Sir, - Richard Dawkins is well known as a man of strong opinions, and is usually forthright in expressing them. His article (January 20th) did little to" encourage reasoned debate on the subject of astrology, as some of the correspondence since has illustrated. Both sides of this debate appear to agree that "astrology should be taken seriously, but obviously for different reasons. Whether or not there is" any scientific basis to astrology has yet to be established conclusively. The extent of its influence, however, is such that it merits careful scrutiny.
The study referred to by Vincent Kenny (January 30th) is interesting (Psychology and Survival. Phillips et a. Lancet 1993. 342, 1142-5.) That the same shortening of life expectancy was not seen in the matched controls as the subjects indicates that it is a "belief in astrology rather than some intrinsic element of astrology itself which is responsible." The beneficial effects of a positive mental attitude in the fight against disease are well documented, as is the reverse, i.e., as poor prognosis in those who have "given up" or adopted a fatalistic approach. The authors conclude that "psychosomatic factors can markedly affect the longevity of patients with most diseases". It appears therefore that a belief in astrology may be dam aging to your health!
Furthermore, people like significant decisions affecting their career on the basis of information from astrologers. Why then, for example, should the level of scrutiny applied to the tests used by a career guidance counsellor not also be applied to astrology, since some people will base their decision as much on the latter as others do on the former. Regardless therefore of whether or not there is any underlying truth in astrology, its significant effects on many peoples lives are clearly reason enough for subjecting it to close examination. - Yours, etc.,
Woodpark, Ballinteer, Dublin 16.