What do you think?
Rate this book
The Case for Astrology
This defence of astrology is written by a self-confessed believer of astrology. It discusses the history and principles of astrology by refuting the numerous objections against it, surveying the evidence of astrology, chronicling how this evidence has provoked lies and double standards from the scientific community and concludes that the case for astrology is irrefutable. The book argues that astrology has two central premises - that correlations exist between celestial and terrestrial events and that correspondences exist between the positions of the planets at birth and the human personality.
544 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1970
About the author
John Anthony West
29 books168 followersAuthor, lecturer and guide, John Anthony West delivered a seismic shock to archaeology in the early 1990's when he and Boston University geologist Robert Schoch revealed that the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt, showed evidence of rainfall erosion. Such erosion could only mean that the Sphinx was carved during or before the rains that marked the transition of northern Africa from the last Ice Age to the present interglacial epoch, a transition that occurred in the millennia from 10,000 to 5000 BC.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 26, 2024
PERHAPS THE BEST “DEFENSE” OF ASTROLOGY IN PRINT
John Anthony West (1932-2018) was an American author, lecturer, and Egyptian tour guide. He wrote in the Introduction to this 1991 book, “Opponents insist astrology is no more than outworn superstition… They claim astrology has been disproved by science.. But astrology most emphatically has NOT been disproved by science. On the contrary, there is a body of evidence, much of it apparently unchallengeable, that proves astrology has a scientific basis according to accepted modern ground rules… it is a key element in the corpus of ancient wisdom that once prevailed over the civilized world… ancient civilizations practiced astrology … because they had gained access (in a manner that no doubt must remain mysterious) to much greater truths… Despite the obvious nonsense of astrology at its modern pop level, we believe its millennial appeal is to something profound and innate within us: a recognition of order, and a longing for meaning. Both … are basic spiritual human needs our modern science cannot measure and therefore does not recognize, and cannot address. But to legitimize astrology within its modern context it is essential to distinguish between the astrological premise and the PRACTICE of astrology.” (Pg. 1-2)
He explains, “Astrology is based upon a simple, two-part premise. 1. Correlations exist between celestial and terrestrial events. 2. Correspondences exist between the position of the planets at birth and the human personality. The evidence supporting both aspects of that premise is now incontrovertible… But the soundness of the astrological premise is one thing, and the validity of current …astrological practice quite another. The latter does not necessarily follow from the former.” (Pg. 2)
He cites two critics, astronomers Culver and Ianna’s book ‘Gemini Syndrome’: “they … pub forward a viewpoint that has [little] support: “‘In the beginning, astrology was neither “wholly empirical” nor “science”; it arose from a blend of imagination, fear, and religious superstition.’ The truth is that Culver and Ianna do not know how astrology arose, and neither does anyone else.” (Pg. 16)
He acknowledges, “At different times, and in different place. Zodiacs have been divided into eight, sixteen or twenty sectors. The twelve-sector zodiac has long prevailed in the West. These differences do not necessarily mean that one system is right and the others wrong, or that all are wrong since all are different… The validity of the differing systems may depend upon the MEANINGS assigned to the divisions. But there can be no doubt that the different zodiacs present problems not easily explained away.” (Pg. 22)
He explains, “The planets in the signs allegedly give the key to character. Thus, a child born with Mars in Taurus will be, because of this, significantly and predictably stamped. Similarly, his character will manifest itself differently---claim astrologers---if Mars is found in the seventh house than it would if he had been born an hour later and Mars had bene instead in the sixth house.” (Pg. 26)
He notes, “Taurus, Hitler’s ‘sun sign’ and Libra, Hitler’s Ascendant, are held to be ‘ruled’ by Venus… Needless to say, not all people born with such a configuration turn out to be Hitler, but an astrologer would expect something ‘Hitlerian’ from anyone with such a Venus-Mars-Saturn configuration.” (Pg. 29)
