This article fails to convince me.

From John David Ebert (a name I’ve never heard before) comes to me the least useful of the articles so far in Islander #5. The article has an intriguing start and much of interest in it, but it possesses some glaring flaws- the first of which it behooves me to get out of the way: Ebert is apparently somewhere between a mystic, a pagan, and a magician (three things modernity fosters), and his religious perspective is therefore far from mine, deleteriously to his argument. Do not take this as my entire issue, however; I am a fan of Rene Girard’s The Scapegoat, and Girard was not by any means an orthodox Christian (as he demonstrates in that very book), to the detriment of his argument. While Ebert’s misunderstanding of Scripture on page 23 certainly sets off alarm-bells as to his reliability, I read Girard’s even more disastrous misinterpretations with interest and even benefit.

I – II

The thesis of Ebert’s article, as best as I see it, is to press his metaphysical-ethical-practical worldview. He proposes that men are given their circumstances by something like fate, a combination of astrological-cosmic destiny and individual reincarnation-based karma, but also that men have the ability and power to choose how they respond to those circumstances (setting their next life’s karma), at least up to a point. This karma is simultaneously cosmically determined, playing out not only here but in alternate planes of reality, and the product of individual choices in past lives (operating on a strangely anthropocentric principle of equilibrium).

His proof for this comes in two-and-a-half types. First, he presents several intriguing recapitulations of old myths, focusing on two perceived themes: an (astrological) theme of cosmicly determined fate (with cyclic elements) and a rebel theme of the hero who makes his own luck- but who is sometimes, even inside the story, merely a worker of the very cosmic fate he rebels against. This fits Ebert’s anthropology, as summarized above, and plays into his second proof: ‘Trust me bro.’

I may seem a little harsh, and I have certainly given the proof less than its due length, so I’ll try again. Ebert asserts the validity of astrology (on grounds we’ll get to in a moment) as an explicitly unexplained communication of people’s destiny, backing it up with his own experience and “The elephant is really there. Trust me: it is” (24).

Now, I started Islander #5 and this article fresh off of reading Planet Narnia (an interesting read), and if I have ever been willing to consider the claims of astrology, it was when I began reading Ebert’s article. Indeed, as he first made reference to the Sumerian zodiac in connection to their gods, my ears perked up. Yet, if Ebert had any effect on me, it was to discount the possibility of astrology (though, I admit, I’ve never been overly open to the possibility. Insofar as I can tell, the practice is morally wrong and at least mostly a lie; the immorality vitiates any truth to counterproductiveness.). The reason for Ebert’s lack of success is best demonstrated by considering how he tries to convince the reader of astrology.

First, let’s take the last bit, an anecdote admittedly not put forward directly as proof but which nevertheless serves as evidence. Ebert, discussing Spengler’s dismissal of astrology, relates in a parenthetical that he consulted Spengler’s ghost via a medium and found the man now open to astrology. Leaving aside the question of how ghosts work with reincarnation and parallel timelines, both of which Ebert asserts as reality, I’ll just point out that having the charlatan back up the fraud is a procedure of little effect. Further, God condemns the use of mediums at least as strongly as He condemns astrology (divination), so Ebert really is just digging himself into a hole here.

Second, Ebert’s use of Spengler falls on deaf ears. What do I care that Spengler had a certain view of ‘destiny’ which aligns with astrology despite his denial of astrology? Assuming Ebert is right, it makes no bones to me. I’ll disagree with Carl Benjamin, as many popes as you like, twice as many famous Germans, three times as many famous Frenchmen, and a fried frog and do so with an easy heart, so long as I’ve Scripture for my foundation. Even more, I know Spengler at least by reputation: he was what Schlossberg called a ‘historicist,’ a man who believed in an inevitable progression of history. This, I have already seen to be wrong (and go read Schlossberg’s Idols for Destruction; it’s excellent).

Ebert appeals also to the authority of Jung, worldwide myth, and “worldwide philosophers,” complete with a convenient disclaimer that neither he nor anybody else is capable of getting everything right. I say ‘convenient.’ If Ebert had proven himself elsewhere, I’d give him no guff for this. I myself recognize I will be found wrong in comparison to reality, in ways not completely understood until the next life, wherein God will teach me more directly. Yet, in this context, it seems to me almost an excuse. In part because of his third proof….

Third, Ebert proffers a view of astrology almost impossible to disprove. He writes, “When I give astrological readings for my clients and they realize it actually does work, they will usually ask me, “Is all my life pre-determined…?’ [I answer that] your life is archetypally pre-determined, but what you do with those archetypal situations is up to you.” The problem here is the nature of archetypes. If I ask ten-thousand honest people whether they see themselves (or their possible/ ideal/ spiritual/ former selves) in a a stick figure- two eyes, a mouth, two ears, a nose, two arms, two legs, and a torso- I’ll get ten thousand affirmatives, because all people possess those or know that their humanity indicates an affinity with them. If I ask ten million or ten billion people whether they have some relationship with anger, with passion, with desire, I’ll get that constant agreement again, assuming honesty.

Archetypes as I understand Ebert to be using them are generalities which apply to all men either in themselves or in their relationships, whether actually or in potential or in past or in desire. Thus, when astrology assigns archetypes to a person, it will always find purchase, no matter the archetypes. Perhaps Ebert’s astrology is less susceptible to this accusation than I present, but I’m using his presentation to make this argument. The burden of proof is on his shoulders. Simply put, astrology seems too vague, too unparticular in its predictions, to be useful. I need no astrology to tell a man, ‘The world is going to throw [archetype that is in everybody’s life in some way] at you; it’s up to you how to respond.’

Fourth, Ebert asserts his personal experience, saying among other things, “I have… given hundreds of readings and not one client ever came away with doubts” (24). The caveat, immediately following, is that one client did come away unconvinced, with some doubt that astrology might be real after all, contra his skepticism. Suffice to say, this testimonial holds less than no weight for me. His sample is composed of those who will pay for astrological readings. His assertion of uniformity is broken by his own testimony. His credibility generally is none too great, given his literal command that I ‘trust him,’ sans good evidence. Frankly, this sentence makes me question his perceptiveness. As a Christian, I’ve no doubt whatsoever of Gods’ reality, but if a pastor told me he’d had hundreds of discussions with people and never a one left with doubts on God, I might well laugh in his face. That’s not how people work.

Admittedly, ‘God’ is a much harder thing for people to believe than Ebert’s astrology. God makes demands, after all, and Ebert makes only the comforting call to be in control of your life, while giving the comfort that, being under destiny, you’ll never truly be to blame. But I’d still expect an astrologist to encounter one or two people who come to him purely to refuse to believe him. Moreover, if his entire sample is composed of those who honestly come to an astrologist (and pay for the privilege), no wonder they so consistently (if not as consistently as he first said) believe in astrology.

Ebert’s article was interesting, as you see, but not in a way complimentary to it.