The Attack on Astrology and Academic Freedom in Spain

A recent article in El Confidencial, News of Galicia, reported that a Spanish university, UNED, had cancelled an astrology course due to pressure from a group of skeptics, expressed through social media.  At first the university lied about its motives, stating that the cancellation was due to technical problems.  Later, perhaps feeling guilty about abandoning the principle of academic freedom, the university officials admitted doing so to appease a group of skeptics whose belief system denigrates astrology.  All of this smacks of the Spanish Inquisition which suppressed beliefs that ran counter to the prevailing religious dogma of the time.


The doctrinal argument of the skeptics, Spanish astronomers, and Galician association of communicators of scientific culture is that “astrology is a superstition and as such lacks rational elements that justify its whimsical and always misleading claims”.  Obviously, this dogma of the skeptics would apply to all the world’s religions, for which there is no scientific evidence and which make unverifiable claims.  Therefore, UNED should also cease offering courses on world religions.  In addition, UNED should stop their offerings about mathematics because, as Gödel demonstrated in his incompleteness theorems in mathematical logic, there are inherent rational limitations of every formal axiomatic system containing basic arithmetic.  Courses in the fine arts should also be eliminated because, as everyone knows, the visual arts are merely pseudo-photography and do not portray reality as it really is.  Studies in ancient Latin and Greek should also be abandoned because many of the original texts are treatises on astrology and cannot be understood without systematic knowledge of astrology.

This incident is reminiscent of the 1975 doctrinal attack on astrology in the Humanist by a group of scientists who sought to curb interest in astrology because they were “eminent” scientists and therefore knew best what the rest of the human race ought to study.  The brilliant astronomer Carl Sagan refused to sign this manifesto because of its authoritarian tone and the fact that those scientists who did sign it had never studied astrology and were speaking simply out of their dogmatic beliefs and prejudices rather than hard evidence.  Sagan also pointed out that simply because scientists can’t explain something does not mean that an explanation will never be found.

In addition, Paul Feyerabend (1924 – 1994), Professor of Philosophy at University of California, Berkeley noted the marked similarities between the attack on astrology and the notorious Malleus Maleficarum published by the Roman Catholic Church published in 1484, outlining how to deal with witchcraft.  It appears that the skeptics of Spain are reviving the intolerance of the Spanish Inquisition.

In my opinion, in a free and open society, it is dangerous to allow a small group of believers in a philosophical position (in this case, the skeptics) to determine what the rest of the society is allowed to study and learn, based on the particular dogma which the skeptics happen to subscribe to.  Those of us who study astrology appreciate its beauty as a highly sophisticated and intricate philosophical system with an internal logical consistency.  A knowledge of astrology is fundamental to the study of the humanities and the symbolic nature of the human mind.  I doubt that any of the skeptics or astronomers who pressured UNED to abandon the astrology course have ever studied the subject but instead are simply expressing their beliefs and prejudices, which are based on their own unverifiable presuppositions about the nature of reality.  An article in The Local in 2014 reported that Spain’s brain drain is the worst in Western Europe.  With such attacks on academic freedom in Spain, is it any wonder that the brightest young minds of Spain are fleeing their country to work abroad?

The original manifesto from The Humanist of 1975 is worth reading, so I have reproduced it below with the compelling responses of Carl Sagan and Paul Feyerabend, who clearly demonstrate the ignorance of the “eminent” scientists who signed the document, which merely states their beliefs and prejudices against astrology and asks us to believe them because they know best what is valuable for the human race.

Objections to Astrology
A Statement by 186 Leading Scientists
(The following statement first appeared in The Humanist of September/October 1975.)

