IS Astrology just a lot of rubbish? Russell Grant gives his predictions for '96 in our 40-page special star guide, but this week has seen our astrologer locked in mortal combat with the country's No 1 astrology sceptic, Professor Richard Dawkins.
The two went head-to-head in a debate on BBC's Newsnight, chaired by Jeremy Paxman, after Dawkins launched an attack in the Independent On Sunday, declaring that there is absolutely no scientific basis for astrology and that astrologers should be jailed for fraud. Here Russell hits back.
OVER the past 300 years science has greatly enhanced and changed our lives.
It has given us aviation, television and the electronic media, industrial, technological and medical advancement as well as the information superhighway.
However, science like its mythological ruler, Uranus, has given birth to many disasters: Pollution, thalidomide, asbestosis, vivisection, nuclear weapons and disastrous genetic experiments.
Any science is of zero help with what matters to us most spiritually and emotionally expressing our personality, finding a fulfilling career and a loving relationship.
What upsets some scientists is that astrology is a splendid tool for helping us to understand the mysteries of our lives and discover of self-potential.
Scientists are like the high priests of old who claimed exclusive access to knowledge.
To them, unless something can be proved scientifically, it is not valid or is just a delusion.
This might work well for chemistry, but human beings can't fit into a test tube!
One scientific "high priest" tried to claim that love was mere electro-magnetic responses in the brain.
Anyone who has been in love, who has felt the electrifying Venus force, knows that life is infinitely more complex. But there is no science of human nature. Because human life is so very complicated, it is extremely difficult to test astrology scientifically. …