couldn’t be controlled" might be professional athletes (What if my competitors have the edge and I don't?!), actors (What if I suddenly can't remember my lines?) or other artists, soldiers in foxholes - or (and much more important, in my opinion) poor people who aren't sure how they are going to feed themselves or their kids next month.
Those are the kinds of uncertainty that drive people to believe.
I have collected links to other examples and studies in these two posts:







You cannot get rid of superstition and religion unless you make sure that people's existential needs are safe and secure. And that includes meals, housing, education and health care. Only when people have those things and have reason to believe that they can look forward to having them on a permanent basis, only then can you expect them to believe you when you debunk supernatural claims. Only then will the 'opium of the people' lose its grip on them.However, that won't work for "stockbrokers, advertising executives or politicians," but screw those guys. Let them spend all the money they make on astrologers. Making the world safe and comfortable for the rest of us eliminates those three groups of people anyway.
We can keep the millennials. :)


ETA: I can see that some of the links are dead. I'll see what I can do about it.
How a lack of control leads to superstition
Not the full article, but as good as it gets. The other links seem to be OK. I don't know if the links in my other posts are all OK, but if they are not, I hope that I have quoted enough from them for you to get the essential idea.

That sounds suspiciously like "There are no atheists in foxholes". Of course there are.

To quote John W Campbell -- "The first thing to recognize is that the Universe doesn't care".
 
That sounds suspiciously like "There are no atheists in foxholes". Of course there are.

To quote John W Campbell -- "The first thing to recognize is that the Universe doesn't care".


No, it doesn't! "There are no atheists in foxholes" is an argument against atheism. It implies something along the lines of, 'You just wait and see! When you find yourself in a situation where you need to believe in God, you'll remember my words. And then you'll give up on this newfangled idea of yours and realize that I'm right!'

However, I tend to agree with the skeptic James Morrow: “Saying there are no atheists in foxholes may be less of an argument against atheism than it is against foxholes.”

I.e. if we want to liberate people from the nonsense of religion, the best way to do so is to help them overcome the conditions that make the opium of the people seem to be the only 'solution' to their problems. It is so much easier to "recognize that the Universe doesn't care" when you find yourself in cosy and comfortable circumstances than in a foxhole where you have every reason to fear for your life.
 
No, it doesn't! "There are no atheists in foxholes" is an argument against atheism. It implies something along the lines of, 'You just wait and see! When you find yourself in a situation where you need to believe in God, you'll remember my words. And then you'll give up on this newfangled idea of yours and realize that I'm right!'



However, I tend to agree with the skeptic James Morrow: “Saying there are no atheists in foxholes may be less of an argument against atheism than it is against foxholes.”



I.e. if we want to liberate people from the nonsense of religion, the best way to do so is to help them overcome the conditions that make the opium of the people seem to be the only 'solution' to their problems. It is so much easier to "recognize that the Universe doesn't care" when you find yourself in cosy and comfortable circumstances than in a foxhole where you have every reason to fear for your life.



I think you are wrong. Humans are emotional and irrational when it comes to dealing with their emotions. This is especially true when it comes to certain areas of human experience where we feel no sense of control.

You can provide for everyone’s needs and people will still cling to superstition. I think this is especially true when we lose someone close to us. It’s very hard for most people to accept that death is the end and we will never see that person again.


Even for me, I am an atheist and I know intellectually that death is the end; however, when I allow myself to think of the possibility of my wife dying (she has lupus but she’s “ok” right now ) there is a big part of my heart that desperately wants to believe that maybe I’m wrong. If she goes before me, it’s going to hurt very badly not to have her here anymore (****, I’m tearing up just typing this) with no possibility of being in her presence again. I don’t think I’ll embrace woo, but I wouldn’t rule it out entirely. It would be immensely comforting to believe even just a little.

Beyond the finality of death, no matter how well our basic needs are met, many people still embrace superstition. We want to believe in meaning. We want to believe in purpose. That some of us have managed to reason ourselves out of that doesn’t mean much.
 
No, it doesn't! "There are no atheists in foxholes" is an argument against atheism. It implies something along the lines of, 'You just wait and see! When you find yourself in a situation where you need to believe in God, you'll remember my words. And then you'll give up on this newfangled idea of yours and realize that I'm right!'

However, I tend to agree with the skeptic James Morrow: “Saying there are no atheists in foxholes may be less of an argument against atheism than it is against foxholes.”

I.e. if we want to liberate people from the nonsense of religion, the best way to do so is to help them overcome the conditions that make the opium of the people seem to be the only 'solution' to their problems. It is so much easier to "recognize that the Universe doesn't care" when you find yourself in cosy and comfortable circumstances than in a foxhole where you have every reason to fear for your life.

People will never get past their cultures.

Russia was a Communist country for 74 years and China is still a Communist country and BOTH are home to the most superstitious populations of the industrialized world. China's superstitions have been destructive to endangered wildlife hunted for various body parts for use in Chines herbal medicines. Both countries had cultural revolutions that saw clerics and priests silenced by execution yet both are home to a** backwards populations of Woo Believers.
 
No, it doesn't! "There are no atheists in foxholes" is an argument against atheism. It implies something along the lines of, 'You just wait and see! When you find yourself in a situation where you need to believe in God, you'll remember my words. And then you'll give up on this newfangled idea of yours and realize that I'm right!'

