ABSTRACT
In a radio broadcast in 1996, the only issue of agreement between Professor Richard Dawkins and an Anglican bishop was the iniquity of astrology. This cosy unanimity between otherwise often bitter enemies perfectly illustrates the continuity between monotheistic religion and modern science. The unadmitted bias continues in the researchers’ treatment of ‘subjective’ vs ‘objective’ astrology. Taking these in order, ‘In subjective astrology only subjective values matter. With subjective astrology, apparently, research would ‘examine its effects on people rather than its content’. The kind of context that matters most in this case, as the researchers initally seem to recognize, is the ritual of preparing and interpreting the relevant astrological map, either for oneself or for another, in the divinatory situation nowadays usually called a ‘consultation’. The researchers continue that ‘Astrology seems unlikely to feel right unless astrologers and clients share a belief in objective astrology.