Scientists in a variety of fields have become concerned about the increased acceptance of astrology in many parts of the world. We, the undersigned – astronomers, astrophysicists, and scientists in other fields – wish to caution the public against the unquestioning acceptance of the predictions and advice given privately and publicly by astrologers. Those who wish to believe in astrology should realize that there is no scientific foundation for its tenets.In ancient times people believed in the predictions and advice of astrologers because astrology was part and parcel of their magical world view. They looked upon celestial objects as abodes or omens of the gods and, thus, intimately connected with events here on earth; they had no concept of the vast distances from the earth to the planets and stars. Now that these distances can and have been calculated, we can see how infinitesimally small are the gravitational and other effects produced by the distant planets and the far more distant stars. It is simply a mistake to imagine that the forces exerted by stars and planets at the moment of birth can in any way shape our futures. Neither is it true that the position of distant heavenly bodies make certain days or periods more favorable to particular kinds of action, or that the sign under which one was born determines one’s compatibility or incompatibility with other people.Why do people believe in astrology? In these uncertain times many long for the comfort of having guidance in making decisions. They would like to believe in a destiny predetermined by astral forces beyond their control. However, we must all face the world, and we must realize that our futures lie in ourselves, and not in the stars.One would imagine, in this day of widespread enlightenment and education, that it would be unnecessary to debunk beliefs based on magic and superstition. Yet, acceptance of astrology pervades modern society. We are especially disturbed by the continued uncritical dissemination of astrological charts, forecasts, and horoscopes by the media and by otherwise reputable newspapers, magazines, and book publishers. This can only contribute to the growth of irrationalism and obscurantism. We believe that the time has come to challenge directly, and forcefully, the pretentious claims of astrological charlatans.It should be apparent that those individuals who continue to have faith in astrology do so in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary.Sponsoring Committee(Affiliations, as of 1975, given for identification only.)

Bart J. Bok, emeritus
Professor of Astronomy
University of ArizonaLawrence E. Jerome
Science Writer
Santa Clara, CaliforniaPaul Kurtz

Professor of Philosophy
SUNY at Buffalo

Signed by 183 others, including 18 Nobel Prizewinners

Response from Astronomer, Carl Sagan (1934-1996), who was invited to sign the statement:

“In the middle 1970s an astronomer I admire put together a modest manifesto called ‘Objections to Astrology’ and asked me to endorse it. I struggled with his wording, and in the end found myself unable to sign, not because I thought astrology has any validity whatever, but because I felt (and still feel) that the tone of the statement was authoritarian. It criticized astrology for having origins shrouded in superstition. But this is true as well for religion, chemistry, medicine and astronomy, to mention only four. The issue is not what faltering and rudimentary knowledge astrology came from, but what is its present validity. Then there was speculation on the psychological motivations of those who believe in astrology. These motivations – for example, the feeling of powerlessness in a complex, troublesome and unpredictable world – might explain why astrology is not generally given the sceptical scrutiny it deserves, but is quite peripheral to whether it works.

The statement stressed that we can think of no mechanism by which astrology could work. This is certainly a relevant point but by itself it’s unconvincing. No mechanism was known for continental drift (now subsumed in plate tectonics) when it was proposed by Alfred Wegener in the first quarter of the twentieth century to explain a range of puzzling data in geology and palaeontology. (Ore-bearing veins of rocks and fossils seemed to run continuously from eastern South America to West Africa; were the two continents once touching and the Atlantic Ocean new to our planet?) The notion was roundly dismissed by all the great geophysicists, who were certain that continents were fixed, not floating on anything, and therefore unable to ‘drift’. Instead, the key twentieth-century idea in geophysics turns out to be plate tectonics; we now understand that continental plates do indeed float and ‘drift’ (or better, are carried by a kind of conveyor belt driven by the great heat engine of the Earth’s interior), and all those great geophysicists were simply wrong. Objections to pseudoscience on the grounds of unavailable mechanism can be mistaken – although if the contentions violate well-established laws of physics, such objections of course carry great weight.”
~ Carl Sagan, “Objections to Astrology” (letter to the editor), The Humanist, vol.36, no 1 (January/February 1976) p.2 reprinted in The Demon-Haunted World pp.302-303 (1995)

Response from Paul Feyerabend (1924 – 1994), Professor of Philosophy at University of California, Berkeley

“Now what surprises the reader whose image of science has been formed by the customary eulogies which emphasize rationality, objectivity, impartiality and so on is the religious tone of the document, the illiteracy of the ‘arguments’ and the authoritarian manner in which the arguments are being presented. The learned gentlemen have strong convictions, they use their authority to spread these convictions (why 186 signatures if one has arguments?), they know a few phrases which sound like arguments, but they certainly do not know what they are talking about.1

Take the first sentence of the ‘Statement.’ It reads: ‘Scientists in a variety of fields have become concerned about the increased acceptance of astrology in many parts of the world.’

