If astrology were akin to a religion, I would undoubtedly be considered a non-believer—an infidel, a nastik in Hindu culture, or a kafir in Islamic terms. A recent shift in my core beliefs has led me to reexamine astrology’s potential role in the universe, and perhaps even more surprisingly, admit its potential compatibility with Science. Nevertheless, for reasons I shall explain below, I will continue to put zero faith in the words of any astrologer.

Astrology and Science

Astrology proposes that human affairs and natural phenomena are influenced by the positions and movements of celestial bodies. This notion is captivating, particularly when viewed through the lens of our ancestors who sought guidance and meaning in the stars. Yet, several fundamental questions arise from astrology’s premise. How could distant stars and planets, many light-years away, exert any tangible influence on our daily lives? There seems to be an inherent egoism in this idea — assuming that in the vastness of the universe, our individual lives are of central importance. Believing the Earth was the center of the universe, it made sense to correlate our existence with the celestial dance overhead.

Fun fact: It is this outdated belief of an earth-centric solar system that spawns the concept of “Mercury in Retrograde”. Retrograde motion is when a planet appears to move in the opposite direction of its regular planetary motion. Of course, we now know that planets follow a unidirectional orbit around the sun. When observed from the earth, a motion may appear retrograde, but there is no real change in its direction.

Bonus Fun fact: The navagraha in Indian astrology do not conform to nine planets. The sun is included in this navagraha, and so are two ‘nodes of the moon’ (Raahu and Ketu).

As our understanding of the universe has expanded, the heliocentric model has replaced geocentric views, while also revealing the vastness of the cosmos and the relative insignificance of Earth in the grand scheme of things. For instance, comparing the mass of Earth to that of the observable universe is like comparing a grain of sand to a thousand Earths. It’s implausible to imagine that such a minuscule entity could be the focal point of cosmic forces. Moreover, support for astrology often hinges on anecdotal evidence and confirmation bias, where individuals remember correct predictions and overlook inaccurate ones. Such evidence does not meet scientific standards, which require reproducible and consistent results.

My personal, non-scientific reason for rejecting Astrology

Forget the scientific evidence. Actually, don’t. It’s rather important before you decide to change your name from Khurana to KKhurana.

My personal disbelief in astrology stems fundamentally from its incompatibility with the concept of free will. I assert that the course of my life is shaped by my actions and decisions, not by the arbitrary configurations of stars and planets. If I find myself facing an unfavorable outcome, it’s the result of my own circumstances and actions. For instance, if my job applications were rejected by 100 companies, I like to believe it is not because of Shani or Mercury, but because of something lacking in my CV, or my applying to roles I am not a good fit for.

This belief underscores my sense of personal responsibility. It’s important to distinguish between being at fault for something and being responsible for one’s position when something happens. For instance, if I am walking along a crowded road while looking at my phone and someone on a bike zooms by and snatches my phone, the theft is not my fault — it’s the thief who has acted wrongly. However, I chose to take out my phone, placing myself in a situation where someone could steal it. This action doesn’t make me culpable, but it does mean I played a part in creating the circumstances that led to the theft.

Herein lies my core issue with astrology: it can strip individuals of their agency by attributing their life events to predetermined cosmic forces. If something unfortunate happens, astrology might suggest it was fated by the stars. This perspective could lead one to overlook the role of personal choice and responsibility. This is why I chose to reject astrology and embrace a philosophy that acknowledges the power of individual choice and accountability. Yes, circumstances beyond our control will influence our outcomes, but free will and individual choice put us in positions to allow these forces to control our outcomes. However, what if free will did not exist?

We live in a deterministic world

What happens when your core belief is shattered? Consider a world devoid of free will, a concept vividly presented by neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky in his book, “Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will” Sapolsky, a respected figure in neuroscience, argues convincingly that free will is an illusion; our actions are predetermined by the sum of our biological pasts. Robert Sapolsky’s exploration of determinism extends far beyond the immediate circumstances leading to an event. He argues that understanding the outcome of any situation requires an examination of an individual’s entire biological history, not just the moments or days preceding it.

