Is astrology spiritual or scientific? || Acharya Prashant, with DU (2023)

Questioner (Q): What is your opinion about astrology because a large chunk of people with rational attitudes, even rational mindsets, also believe in astrology? Do you believe in it personally? If yes, why? And if not, why not?

Acharya Prashant (AP): Why must one give importance to believing in the first place? Do we live in the stone age? Why do we need to rely upon belief?

Today, is it sensible at all to rely on belief when you can assess, evaluate, check and validate? Why do you need to talk about beliefs? Since you have asked it directly, here is the point-blank answer: anybody who believes in astrology cannot be rational.

Q: Yes, Sir.

AP: Let there be a thesis, let there be a set of propositions that are available to examination and then I'll be very happy to accept the conclusions that astrologers etc. propound.

First of all, there has to be a set of principles, verifiable principles. A narrative cannot be termed as a science. I come up with a story and I say this story is science. No, the story is not science. Science is based on verifiable and falsifiable experiments. Show me that it works. Display it right in front of me and I'll be very happy to accept.

And nothing can ever be displayed in this field. All you have is a set of beliefs, the belief that this thing will happen. Why believe it? Because some person has been talking of these things so you should too believe. If you don't believe it, maybe you will meet some harm. So, it's safer for you that you just believe. There's no sense in this. There's just fear and insecurity. I have nothing against things that emerge freshly and invalidate pre-existing knowledge. But there has to be authenticity. There has to be verifiability. And an experiment should hold demonstrative value.

If you conduct an experiment two times under the same conditions, the result must be the same. These are some basic prerequisites before you can call anything as science, else how do you term it as science? Take the basic Newton's laws of motion. By Newton's laws, if I pick this thing up and I drop it from here, it should take a certain time to hit this table. And if I start at zero velocity, it would attain a certain velocity as it hits the table. And those laws are expressed in basic equations, such as the final velocity ‘v’ will be equal to the initial velocity ‘u’ plus gravity ‘a’ times the time elapsed ‘t’ — (v = u + at). You can calculate the time taken. If I do it hundred times, the result will be the same, assuming that this is a vacuum and assuming there is no air resistance. I may perform this experiment with objects of any shape, any size, the result will be the same, assuming there is no air drag.

Demonstrate that to me in astrology, and I'll be very happy to accept it as a science, else it is a myth, it is a bundle of unverified beliefs, and in that, we all are entitled to believe as we want. Nobody will jail you for your beliefs. If you want to believe in something then continue to believe in it, but don't turn it as logical or rational or scientific. There is no logic. There is just a story.

You may love a story, fine, that is your subjective choice, but don't call it a science. It's a story and quite an entertaining one. Also, quite a profit-yielding story if I look at the size of the astrology industry today and also the number of astrology apps that are available on play stores etc. So, it's a story that is making big money for a lot of storytellers, fine! It's between them and their clients. If the clients choose to pay just to hear stories, who am I to object? And I'm not trying to offend the religious feelings of people. All I am saying is, whatsoever is postulated there is just that — a postulate! You are supposing something, you are positing something. It is not available for verification, and since it is not available for verification, to me it is a story.

Q: I'm following up with that, merely rejecting something as a fact of pseudoscience. But if someone is believing a different side of pseudoscience and the other party is believing a different philosophy of pseudoscience, aren't both on the same page?

Like, I'm not a very passionate believer of astrology, and I also think it's a myth, but I believe some different pseudoscience, so, aren’t both on the same page?

Also, spirituality is also not scientific. So, how come, as a propagator of spirituality, one must look into science?

AP: Spirituality is not supposed to be scientific. What is Spirituality? What is the very definition of spirituality? Tell me, please.

Q: Spirituality starts from the beginning where it says that it is not related to science.

AP: What is the definition of spirituality? You are defining spirituality with respect to science, you are saying, “Spirituality is that which is not science.” I am saying, what is spirituality? Give me a positive definition.

Q: With spirituality right now, I am not aware.

AP: Then how did you make the claim that spirituality is not scientific if you don't know about spirituality?

Q: How can spirituality be scientific?

AP: What is spirituality? What are we talking about? I am not claiming spirituality is scientific. I am asking you, you are using the term ‘Spirituality’, what is that term about?

Q: Sir, as of now, currently, I may not have the exact idea of what the positive definition of spirituality is.

AP: So please listen, please understand. The definitions are very clear and mutually exclusive. Science is the study of objects and spirituality is the study of the subject.

So, looking for science in spirituality is as weird as looking for spirituality in science. Do you ever go to science and confront it and ask, “Why are you not spiritual?” Science is not supposed to be spiritual because science is the study of objects — the objective world, the material universe — that's what science is supposed to study. So, science is not supposed to be spiritual. Same way, spirituality is supposed to study the subject. Who is the subject? You are the subject.

Science is not supposed to study you, the one who says, ‘I’; Spirituality studies that. So, before you use words like ‘pseudoscience’ and all, also think of using words like pseudo-spirituality, science is pseudo-spirituality. How does that sound? Absurd! Equally absurd is to say that spirituality is pseudoscience, and we say all these things because we don't know the basic definitions and yet we are too eager to talk with confidence.

Q: No, sir, nothing like that. How can I be confident in front of you? I don't mean to offend.

AP: Do you think you can?

Q: No sir, of course not! You are taking me otherwise.

AP: This is called confidence.

Q: Sir, I'm glad you think so, an honour to talk to you like that.

AP: It's not about the smart whips, it's about seeing that at the centre of the mind is sitting someone who just believes and is insecure about those beliefs.

When you ask the question that just as it is unscientific to believe in astrology, how is it not unscientific to believe in spirituality? Do you see what you were very confident of? Please, tell me objectively. Your question was: “Sir, you just demolished astrology, right? So, astrology is pseudoscientific but then how can one kind of pseudoscience be superior to another kind of pseudoscience and the other kind of pseudoscience is spirituality?” So, do you see what you are very confident about?

Q: Sir, I was not confident, I was curious.

AP: I am just quoting what you said. So, you are confident that spirituality is pseudo-science.

Q: No, sir. Now I have a different view, I was only curious, that's why I asked.

AP: Curiosity does not take assumptions as its foundation. To be curious is to not assume anything and it is a huge assumption to begin with. And if you begin with that assumption, you will not always get somebody like me who has the time, energy and care to challenge the very assumption, right? If you base your entire thesis, your proposition, your assumption, mostly, you will get what you began from. You will get somebody who either validates your assumption or somebody who invalidates your assumption. But very few people will come and tell you, “Son, all you have is an assumption”.

You know, the question then becomes something like this — you meet someone and you ask him, “So, did you emerge from the jail today or yesterday?”

Is it curiosity or an allegation? You said you were just being curious, and very curiously I asked you, “Did you emerge from the jail today or yesterday?” Is it curiosity or an allegation? Do you see the huge assumption involved here? What is the huge assumption?

Q: That he went to jail.

AP: Yes, so the huge assumption that you had was ‘Spirituality is definitely a pseudo-science’ and based on that assumption, you raised another kind of curiosity. The curiosity was not whether Spirituality is pseudo-science, the curiosity was: “Is one pseudoscience better than another pseudoscience?”

Similarly, my curiosity is: Were you released from jail yesterday or today? Now this curiosity is no good. Because this curiosity settled, either way, does not challenge the assumption. The answer could be — “Yes, I was released yesterday.” The answer could be — “I was released today.” In either case, what remains certain is that you indeed went to jail and that assumption you are taking as a fact, and that is where we all lose it.

Q: Yes, sir.

AP: So, please avoid it

show_less