He argues, “Half the men in the world are born with Saturn in a ‘bestial sign.’ Of these, at least one in twenty are in ‘malefic’ aspect to Jupiter… are we to believe that twenty-five out of every thousand men were torn apart by wild beasts in public combat? How could such a notion arise? Is it possible that at one time half a dozen men were killed by wild beasts in the arena? Examining their horoscopes, astrologers discovered that all happened to have Saturn in ‘bestial signs’ in malefic aspect to Jupiter; hence it passed into the astrological canon that all men born under such conditions would be torn to bits by wild beasts… Could it have been that, at another time, four different men were done in by their women; each was found to have a similarly unfavorable Venus; and it was concluded that all who have ill-aspected Venuses are doomed to die violent female-inflicted deaths? Modern scholars believe that this is the answer. And, certain, it must be part of the answer. A keen, critical sense has never been the general rule among astrologers.” (Pg. 86)
He admits, “Since Ptolemy, no one had given a satisfactory account of the physical basis of astrology: the HOW? of it. In medieval Europe this didn’t matter; the emphasis was on the spiritual not the physical nature of reality.” (Pg. 111)
He states, “To the best of our knowledge, NO critic of astrology has EVER attempted to put astrology to the test of experience… this in itself would not amount to decisive scientific proof or disproof, either. (Tone-deaf children, given violins, seem to disprove the possibility of music.) (Pg. 153)
He acknowledges, “It is true that astrologers have sometimes tried to use quantum theory as an explanation for astrological correspondences, and this is probably illegitimate. However, the ground rules laid down by Culver and Ianna are even more illegitimate.” (Pg. 166)
He asserts, “The scientific method is NOT the only valid means we have for acquiring knowledge of the world; nor do all physical effects require ‘plausible physical explanations’ to qualify as phenomena. By ignoring the crucial element of consciousness in the ‘real world’ and by failing to take into account the need to apply different criteria to different classes or orders of systems, Culver and Ianna simply evade those arguments that adequately account for astrology.” (Pg. 176) Later, he adds, “While these metaphysical principles cannot, by definition, be verified, or understood, or even approached through a science that restricts itself to the physical, there are our familiar chemical elements… all behaving in dissimilar fashion---rather in the way astrologers contend the planets differ.” (Pg. 183)
He suggests, “The discovery of the new planets, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, actually does nothing to invalidate the [Law of Seven]. It means only that the law does not manifest itself in the solar system the way medieval astrologers thought… In a general way astrologers have reached agreement on the subject… How did astrologers arrive at these conclusions? By a kind of collective hunch; by the ‘feel’ of the new planets; by assuming that their names, however apparently fortuitous, were chosen correctly on some intuitive or superconscious level.” (Pg. 189)
He explains, “In astrology, in theory, every minute counts. Ten minutes’ difference in birth can mean that the ascendant of one twin is in a different sign from the other, and with that all the other ‘houses’ change as well. On the other hand, the same ten or twenty minutes can make no discernible difference if the ascendant falls in the middle of a sign… The twin problem applies ONLY to astrological interpretation (not to the astrological premise), and it becomes a serious problem only if astrologers try to call astrological interpretations a science---which not many do.” (Pg. 193-195)
To the objection, “Do astrologers maintain that a child whose birth is induced will have a different character than if it had been born normally?’ he replies, “Difficult as it may be to countenance, astrologers have no choice but to maintain it.” (Pg. 196) To the objection, “did all the Jews murdered by Hitler have death written into their horoscopes, etc.?” he argues, “This common and valid objection … is an important point that deserves elaboration. Astrologers contend that the individual’s destiny is subsumed in the greater laws governing the city, state, nation or even race. But in practice astrologers seem unable to distinguish satisfactorily between the general and the particular… the evidence suggests that astrology originally was part of a highly developed initiatic discipline rather than a system for character interpretation or divination.” (Pg. 197)
He summarizes, “astrology as a set of complex rules, as a teachable discipline, is more certainly not capable of predicting events such as mass tragedies in advance; but this is not to rule out the possibility of an individual astrologer doing do, and on a consistent basis.” (Pg. 200)
