Re: BA and MA Degrees in Astrology! What Are They Smoking in Seattle ?

[James Mackey <jmackey@HARDING.EDU>]

Harvard Divinity School requirements for any degree have little if anything to do
with religious faith or beliefs. You would probably have a difficult time finding
what most would consider a true believer in God.
Astrology, by its claims, is testable scientifically. As has been pointed out, the
tools of science (and there ARE other tools of human knowledge) are impotent where
religion is concerned.
James Mackey


Bernard Cleyet wrote:

> My first opinion was that of the IP's viz.:
>
> "The Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board has lent an aura of
> legitimacy to the Kepler College bachelors and masters degrees --
> including the MA degree in "astrological counseling".  This goes further
> than the simple approval of silliness.  This action may induce some
> trusting soul who needs the help of a psychiatrist, clinical
> psychologist, or trained marriage and family counselor to instead accept
> the worthless advice of a quack.  The results could be devastating both
> to the individual and those around him.
>
> The members of the Washington HECB should be ashamed of themselves for
> approving these degrees."
>
> However, a friend wrote:
>
> "Well then, since you suggest it, why allow Doctors of Divinity and
> let people get advice from quacks who think a god will answer their
> prayers?"
>
> in reply to my sending him:
>
> It might also amuse us to compare the requirements of Kepler's MA in
> astrology <http://www.kepler.edu/ma/index.html> with those of Harvard's
> MA
> in divinity <http://www.hds.harvard.edu/registrar/catalog/mdiv.html>.
>
> - Tucker Hiatt
>
> My assumption being there is great difference between the two.  Being a devout
> atheist, I'm not so sure now.  Yes, Harvard and the accreditation board
> legitimates a belief equal to that of astrology.
>
> bc
>
> GK suggested their is a difference:  Her concern is to protect the "uneducated
> who will be impressed by the letters after their names, and confuse astrology
> with astronomy, but can trust clerics.
>
> David Lunney wrote:
>
> > At 02:00 AM 7/9/01 -0700, Brian Whatcott wrote:
> >
> > > I expect the Irascible Professor reviewed the sometimes worrying
> > > correlations of birthdate (birth signs, if you will) and occupational
> > > choice outcomes studied by the feckless academics who should have
> > > realised they would be excoriated for their actions?
> > >
> > >    I know that someone dedicated to the scientific method
> > >  would not stoop to condemn before considering the evidence:
> > > after all, to do otherwise would be to indulge in mumbo-jumbo -
> > > taking part in a witch craft trial, so to speak.
> > > :-)
> >
> > This is ridiculous.  Either Brian doesn't really understand science, or he
> > believes in astrology, or both.   Astrology has been utterly discredited by
> > every well-designed,  genuinely scientific study made of it.  There is no
> > real evidence to examine.
> >
> > This kind of argument has been made on this list before, I believe (I
> > suspect by True Believers in the occult), but it is a smokescreen.   Claims
> > of purported occult phenomena can be safely dismissed without violating the
> > principles of  scientific openness because the claims are so incredible and
> > the evidence for them so feeble.
> >
> > In approaching this sort of question, we should all remember  the skeptics'
> > mantra : "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
> >
> > Best regards,
> > David Lunney, retired chemistry prof.
> >
> >      "Keep an open mind---but not so open your brain falls out."
> >                --- Robert Low, British mathematician and physicist