it is possible to rationalize astrology in a way that requires no belief in mystical forces exerted by the planets.
the most important thing about the celestial motions of the planets, from the standpoint of the astrologer, is that they're predictable. they are like clockwork, there for anyone to see and observe for themselves. reliable artificial timekeeping is a new thing for humanity still; for much longer than we've had precision clockwork and frequency standards, humanity had the Sun, the Moon, and the stars to supply a reliable sense of time and periodicity. it must have seemed quite natural, then, to compare the predictable cycles of celestial bodies with the unpredictable happenstances of human life, and hope to find some correspondence—some evidence of pattern, some hint of cyclic regularity to be found in events that were otherwise baffling and chaotic.
in modern terms we call this frequency-domain analysis, and use the methods of mathematics and numerical analysis to tease out hints of cyclic and regular behavior from masses of data collected over time. one doesn't always need to know the reason behind such periodic behavior; if a cyclic pattern is there, it's got predictive value for the future, even if the reason for the cyclic behavior is unknown. let us hypothesize, for example, that one conducted frequency-domain analysis on stock-market data and detected a cycle with a period approximately that of the lunar month. have we somehow proved that the Moon exerts an effect on stock-market trading? the answer to that is question is, "no, we haven't, but we can still make testable predictions on the basis of the apparent lunar cycle."
people who find value in astrology believe that they can see and feel the cyclic patterns of celestial bodies impressed on human lives, in some way. I myself think the idea isn't an unreasonable one, especially as regards the Moon—the Moon is bright, she's easily seen and remarked upon, her cyclic motions have definite physical effects on the Earth, and many human calendars and religious holidays track the Moon in some fashion; it seems only logical to assume that human society has some trace of a lunar cycle stamped on it. one need invoke no special mysticism to imagine such an influence.
but this prompts an important question: is it actually wise to regard oneself as governed by the Moon? the danger that many reasonable persons see in astrology is that it's regarded as infallible, as if its predictive value were total and applicable to everyone. it's one thing to say, in a general way, that the Moon exerts some indirect influence on human affairs; it's quite another thing to say stuff like "when you were born the Moon was in this particular constellation so that means you must possess this laundry list of traits." THAT is what annoys people the most about astrology as it's popularly imagined: the fact that it's used for profiling, as a way of matching people to stereotypes. I don't think this is the fault of astrology per se. people do the same things with "physiognomy" and multiple-choice tests and government records and every other scrap of superficial data they can collect on a person. applying the same bigoted method in an astrological context, purporting to read people's minds and souls from times and dates and the positions of celestial bodies, is a commonplace evil—but (call me foolish for saying this) it's not enough to make me happy with the idea of throwing away all of astrology.
I'm reminded a bit of genealogy, which is surely a valid enough pursuit if done in the right spirit, but beyond doubt people want evil things out of genealogy, whether it's their own ancestors they're researching or someone else's. they want to put their finger on something "objective" that they can grab onto, a sure-fire guarantee of salvation or damnation—proof of unquestionably superior "genetics", or evidence for the opposite. more insidiously, people hope that their ancestry might somehow define them, and show them what sort of person they're supposed to be—as if (say) finding out that one of your great-grandmothers wrote novels "proved" that your own destiny was to become a novelist. does the fact that people undoubtedly read too much into genealogy mean that genealogy itself is vain and damaging? I don't think so. and I think astrology is like that, too—it's a tool readily abused, but still a worthwhile tool. perhaps.
~Chara