For instance, consider the classical ethical dilemma where we are asked to judge a man stealing food to feed his starving family. The act of stealing food is not the outcome of the previous few minutes, hours or even days of the man’s life. Sapolsky argues that doing so is similar to watching only the final three minutes of a film, and using it to try and understand the complete story. Sapolsky suggests that every aspect of who we are, including our decisions and behaviors, is the cumulative result of our genetic makeup and developmental history. The biological determinants of our behavior stretch widely over space and time — responding to events in front of you this instant but also to events on the other side of the planet or that shaped your ancestors centuries back. We need to look at the entire biological history of an individual, to understand their current action:

1. A second before behavior
2. Seconds-to-minutes before behavior
3. Hours-to-days before behavior
4. Months-to-years before behavior
5. Adolescence
6. Childhood
7. Fetus / Womb
8. Genes
9. Culture & Evolution

While some of the above are understood trivially, Sapolsky demonstrates scientifically how the other factors also influence the action. Our environments and experiences shape our brain’s development in our childhood, adolescence and also while in the womb, influencing our future decision-making capabilities. Not just that, but thousands of years of evolution also influence how we behave and act in certain situations. These factors, which are often beyond our control, contribute to a deterministic view of human behavior where free will is more of a comforting illusion than an actual agency. This perspective sees humans as products of their past, where every choice is the inevitable result of preceding causes.

Here’s a thought experiment, excerpted from his book:

Imagine a university graduation ceremony. Almost always moving… The happiness, the pride. The families whose sacrifices now all seem worth it… And then you notice someone. Amid the family clusters post-ceremony… you see the person way in the back, the person who is part of the grounds crew, collecting the garbage from the cans on the perimeter of the event.

Randomly pick any of the graduates. Do some magic so that this garbage collector started life with the graduate’s genes. Likewise for getting the womb in which nine months were spent and the lifelong epigenetic consequences of that. Get the graduate’s childhood as well — one filled with, say, piano lessons and family game nights, instead of, say, threats of going to bed hungry, becoming homeless, or being deported for lack of papers. Let’s suppose that, in addition to the garbage collector having gotten all that of the graduate’s past, the graduate would have gotten the garbage collector’s past. Trade every factor over which they had no control, and you will switch who would be in the graduation robe and who would be hauling garbage cans. This is what I mean by determinism.

Side note: Sloww does an admirable job of summarizing this book

If the world is deterministic, could Astrology be real?

This approach challenges the traditional notion of free will by proposing that our lives are predetermined by an intricate tapestry of past interactions, experiences, and genetic factors, making us the sum of our biological pasts. In this deterministic world, the concept of free will doesn’t just waver; it essentially becomes a myth. If we subscribe to this scientific argument that free will does not exist, and the world is entirely deterministic, that begs the question, how far back in history do we go?

Now, time for me to cheat and simply extend Sapolsky’s argument — how far in the past do we go? To the moment the first homo sapiens appeared? Homo erectus? To the first sign of life? To the big bang? If we accept determinism, we cannot stop at an arbitrary point (See: Turtles all the way down). With this premise, we can start to see how Astrology can coexist in a world with Science. If everything going back as far as the big bang is determining everything that is unfolding now and in the future, then there is a world where Astrology can coexist with Science. If the world is deterministic, then maybe the arbitrary position of stars and planets at the time of your birth is indeed correlated with the kind of person you grew up to be, and maybe there is some possibility that you are incompatible with someone else who was born at a time when the stars and planets were in a different arbitrary position.

Now you may ask, what about all the evidence, biases and flaws with Astrology that I discussed earlier in the article? Those still exist, but we could draw a different inference. If a majority of Astrological predictions are incorrect, there are two possibilities:

• Astrology is useless and we cannot determine anything from the position of the stars / planets
• Astrology has a place in a deterministic world, it’s just that no one on earth can accurately read it

I am inclined to believe possibility no. 2. If there were a supreme being who observed all of the universe and its history as it unfolded, maybe THEY could correctly draw some semblance of correlation between where Mars was on the day you were born, and whether it is correlated with specific future outcomes. Observing and connecting patterns from so far back in space-time seems like a stretch for anyone on earth to be able to do accurately. At the same time, maybe some astrological predictions do come true, through sheer dumb luck, or due to an observable pattern from earth that has been repeated enough times to warrant some credence in the belief that the correlation between that observed star / planet and the corresponding outcome may be recurring.

Conclusion

When making an argument, the burden of proof lies on the asserter. I, of course, have none. Hence, I make no claims to outright assert that Astrology is real. I am just a skeptic who is forced to consider the possibility that it might be real. This seems like a good time to reiterate that even if Astrology is real, the odds heavily indicate that an astrological prediction, explanation or recommendation you are reading is incorrect. If I had an unfair coin which flipped heads 99/100 times, I would always call heads, ignoring the 1% chance that it could be tails. Get me an astrological prediction, and I will always choose to pay zero heed to it.