However, I tend to agree with the skeptic James Morrow: “Saying there are no atheists in foxholes may be less of an argument against atheism than it is against foxholes.”

I.e. if we want to liberate people from the nonsense of religion, the best way to do so is to help them overcome the conditions that make the opium of the people seem to be the only 'solution' to their problems. It is so much easier to "recognize that the Universe doesn't care" when you find yourself in cosy and comfortable circumstances than in a foxhole where you have every reason to fear for your life.

It may be easier. But easier doesn't count. It is possible, no matter what your circumstances, to recognize that magical thinking does not work.

The atheist/foxhole argument is supposed to show that foolish atheists will find GAWD when pushed to the wall. I promise that I will die without my saying a single prayer.

The Universe does not care. Whether you want it to or not. :w2:
 
People will never get past their cultures.

Russia was a Communist country for 74 years and China is still a Communist country and BOTH are home to the most superstitious populations of the industrialized world. China's superstitions have been destructive to endangered wildlife hunted for various body parts for use in Chines herbal medicines. Both countries had cultural revolutions that saw clerics and priests silenced by execution yet both are home to a** backwards populations of Woo Believers.

Of course people will get past their cultures. The whole history of the World demonstrates this to be true. Otherwise we would still be scratching in the ground with sticks.

Destruction of a religious organization does not destroy the belief in Woo per se. People just replace it with belief in some other crap.
 
People will never get past their cultures.

Russia was a Communist country for 74 years and China is still a Communist country and BOTH are home to the most superstitious populations of the industrialized world. China's superstitions have been destructive to endangered wildlife hunted for various body parts for use in Chines herbal medicines. Both countries had cultural revolutions that saw clerics and priests silenced by execution yet both are home to a** backwards populations of Woo Believers.

Back in the heyday of BCSkeptics - say, 1980s and early 1990s - there was a strong overlap with atheism in the membership. This led to a source of schism, as the atheists were highly associated with Communism (red berets all round, 'better red than dead' T-shirts &c) and generally had bought into the Barefoot Doctor's claims that Traditional Chinese Medicine was the only 'true' scientific medicine.

It was fascinating to watch their facial expressions when confronted with the cognitive dissonance for what seemed like the first time in their lives: "But, but... we're pro science... that means we need to educate the public about the benefits of TCM... what's all this antiscience in organized skepticism saying acupuncture doesn't work?"
 
Last edited:
I think you are wrong. Humans are emotional and irrational when it comes to dealing with their emotions. This is especially true when it comes to certain areas of human experience where we feel no sense of control.


Emotions as such don't make us irrational. The highlighted part is the point of all my links. You can reduce irrationality significantly by providing people with acceptable living conditions. It has already been done: Society without God.
I don't claim that we can eliminate every single thing that makes us unhappy.

You can provide for everyone’s needs and people will still cling to superstition. I think this is especially true when we lose someone close to us. It’s very hard for most people to accept that death is the end and we will never see that person again.


No, they won't. Most of us in this forum, for instance, don't cling to superstition. But, yes, it is bloody hard to lose somebody, and it may make us wish for a realm where we we'll meet that person again, but in this forum most of us don't think so, and in my country most ordinary people don't believe in an afterlife.

Even for me, I am an atheist and I know intellectually that death is the end; however, when I allow myself to think of the possibility of my wife dying (she has lupus but she’s “ok” right now ) there is a big part of my heart that desperately wants to believe that maybe I’m wrong. If she goes before me, it’s going to hurt very badly not to have her here anymore (****, I’m tearing up just typing this) with no possibility of being in her presence again. I don’t think I’ll embrace woo, but I wouldn’t rule it out entirely. It would be immensely comforting to believe even just a little.


I empathize with all of your feelings. However, I'm at a loss when it comes to comforting people who experience a loss like the one that you fear. don't even know how to comfort myself when I'm in a similar situation. I mourn until I get out on the other side.
The only thing I can do for others in similar circumstances it to prevent ghoulish predators from taking advantage of them - of the dying as well as of their relatives. And I have experienced that the bereaved - even though they didn't heed my warnings - were actually grateful that somebody had tried to warn them when they were desperate and got into the clutches of occultism and alternative 'healers'.

Beyond the finality of death, no matter how well our basic needs are met, many people still embrace superstition. We want to believe in meaning. We want to believe in purpose. That some of us have managed to reason ourselves out of that doesn’t mean much.


Yes, we sometimes want to believe in meaning and purpose - in particular when our whole existence doesn't make sense. This is why it's so important to make sure that people's lives do make sense. That they are not forced to spend a life in misery and squalor.

But I can guarantee you that most Scandinavians didn't reason their way out of superstition and religion. They lost the need to believe when life became livable. When they no longer had to worry too much about putting a roof over their heads, food on the table, educating their children, or paying doctor's bills.
But even here, we still die, of course, but that seems to be a burden that we can live with when our lives don't suck too much.
If life is worth living, we tend to lose the need to believe that we'll be compensated for our walk through the valley of tears in an imaginary Heaven. And if our loved ones at least had good lives when they were still among us, that tends to be a comforting thought, too, somehow.
 

Back
Top Bottom