To the objection, “The zodiac is an imaginary circle, and the other principles of astrology---houses, aspects, etc. are equally arbitrary and correspond to no objective realities,” he responds, “This is, of course, the master objection. It is true, at the moment, that the strictly scientific evidence supporting the validity of the zodiac is indirect and tangential---though there is plenty of evidence to prove an overall correspondence between events in the heavens and events on earth, as well as evidence supporting the traditional meanings ascribed to the planets. So, even if the reality of the zodiac is acknowledged DISproved, the validity of the basic premise of astrology is not disturbed… The tests carried out to date have been relatively crude. More finely tuned experiments may yet some up with positive results…” (Pg. 202)
He explains, “it is astrological experience that convinces astrologers (ourselves included) that Cancers and Arians are as different as Spaniards and Swedes. If science can detect no measurable difference between the latter pair, then astrologers are under no compelling obligation to relinquish their conviction that equally glaring differences exist between the former. Thus, lack of proof in this instance may be as much a limitation of science as a shortcoming in astrology, and it may well be both.” (Pg. 237-238)
He notes, “The question of Free Will has plagued philosophers from the beginning of recorded history at least… The usual astrological answer to the problem is: the stars incline but do not compel. But how to assess the relative strengths of inclination and compulsion? To what extent are we capable of acting against our own inclinations? The question becomes very real when important personal issues are at stake…” (Pg. 472)
This book deserves credit for at least attempting to address the objections that are raised against astrology---even if one (including me) finds nearly all his counter-arguments unsatisfactory. It will be of great interest to anyone seriously studying astrology.
John Anthony West (1932-2018) was an American author, lecturer, and Egyptian tour guide. He wrote in the Introduction to this 1991 book, “Opponents insist astrology is no more than outworn superstition… They claim astrology has been disproved by science.. But astrology most emphatically has NOT been disproved by science. On the contrary, there is a body of evidence, much of it apparently unchallengeable, that proves astrology has a scientific basis according to accepted modern ground rules… it is a key element in the corpus of ancient wisdom that once prevailed over the civilized world… ancient civilizations practiced astrology … because they had gained access (in a manner that no doubt must remain mysterious) to much greater truths… Despite the obvious nonsense of astrology at its modern pop level, we believe its millennial appeal is to something profound and innate within us: a recognition of order, and a longing for meaning. Both … are basic spiritual human needs our modern science cannot measure and therefore does not recognize, and cannot address. But to legitimize astrology within its modern context it is essential to distinguish between the astrological premise and the PRACTICE of astrology.” (Pg. 1-2)
He explains, “Astrology is based upon a simple, two-part premise. 1. Correlations exist between celestial and terrestrial events. 2. Correspondences exist between the position of the planets at birth and the human personality. The evidence supporting both aspects of that premise is now incontrovertible… But the soundness of the astrological premise is one thing, and the validity of current …astrological practice quite another. The latter does not necessarily follow from the former.” (Pg. 2)
He cites two critics, astronomers Culver and Ianna’s book ‘Gemini Syndrome’: “they … pub forward a viewpoint that has [little] support: “‘In the beginning, astrology was neither “wholly empirical” nor “science”; it arose from a blend of imagination, fear, and religious superstition.’ The truth is that Culver and Ianna do not know how astrology arose, and neither does anyone else.” (Pg. 16)
He acknowledges, “At different times, and in different place. Zodiacs have been divided into eight, sixteen or twenty sectors. The twelve-sector zodiac has long prevailed in the West. These differences do not necessarily mean that one system is right and the others wrong, or that all are wrong since all are different… The validity of the differing systems may depend upon the MEANINGS assigned to the divisions. But there can be no doubt that the different zodiacs present problems not easily explained away.” (Pg. 22)
He explains, “The planets in the signs allegedly give the key to character. Thus, a child born with Mars in Taurus will be, because of this, significantly and predictably stamped. Similarly, his character will manifest itself differently---claim astrologers---if Mars is found in the seventh house than it would if he had been born an hour later and Mars had bene instead in the sixth house.” (Pg. 26)
