The Validity of Astrology - Essay Example

The Debate between Augustine and Manuel Komnenos Over the Validity of Astrology Introduction It would seem that the first experience of Augustine with astrologers can be traced back to the time when he started teaching rhetoric (Scott 1995). Nevertheless, a more thorough analysis of the case discloses that the debate with astrologers is in reality an interruption and actually falls under the education of Augustine in Carthage (Barton 1994). Thereby, the issue can be sensibly raised as to whether Augustine actually did engage with Manichees prior to the astrologers (Ferrari 1977). The accuracy of this order is revealed significantly in the first statement of Augustine about the astrologers (Ferrari 1977): I was ready enough to consult those impostors called astrologers, my reason being that they made no sacrifices and addressed no prayers to any spirit to assist them in their divination (ibid, p. 245). It was Augustine who gave the most prominent, compelling, and wide-ranging criticism of astrology during his period. He stated, in the Confessions, that earlier in his life he was fascinated by astrologers and astrology but after his acceptance of the Christian faith, he fervently condemned the astrology’s fatalism as ‘having the effect to persuade men not to worship any god at all’ (Ferrari 1977, 247). At the heart of other claims, Augustine recognized that valid astrological forecasts are attributable to the aid of demons and that although the stars influence earthly evolution, ‘it does not follow that the wills of men are subject to the configurations of the stars’ (Demetra 2001, 14). Augustine, in another book, talked about the dilemma of the Star of Bethlehem and argued that it was a ‘new star that shone because Christ was born and its purpose was to point the way for the Magi to find the Word of God’ (Demetra 2001, 14). In contrast, as a challenge to these arguments of Augustine, Manuel Komnenos’s dilemma in forming a dispute where in astrology was not viewed as sacrilegious relied upon the claim that the will of God was greater than the stars’ authority (Demetra 2001). Hence, in his justification of astrology, Manuel should defend that the stars do not possess a self-sufficient will that transcends the omnipotence of God, but that the evident supremacy that prevails over them to influence outcomes in the world, is in reality God using the stars to communicate signs to the world (Demetra 2001). This possibility is strengthened by another scholar. Regarding this, it is to be distinguished that immediately at the preface of second Enncod’s third tractate Plotinus puts forth the differentiation between the stars as embodying occurrences in the future, and the stars as revealing such occurrences (Scott 1995). Almost two decades after Confessions, when writing City of God’s fifth book, Augustine adopts such a differentiation and with an enigmatic reference which could talk about Plotinus (Ferrari 1977): But if the stars are said rather to signify these things [i.e. human acts] than to effect them, so that the position (of the stars is, as it were, a kind of speech predicting, not causing future things, for this has been the opinion of men of no ordinary learning Plotinus?]—certainly the mathematicians [i.e. astrologers] are not wont so to speak, saying, for example, Mars in such or such a position signifies a homicide, but rather that it makes a homicide (ibid, p. 250). At any rate, it is apparent from the several instances on which Augustine criticizes astrology that he is mainly interested about the second feature in the abovementioned statement, that is, about an enigmatic power where in stars could influence the actions of human beings (Ferrari 1977). He views this form of causative power as superseding free volition and hence eradicating the entire sphere of ethics or morals since human actions would in that case be the unavoidable outcomes of astrological determinism (Barton 1994). In contrast, Manuel admits that the art is prone to be unsuccessful, not merely from the defective reckonings of its advocates, but because of the capability of God to postpone the functioning of natural laws to create miracles (Demetra 2001). In this argument Manuel definitely claims the superiority of God over the laws of nature which control the stars. He afterwards engages in a discourse about the Star of the Magi at Christ’s birth and the darkening of the heavens at his death (Demetra 2001). Manuel is well-informed of the argument of Augustine which disproved that these astrological signs were a confirmation of astrology. Manuel, similar to the Fathers of the Church, argues that these were deviant events, signs of the miracle of God in his yearning to use the stars as heavenly marks of his miracles taking place on earth (Demetra 2001). Manuel, in this argument, adopted the claims of Plotinus who pioneered the justification that the stars’ appearances were the scribbles of God in the sky proclaiming the future to mortals who have the ability to read it (Demetra 2001). Therefore, it would appear that one of the bases of the earlier fascination of Augustine in astrology was a longing to renounce any personal culpability for his own mistakes or sins (Ferrari 1977). Nevertheless, in addition to this, there would appear to be another and more significant basis of permanent importance to his whole existence. This second basis would appear to have been a great fascination in astrology. Certainly, as was discussed, this appears to have been a major component in Augustine’s earlier fascination with Manicheism and one of the most significant sources of his ultimate disappointment with the group as well (Ferrari 1977). Yet again, in his adulthood, Augustine became very astonished by the heavens’ splendor that he eventually believed that the unique, upright physique of human beings was predetermined but a concrete manifestation of human beings’ heavenly devotion to the life afar from the perceptible, physical heavens, in the ‘heaven of heavens itself’ (Ferrari 1977, 252). Hence, a preliminary study of the thus far ignored subject of Augustine’s fascination with astrology has been viewed to result in some appealing repercussions and to some new ideas into his multifaceted character. Manuel’s justification of astrology is just slightly aimed at presenting its validity. His objective is to develop a compelling illustration that it is not unorthodox (Demetra 2001), as Augustine is trying to point out. Manuel is cautious to sidestep any argument that the stars are conscious, have will, or are the actual sources of outcomes, and he condemns any form of astrology that is rooted in these beliefs. Rather, he aspires to demonstrate that the stars are innate, remarkable designs of God which works as signs communicating the will and omnipotence of God (Demetra 2001). When the art becomes unsuccessful, it is because of its advocates or God’s interference which has power over the stars (Demetra 2001). The strong point of Manuel is that he by no means falters from this argument; his weak spot is in the exploitation of his proofs, and it is on this aspect that Augustine shoves the force of his argument and tears up the dispute of Manuel. Conclusions If it is not very bold to conclude, the claims that have been pioneered by Augustine and Manuel in relation to astrology are shaky or, in fact, even not trustworthy. Because in my own opinion, people will not believe the fathers to be sacred or righteous if they are in opposition to people who refuse to accept their teaching based on the possibility that it is badly demonstrated by the signs or the stars. And most well-known of the astrologers are certainly not securely maintained in this case as spectators, that they do not fully recognize this form of teaching because they are primarily natural philosophers and by means of grand attempt have studied all the subjects in relation to physical bodies. Therefore, the arguments of Augustine and Manuel can be reconciled based upon the argument that the Church and astrologers should co-exist in perfect harmony, to express God’s grand design: the stars as signs of future events. References Barton, T. Ancient Astrology. New York: Routledge, 1994. Bok, B. & L.E. Jerome. Objections to Astrology. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1975. Demetra, G. “Manuel I Komnenos and Michael Glycas: A Twelfth-Century Defence and Refutation of Astrology.” Culture and Cosmos 5.1 (2001): 3-26. Ferrari, L.C. “Augustine and Astrology.” Laval théologique et philosophique 33.3 (1977): 241-251. Scott, T.K. Augustine: His Thought in Context. New York: Paulist Press, 1995. Read More