In 1484 the Roman Catholic Church published the Malleus Maleficarum, the outstanding textbook on witchcraft. The Malleus is a very interesting book. It has four parts: phenomena, aetiology, legal aspects, theological aspects of witchcraft. …”

“The book has an introduction, a bull by Pope Innocent VIII, issued in 1484. The bull reads ‘It has indeed come to our ears, not without afflicting us with bitter sorrow, that in …’ – and now comes the long list of countries and counties – ‘many persons of both sexes, unmindful of their own salvation have strayed from the Catholic Faith and have abandoned themselves to devils… ‘ and so on. The words are almost the same as gthe words in the beginning of the ‘Statement,’ and so are the sentiments expressed. Both the Pope and ‘the 186 leading scientists’ deplore the increasing popularity of what they think are disreputable views. But what a difference in literacy and scholarship!

Comparing the Malleus with accounts of contemporary knowledge the reader can easily verify that the Pope and his learned authors knew what they were talking about. This cannot be said of the scientists. They neither know the subject they attack, astrology, nor those parts of their own science that they undermine their attack. …

We see: the judgement of the ‘186 leading scientists’ rests on the antedeluvian anthropology, on ignorance of more recent results in their own fields (astronomy, biology, and the connection between the two) as well as failure to percieve the implications of the result they do know. It shows the extent to which scientists are prepared to assert their authority even in areas in which they have no knowledge whatsoever.”

    Feyerabend critiques the content:
  1. The poor use of English with expressions like “… dealt a serious death blow”. Is there any other kind of death blow?
  2. The criticism of the dictum that the stars incline, but do not compel overlooks modern hereditary theory (for example).
  3. The statement claims that “Psychologists find no evidence that astrology is of any value” and that a horoscope is a substitute for “honest and sustained thinking”. What about the reliance upon psychological tests which long ago have become a substitute for “honest and sustained thinking” in evaluation of all people of all ages?
  4. “As regards the magical origin of astrology one need only remark that science once was very closely connected with magic and must be rejected on these grounds.”

Feyeraband is also critical of astrology and concludes “… It is interesting to see how closely both parties approach each other in ignorance, conceit and the wish for easy power over minds.”


1. This is quite literally true. When a representative of the BBC wanted to interview some of the Nobel Prize Winners, they declined with the remark that they had never studied astrology and had no idea of its details.

From Philosophy of Science and the Occult (1982) edited by Patrick Grim, Suny Press. pp.19-23  The Strange Case of Astrology quoted from Science in a Free Society (1978) Paul Feyerabend, published by NLB, London



About Anthony Louis

Author of books about astrology and tarot, including TAROT PLAIN AND SIMPLE, HORARY ASTROLOGY, and THE ART OF FORECASTING WITH SOLAR RETURNS.
This entry was posted in Astrology and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Attack on Astrology and Academic Freedom in Spain

  1. Jon says:

    So you agree that the power structures of old need to be challenged and have left a damning influence for generations to come. Looking outside for cues as to how to orchestrate ourselves often comes with consequences. Cosmic law supersedes natural law is a hedge I am willing to make. Hillary says “stronger together” (10 pents); but less satisfied (10 pents rx). Donald says in 9 years sic U.S. will come full circle 250 years (Pluto). How might technology help to influence these changes in consciousness?

  2. Jon says:

    Sorry, How might technology help to influence these changes in consciousness, from an actuarial perspective?

  3. Pingback: Чем ответил Карл Саган на атаку учёных против астрологии —

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s