Blog on the Lillypad
Friday, August 08, 2003
On a Meaningful Cosmos
We live in a meaningful world that runs according to a pattern set down by an omnipotent God, and it's like living in the house of a great man. By being born into this great and majestic mansion, we may never learn how to build such a mansion, but as we grow older, we see that surely a powerful, wise, and kindly Hand built this place. Some of us may never even figure out what's in the attic or what's in the basement or how the pipes work. But we could, if we set out to study it. We could at least get some good ideas about the layout and design of this place, and perhaps recognize by structural emphasis what this great house is for, and how we are intended to occupy it and beautify it.
Otherwise, we live in a meaningless universe in which events simply happen. Most Evangelicals are trying to support Creation by bolstering arguments and a method of inquiry used by evolutionists. They look at fossils. They theorize about things they can never examine in full. Their arguments to support Creation are just as flawed as the arguments of evolutionists to support evolution.
Understand that most people through the entire history of Christianity recognized that the heavens are meaningful, and they lived according to some recognition of astrology. Maybe they didn't read charts, but they planted by the signs, carried out commerce by the signs, married by the signs, and journeyed by the signs. Astrological forecasting of weather, planting, and great national events were commonly accepted and people did not draw lines seprating one from the other. All were considered a normal part of living in a meaningful, coherent universe. Queen Elizabeth wrote letters to John Fox (FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS) asking for his prayers and calling him her spiritual father, and she also consulted John Dee, the court astrologer. Dee, in fact, picked the day and time of her coronation as the best time for such an event, to help secure a peaceful reign. Fox did not object to the presence of a court astrologer. It was not perceived as idolatry or witchcraft (in a day when people were tried for witchcraft.)
There are two views of astrology, equally incorrect----according to the common Evangelical view, the court astrologer of Olde squinted into crystal balls, poured blood over parchment, threw down some flash paper, and came up with a decree that would work perfectly yet create misery for everybody involved. This never happened. Astrology has been dragged into a lot of religions, but it only "works" in terms of pointing back to a good and wise creator.
In the view of many traditional astrologers, the court astrologer lived at the top of a high tower. He squinted out the window at the night sky; then adjusted his astrolabe, wrote down several figures onto a piece of paper and did some calculations, and correctly predicted that the firstborn of the king would be a son, the wheat crop would fail two years hence, the enemies to the south would have a good dose of plague to keep them busy and out of our hair, and Princess Rhondelay would sprain her ankle on her next birthday.
Well, that never happened either. For one thing, the astrologer was normally asked questions by the king. He tracked a few charts very intensely all his life and would warn of anything he thought a danger. But for the most part, he was asked to fix times for events such as weddings, and he was consulted with questions about births, wars, crops, etc. When the massive Spanish Armada was on its way to conquer England, John Dee correctly predicted that events themselves would hamper the Spanish Armada, and they would not set foot on English soil. Elizabeth still called for a day of prayer. There was no perceived contradiction between prayer and the consultation of the pattern of the heavens. Elizabethan England, in fact, was extremely conscious as a society that "as above, so below." They recognized that the heavens rule the earth because God rules all.
And no astrologer has ever always been correct. Complex answers usually had some errors, though from good astrologers their overall emphasis would be correct. (One man on the Mountain Astrologer web board predicted a stock market crash for 9/11/01. OK, he was wrong, but that's a remarkable prediction. He was sure close.) As John Frawley has noted, we see traditionalists today yearning for the Golden Age of astrology, long gone, when predictions were always correct. In the Renaissance, Bonatus longed for the exact same thing, looking back to Ptolemy. And I'm sure that in Ptolemy's day, some astrologer was looking back and wishing the good old days would return.
On the one hand, astrological prediction is fallible, as it is based on man's reading of a complex mathematical language. On the other, there's always some correct prediction floating around as evidence that God has created a meaningful universe and He is in charge of it. And finally, astrology relies on a grasp of the real world, which is not the same thing as the material world. The traditional astrologer is looking at the meaning of the created order and trying to bring it into the context of reference points. Skill in astrology *is* tested by prediction, but the point of astrology is not prediction. Just like skill in math is tested by a test on paper, but the point of studying math is not to take the test.
The point if studying the stars is to see this pattern that God has created and recognize that it is a full declaration of His sovereignty, majesty, and righteousness.