He notes, “Taurus, Hitler’s ‘sun sign’ and Libra, Hitler’s Ascendant, are held to be ‘ruled’ by Venus… Needless to say, not all people born with such a configuration turn out to be Hitler, but an astrologer would expect something ‘Hitlerian’ from anyone with such a Venus-Mars-Saturn configuration.” (Pg. 29)
He argues, “Half the men in the world are born with Saturn in a ‘bestial sign.’ Of these, at least one in twenty are in ‘malefic’ aspect to Jupiter… are we to believe that twenty-five out of every thousand men were torn apart by wild beasts in public combat? How could such a notion arise? Is it possible that at one time half a dozen men were killed by wild beasts in the arena? Examining their horoscopes, astrologers discovered that all happened to have Saturn in ‘bestial signs’ in malefic aspect to Jupiter; hence it passed into the astrological canon that all men born under such conditions would be torn to bits by wild beasts… Could it have been that, at another time, four different men were done in by their women; each was found to have a similarly unfavorable Venus; and it was concluded that all who have ill-aspected Venuses are doomed to die violent female-inflicted deaths? Modern scholars believe that this is the answer. And, certain, it must be part of the answer. A keen, critical sense has never been the general rule among astrologers.” (Pg. 86)
He admits, “Since Ptolemy, no one had given a satisfactory account of the physical basis of astrology: the HOW? of it. In medieval Europe this didn’t matter; the emphasis was on the spiritual not the physical nature of reality.” (Pg. 111)
He states, “To the best of our knowledge, NO critic of astrology has EVER attempted to put astrology to the test of experience… this in itself would not amount to decisive scientific proof or disproof, either. (Tone-deaf children, given violins, seem to disprove the possibility of music.) (Pg. 153)
He acknowledges, “It is true that astrologers have sometimes tried to use quantum theory as an explanation for astrological correspondences, and this is probably illegitimate. However, the ground rules laid down by Culver and Ianna are even more illegitimate.” (Pg. 166)
He asserts, “The scientific method is NOT the only valid means we have for acquiring knowledge of the world; nor do all physical effects require ‘plausible physical explanations’ to qualify as phenomena. By ignoring the crucial element of consciousness in the ‘real world’ and by failing to take into account the need to apply different criteria to different classes or orders of systems, Culver and Ianna simply evade those arguments that adequately account for astrology.” (Pg. 176) Later, he adds, “While these metaphysical principles cannot, by definition, be verified, or understood, or even approached through a science that restricts itself to the physical, there are our familiar chemical elements… all behaving in dissimilar fashion---rather in the way astrologers contend the planets differ.” (Pg. 183)
He suggests, “The discovery of the new planets, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, actually does nothing to invalidate the [Law of Seven]. It means only that the law does not manifest itself in the solar system the way medieval astrologers thought… In a general way astrologers have reached agreement on the subject… How did astrologers arrive at these conclusions? By a kind of collective hunch; by the ‘feel’ of the new planets; by assuming that their names, however apparently fortuitous, were chosen correctly on some intuitive or superconscious level.” (Pg. 189)
He explains, “In astrology, in theory, every minute counts. Ten minutes’ difference in birth can mean that the ascendant of one twin is in a different sign from the other, and with that all the other ‘houses’ change as well. On the other hand, the same ten or twenty minutes can make no discernible difference if the ascendant falls in the middle of a sign… The twin problem applies ONLY to astrological interpretation (not to the astrological premise), and it becomes a serious problem only if astrologers try to call astrological interpretations a science---which not many do.” (Pg. 193-195)
To the objection, “Do astrologers maintain that a child whose birth is induced will have a different character than if it had been born normally?’ he replies, “Difficult as it may be to countenance, astrologers have no choice but to maintain it.” (Pg. 196) To the objection, “did all the Jews murdered by Hitler have death written into their horoscopes, etc.?” he argues, “This common and valid objection … is an important point that deserves elaboration. Astrologers contend that the individual’s destiny is subsumed in the greater laws governing the city, state, nation or even race. But in practice astrologers seem unable to distinguish satisfactorily between the general and the particular… the evidence suggests that astrology originally was part of a highly developed initiatic discipline rather than a system for character interpretation or divination.” (Pg. 197)
