Acharya Prashant responds to a question about his opinion on astrology by first questioning the need to believe in anything. He asks why one must give importance to believing in the first place, especially when we do not live in the Stone Age and have the capacity to assess, evaluate, check, and validate. He states that there is no need to rely on belief. Directly addressing the question, he asserts that anybody who believes in astrology cannot be a rational person. He elaborates that for something to be considered a science, it must have a set of propositions available for examination and verifiable, falsifiable principles. Science is based on experiments that can be demonstrated. He contrasts this with astrology, which he calls a narrative or a story, not a science, because it lacks verifiable principles and its claims cannot be demonstrated. He explains that a story, no matter how entertaining or profitable, is not science. He characterizes astrology as a bundle of unverified beliefs rooted in fear and insecurity. When the questioner brings up spirituality, Acharya Prashant clarifies the distinction between science and spirituality. He defines science as the study of objects and the objective, material universe, while spirituality is the study of the subject, the 'I'. He states that the two are mutually exclusive, and looking for science in spirituality is as absurd as looking for spirituality in science. He points out the questioner's flawed assumption in equating spirituality with pseudoscience, emphasizing that true curiosity does not begin with assumptions. He concludes by stating that a curious mind does not assume anything; it seeks to know.