Does God believe in using astrology?I think he does.
Because this:
What The Bible says about Astrology and this is in the website just mentioned
Stars influence the course of events on earth.
Here too:
SAB Judges 5 and
The stars in their courses fought against Sisera. (
v.20)
Unless astrology is true, how can the stars affect the outcome of a battle?
Astrology was a stepping stone for humanity in the days of polytheism. But polytheism has been superseded by monotheism. When you have a committee of gods; polytheism, it was harder to get things done, since the committee often pulled in different directions; too many stars. It was like US Congress trying to pass a simple bill. Monotheism streamlined the process of decision; line item veto.
Astrology is very similar to how the modern life sciences still work. Astrology was an original life science in its day, connected to human fate in the land of dice and cards; whims of the gods. The positioning of the planets and the stars; constellations, were quite accurate, because they were based on good observational science; valid observation science. How this valid observational science foundation, was connected to the human personality and fate, is very similar to the approach of the modern Life sciences use for DNA and modern human fate.
The modern Life theories are also based on dice and cards, to address the whims of the gods. Your zodiac sign is connected to the exact position of the stars, at your time of birth, which itself is based on good science; observational astronomy. The modern analogy is the good science of the genes, connected to our DNA and how that DNA will determine aspects of our life. However, as you go through life, you still are blind and often have to throw dice to fate; what to eat or do I need sunscreen today? The future is not fully decided in advance, within biology; coffee can be good today but bad tomorrow, even if your ship of life's path is sailing a steady path. The whims of the oracles can change. There are storms and cross roads in life, like pandemics in the life science, and eclipses in astrology.
I believe that if astrology used better tools for planet positioning and movements, and the "proper math tools"; statistical, it could be as accurate as the life science models, who do essentially so these very modern things, to get an edge. Maybe Astrology can get more time on the space telescope to add the impact of distant galaxies and forming stars. This may be a missing variable like junk DNA.
In Astrology, often old classic charts are still used to determine the exact position at your birth. Although some old charts are now on computer and math models. Science can now show how planets have orbital cycles, that some of the older classic charts do not show. The would be like medicine, using 1890's text books with no computers. Both are empirical and neither fully rational. Dice and cards do better if you modernize and you throw lots of money at it.
A good example is of a possible update;
The constellation Ophiuchus, as defined by the 1930 International Astronomical Union's constellation boundaries, is situated behind the Sun from November 29 to December 18. The idea appears to have originated in 1970 with Steven Schmidt's suggestion of a 14-sign zodiac, also including Cetus as a sign.
There are now potentially extra zodiac signs that only became conscious by means of modern technology and science. Maybe some of us were born in the signs of Ophiuchus and Cetus, but are now placed in the wrong sign. This is like a major discovery in biology, that causes the evolutionary catalog to shift and become more accurate.
I would be more comfortable if the Life Science were advanced enough to ween away from the whims of the gods, all together. I can show them how to do the same stuff, using a water centric model; monotheism. But the irrational nature of their approach makes then too dependent on their oracles to think and plan for them; daily journals or daily horoscopes. Their future is not predictable with logic, which is mostly due to their endless committees of observational variables, not wanting to agree, even on simple things.