He summarizes, “astrology as a set of complex rules, as a teachable discipline, is more certainly not capable of predicting events such as mass tragedies in advance; but this is not to rule out the possibility of an individual astrologer doing do, and on a consistent basis.” (Pg. 200)
To the objection, “The zodiac is an imaginary circle, and the other principles of astrology---houses, aspects, etc. are equally arbitrary and correspond to no objective realities,” he responds, “This is, of course, the master objection. It is true, at the moment, that the strictly scientific evidence supporting the validity of the zodiac is indirect and tangential---though there is plenty of evidence to prove an overall correspondence between events in the heavens and events on earth, as well as evidence supporting the traditional meanings ascribed to the planets. So, even if the reality of the zodiac is acknowledged DISproved, the validity of the basic premise of astrology is not disturbed… The tests carried out to date have been relatively crude. More finely tuned experiments may yet some up with positive results…” (Pg. 202)
He explains, “it is astrological experience that convinces astrologers (ourselves included) that Cancers and Arians are as different as Spaniards and Swedes. If science can detect no measurable difference between the latter pair, then astrologers are under no compelling obligation to relinquish their conviction that equally glaring differences exist between the former. Thus, lack of proof in this instance may be as much a limitation of science as a shortcoming in astrology, and it may well be both.” (Pg. 237-238)
He notes, “The question of Free Will has plagued philosophers from the beginning of recorded history at least… The usual astrological answer to the problem is: the stars incline but do not compel. But how to assess the relative strengths of inclination and compulsion? To what extent are we capable of acting against our own inclinations? The question becomes very real when important personal issues are at stake…” (Pg. 472)
This book deserves credit for at least attempting to address the objections that are raised against astrology---even if one (including me) finds nearly all his counter-arguments unsatisfactory. It will be of great interest to anyone seriously studying astrology.
January 27, 2022
This book belongs right up there with Fingerprints of the Gods. So brilliantly mind expansive and eye-opening. I could read it 50 times over and probably still learn something new.
June 14, 2023
"The stars incline, but they do not compel."
We speak of things being written in the stars. But how much of astrology contains arcane cosmic truths about an ordered, sentient cosmos and how much of it is superstitious nonsense? Those intractably stubborn rationalists and dogmatic scientific materialists, in favour of a mechanistic clockwork universe that is without meaning, seem to have a biased gripe with astrology because it contradicts their belief of an inert cosmos without supernatural explanations. These dogmatic theories about astrology preclude serious, genuine observation, according to John Anthony West's bestselling The Case for Astrology, a thorough analysis and examination of pagan astrology and its persistent popularity.
Astrology incites knee-jerk reactions in rationalists, who take aim at cheap soothsaying embodied by generalised predictive horoscopes in the daily newspaper. Naff online compatibility calculators do not do much to justify the cause for any astrological legitimacy and complexity. West cleverly lays out both the criticism and support for astrology in a prosecution and defence section. This book weighs both, excoriating each one, sifting the wheat from chaff, resulting in a powerful exegesis that threatens to blow the credibility of astrological naysayers to smithereens. The strongest evidence according to the defence is Gauquelin's Mars effect, "action-at-a-distance" and the theory of resonance. He further mentions the phenomenon of synchronicity, providing a very interesting interpretation of Jung's most famous theory. Another compelling component to this book is that of the Orion constellation theory - one of West's endearing love affairs is with Ancient Egypt and he squeezes as much as he credibly can into the beginning of the book. The Ancient Egyptians were not known for their interests or astrological beliefs, but West shows us that those interests and beliefs can still be found. Though pagan, astrology is also demonstrably compatible with God, or a Higher Principle, rather than being something that contradicts it. Christians tend to believe astrology removes the possibility of Free Will, but this, too, is erroneous. Astrology does insist on personal growth and choice.
