Well, if they [Brill] are only doing what necessarily results from impersonal deterministic causes acting upon them, why should they be punished in Purgatory?

Well I’m a Calvinist Atheist so although I believe Brill were predestined for sin they are nevertheless held responsible for their actions. Their condemnation is all to the greater glory of the Purposeless Void.

Robert I’m not sure I understand the association you’re drawing between Astrology and my views other than that Astrology itself rather demands a determinist view. My rejection of Astrology is other than that. Just because we don’t have all the right answers doesn’t mean that there are no wrong ones. As science it’s bunk but it does have a rich interesting cultural history. Consequently being a student of antique cosmology I actually know quite a bit about it.

There is much modern misunderstanding. Colloquially believers now talk as if the positions of the stars and planets affect human behavior in some way. But that wasn’t precisely the ancient view. They possessed a largely forgotten concept known as correspondences.

As above, so below.

The perception was that each discrete moment possessed a nature unique to that moment. And since there was a fundamental unity at all levels of creation, one could understand one’s own nature by examining the condition of the universe at that discrete movement. This is why you cast a horoscope. It’s not that the positions of the stars and planets are influencing us. It’s that they share the same fundamental nature as we do and by examining them we illuminate our own nature, our “fate”. A much more subtle viewpoint.

But this is the problem. The positions of the stars and planets as seen from Earth are almost completely arbitrary. Interpretation is hopelessly subjective. The only unity we can detect is on a material level. We are subject to the same processes described by physics. Through our instruments we can look out at the universe and see stars and planets forming by the same processes that take place in our own backyards. Actually, a much more profound realization!

I think one accusation that I am safely inoculated against is that I chose my views because they please me or validate me in some way. My opinions about determinism and materialism are conclusions not assumptions. And I am happy to amend or discard them given a sufficient reason to so so.

Well, I’m mostly just trying to have a little fun…

Atheistic materialist determinists are not allowed to have fun. We are contractually obligated to walk around with a hangdog expression, and write bad existentialist poetry.

If we understood this whole process, in its entirety, would we not see exactly how the interaction and destiny of all of the stars and planets (and everything else in the universe) are related to our own destiny?

I suspect if such a perspective were possible it would reveal that our destiny is indistinguishable from that of all else. Presumably this is the “god’s eye” view of reality. All time and space laid out before you. A landslide in the Andes would have the same significance as the birth of Beethoven. Mercifully perhaps it seems likely that this view is not possible. We continue to privilege our own personal perspective and experience. I suppose I object not to people who do this – all do – but to those who do it unawares.

The materialist determinist philosophical worldview is indeed mechanistic.

I don’t agree but courtesy requires I first ask why you think so?

I don’t see how relativity has anything to do with upending a mechanistic world-view.

Because it introduces stochasticity, a random probability distribution that can be analyzed statistically but not be predicted precisely.

First things first.

Since the subject of Astrology came up (are you still out there Steefen?) let me point out that over my holiday amongst the supplicants I read an enormously entertaining book entitled ** you do not have permission to see this link **. (Now I know what you’re thinking. Why would the veritable Voice of Reason in this decadent age be reading a book about astrology of all things? Well, while as a pseudo-science it is hopeless, it is nevertheless a fascinating cultural study. And as a student of Antique Cosmologies and myths of the Ancient Near East, it is an inevitable subject to consider.)

What drew me in was the astrological status of Pluto, erstwhile planet and currently king of the Kuiper Belt. (What did Milton have Satan cry when he was cast out of God’s presence? Better to reign in Hell than serve in heaven! Indeed.) Astrologers have been intepreting the significance of Pluto since it was dicovered in 1930. The five classcial planets have a long and rich historical tradition. What of the modern planets? And what effect of Pluto’s “demotion” on its influence?

I should point out that the author, John Michael Greer, is himself an astrologer and takes all this quite seriously. This leads to some interesting and perplexing claims. He seems to believe that Pluto (as well as Uranus and Neptune) had no influence before it was discovered. And that Pluto’s influence will wane now that its planetary status has been reconsidered by the International Astronomical Union. (Did the IAU know it has such power?!?) Greer rather arbitrarily chooses events occuring on earth at the time of the discovery of Pluto and associates them with its discovery. When you take this kind of cosmic “connect the dots” approach how can you ever be wrong?

But my intent was not to laugh at the credulous. I’m fascinated by how people have imagined the planets and and how our scientific study of their physical nature has effected those imaginings. Astrologers realize that science rules the day (and the night) and accordingly shape their approach to make it seem as scientific as possible. The idea that the astrological influence of these bodies can wax and wane is very interesting. Clearly all this is mostly going on in people’s heads and nowhere else. If they could just admit that I would have no problem with it.

Note: The reclassification of Pluto by the IAU caused much consternation and comment. There were editorials and letter writing campaigns. I know why I was interested. For most of my life Pluto was the remotest and most mysterious of the planets. What was it like out there on the edge of the interplanetary void? Pluto doesn’t meet the standards set by the IAU for a planet. The issue is not with Pluto but with the standards used by the IAU. Pluto itself rolls on, oblivious. But, rather typically in outer space, the more we find out the more we realize we don’t know. It’s entirely possible that Pluto posseses a subsurface ocean of liquid heated by internal thermal processes. This is exactly how life on our planet is hypothesized to have begun.

Now I ask you friends, which is the more profound concept, the possibility of life on Pluto, or the rinky-dink cosmos of astrology?