We live in a meaningful world that runs according to a pattern set down by an omnipotent God, and it's like living in the house of a great man. By being born into this great and majestic mansion, we may never learn how to build such a mansion, but as we grow older, we see that surely a powerful, wise, and kindly Hand built this place. Some of us may never even figure out what's in the attic or what's in the basement or how the pipes work. But we could, if we set out to study it. We could at least get some good ideas about the layout and design of this place, and perhaps recognize by structural emphasis what this great house is for, and how we are intended to occupy it and beautify it.
Otherwise, we live in a meaningless universe in which events simply happen. Most Evangelicals are trying to support Creation by bolstering arguments and a method of inquiry used by evolutionists. They look at fossils. They theorize about things they can never examine in full. Their arguments to support Creation are just as flawed as the arguments of evolutionists to support evolution.
Understand that most people through the entire history of Christianity recognized that the heavens are meaningful, and they lived according to some recognition of astrology. Maybe they didn't read charts, but they planted by the signs, carried out commerce by the signs, married by the signs, and journeyed by the signs. Astrological forecasting of weather, planting, and great national events were commonly accepted and people did not draw lines seprating one from the other. All were considered a normal part of living in a meaningful, coherent universe. Queen Elizabeth wrote letters to John Fox (FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS) asking for his prayers and calling him her spiritual father, and she also consulted John Dee, the court astrologer. Dee, in fact, picked the day and time of her coronation as the best time for such an event, to help secure a peaceful reign. Fox did not object to the presence of a court astrologer. It was not perceived as idolatry or witchcraft (in a day when people were tried for witchcraft.)
There are two views of astrology, equally incorrect----according to the common Evangelical view, the court astrologer of Olde squinted into crystal balls, poured blood over parchment, threw down some flash paper, and came up with a decree that would work perfectly yet create misery for everybody involved. This never happened. Astrology has been dragged into a lot of religions, but it only "works" in terms of pointing back to a good and wise creator.
In the view of many traditional astrologers, the court astrologer lived at the top of a high tower. He squinted out the window at the night sky; then adjusted his astrolabe, wrote down several figures onto a piece of paper and did some calculations, and correctly predicted that the firstborn of the king would be a son, the wheat crop would fail two years hence, the enemies to the south would have a good dose of plague to keep them busy and out of our hair, and Princess Rhondelay would sprain her ankle on her next birthday.
Well, that never happened either. For one thing, the astrologer was normally asked questions by the king. He tracked a few charts very intensely all his life and would warn of anything he thought a danger. But for the most part, he was asked to fix times for events such as weddings, and he was consulted with questions about births, wars, crops, etc. When the massive Spanish Armada was on its way to conquer England, John Dee correctly predicted that events themselves would hamper the Spanish Armada, and they would not set foot on English soil. Elizabeth still called for a day of prayer. There was no perceived contradiction between prayer and the consultation of the pattern of the heavens. Elizabethan England, in fact, was extremely conscious as a society that "as above, so below." They recognized that the heavens rule the earth because God rules all.
And no astrologer has ever always been correct. Complex answers usually had some errors, though from good astrologers their overall emphasis would be correct. (One man on the Mountain Astrologer web board predicted a stock market crash for 9/11/01. OK, he was wrong, but that's a remarkable prediction. He was sure close.) As John Frawley has noted, we see traditionalists today yearning for the Golden Age of astrology, long gone, when predictions were always correct. In the Renaissance, Bonatus longed for the exact same thing, looking back to Ptolemy. And I'm sure that in Ptolemy's day, some astrologer was looking back and wishing the good old days would return.
On the one hand, astrological prediction is fallible, as it is based on man's reading of a complex mathematical language. On the other, there's always some correct prediction floating around as evidence that God has created a meaningful universe and He is in charge of it. And finally, astrology relies on a grasp of the real world, which is not the same thing as the material world. The traditional astrologer is looking at the meaning of the created order and trying to bring it into the context of reference points. Skill in astrology *is* tested by prediction, but the point of astrology is not prediction. Just like skill in math is tested by a test on paper, but the point of studying math is not to take the test.
The point if studying the stars is to see this pattern that God has created and recognize that it is a full declaration of His sovereignty, majesty, and righteousness.