I could not, in good faith, give it 5 stars, because he does have a chip on his shoulder when it comes to rationalists and scientists. Yes, it's naive to think science isn't full of dogma and bias, but he seems to take a shot at every given opportunity and it gets tiresome. He spends too much time poking holes in the scientific distaste for astrology, when he could be using the space on the page to demonstrate why astrology is actually a credible art form and early predecessor to astronomy. There's also a fair whack of statistics and graphs, as well as footnotes. Aside from that minor gripe, The Case for Astrology is a memorable book and a powerful guide to the credibility of one of the most ancient art forms and divinatory practises in existence.
We speak of things being written in the stars. But how much of astrology contains arcane cosmic truths about an ordered, sentient cosmos and how much of it is superstitious nonsense? Those intractably stubborn rationalists and dogmatic scientific materialists, in favour of a mechanistic clockwork universe that is without meaning, seem to have a biased gripe with astrology because it contradicts their belief of an inert cosmos without supernatural explanations. These dogmatic theories about astrology preclude serious, genuine observation, according to John Anthony West's bestselling The Case for Astrology, a thorough analysis and examination of pagan astrology and its persistent popularity.
Astrology incites knee-jerk reactions in rationalists, who take aim at cheap soothsaying embodied by generalised predictive horoscopes in the daily newspaper. Naff online compatibility calculators do not do much to justify the cause for any astrological legitimacy and complexity. West cleverly lays out both the criticism and support for astrology in a prosecution and defence section. This book weighs both, excoriating each one, sifting the wheat from chaff, resulting in a powerful exegesis that threatens to blow the credibility of astrological naysayers to smithereens. The strongest evidence according to the defence is Gauquelin's Mars effect, "action-at-a-distance" and the theory of resonance. He further mentions the phenomenon of synchronicity, providing a very interesting interpretation of Jung's most famous theory. Another compelling component to this book is that of the Orion constellation theory - one of West's endearing love affairs is with Ancient Egypt and he squeezes as much as he credibly can into the beginning of the book. The Ancient Egyptians were not known for their interests or astrological beliefs, but West shows us that those interests and beliefs can still be found. Though pagan, astrology is also demonstrably compatible with God, or a Higher Principle, rather than being something that contradicts it. Christians tend to believe astrology removes the possibility of Free Will, but this, too, is erroneous. Astrology does insist on personal growth and choice.
I could not, in good faith, give it 5 stars, because he does have a chip on his shoulder when it comes to rationalists and scientists. Yes, it's naive to think science isn't full of dogma and bias, but he seems to take a shot at every given opportunity and it gets tiresome. He spends too much time poking holes in the scientific distaste for astrology, when he could be using the space on the page to demonstrate why astrology is actually a credible art form and early predecessor to astronomy. There's also a fair whack of statistics and graphs, as well as footnotes. Aside from that minor gripe, The Case for Astrology is a memorable book and a powerful guide to the credibility of one of the most ancient art forms and divinatory practises in existence.
May 15, 2023
ja sam ovu knjigu PROGUTAO
malo dosadnjikavim stilom izlaže povijest horoskopa i atrologije generalno, te tek nakon zadire u teme filozofije i književnosti
zanimljiv sukob pozitivističkih i iskustvenih disciplina prikazan je u ovoj knjižici
posebice su interesantna poglavlja koja se tiču slobodne volje i kako se ona reflektiva u svakidašnjici
malo dosadnjikavim stilom izlaže povijest horoskopa i atrologije generalno, te tek nakon zadire u teme filozofije i književnosti
zanimljiv sukob pozitivističkih i iskustvenih disciplina prikazan je u ovoj knjižici
posebice su interesantna poglavlja koja se tiču slobodne volje i kako se ona reflektiva u svakidašnjici
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews