Astrologers think that astrology...enables them to know the things that are going to be in the world of the elements, before they are created. The positions of the spheres and the stars (are) thus (taken to) indicate every single kind of future event, both universal and individual.
The ancient (astrologers) were of the opinion that the knowledge of astral powers and influence is acquired through experience. It (thus) is something that all (human) lives combined would not be able to achieve, because experience is obtained through numerous repetitions which make the obtainment of (empirical)knowledge or conjectures possible. Astral revolutions may be very long. Greatly extended periods of time are required for their repetition. Even (all) the lives in the world (combined) would be too short for (observing) them.
Ptolemy and his followers were of the opinion that the stars are able to indicate (the future) as the natural result of a temper they produce in the elemental existing things...
It makes the weakness of the achievements of astrology clear. Knowledge of,or conjectures about, things that come into being can only result from knowledge of all their causes, that is, agent, recipient, form, and end, as has been explained in the proper place....Furthermore, the astral powers are not the sole agents. There are other powers that act together with (the astral powers) upon the material element (involved), such as the generative power of father and species contained in the sperm, the powers of the particular quality distinguishing each variety within the species, and other things. When the astral powers reach perfection and are known, they (still) are only one among many causes that go into the making of a thing that comes into being...
Such is the situation (even) if one's knowledge of the astral powers is accurate and without defect. Now, that is difficult. The ability to calculate the courses of the stars is required in order to know their positions. Moreover, it is not proven that every star has its own particular power....All this speaks against the assumption that it is possible to predict things that will happen in the world of the elements with the help of astrology.
Furthermore, it is wrong to assume that the stars exercise an influence on (the world) below them. It has been proven deductively in the chapter on the Oneness of God, as one has seen, that there is no agent but God....The divine power (would seem to) tie the two together, as it does with all created things, (both) high and low, especially since the religious law attributes all happenings to the power of God and does not want to have anything to do with anything else....
Prophecy also denies the importance and influence of the stars....Thus, the worthlessness of astrology from the point of view of the religious law, as well as the weakness of its achievements from the rational point of view, are evident. In addition, astrology does harm to human civilization. It hurts the faith of the common people when an astrological judgment occasionally happens to come true in some unexplainable and unverifiable manner. Ignorant people are taken in by that and suppose that all the other (astrological) judgments must be true, which is not the case. Thus, they are led to attribute things to some (being) other than their Creator.
Further, astrology often produces the expectation that signs of crisis will appear in a dynasty. This encourages the enemies and rivals of the dynasty to attack(it) and revolt (against it). We have (personally) observed much of the sort. It is,therefore, necessary that astrology be forbidden to all civilized people, because it may cause harm to religion and dynasty.--Ibn Khaldun, Muqqadimah, Book 6, Para 29, Translated by Franz Rosenthal.
A few days ago, I claimed that Ibn Khaldun was flattering Timur in his meeting with Timur. One (further) reason to think that he is flattering is that in the meeting, he treats Timur's rise as astrologically foretold, yet in the Muqqadumah he is very critical of astrology. He is clearly assuming that while he is famous for the (massive) book, the folk eager to consult him about his expertise, will not have really read it carefully. In the chapter (partially quoted), Ibn Khaldun offers five main reasons to reject astrology:
- Empirically, the cycles of the heaven are too long in time, for proper induction over them such that these patters can be mapped on yo the complexity of human affairs.
- So in virtue of this we lack the kind of causal knowledge of all the relevant mechanisms that would accurate prediction possible.
- There is no source in revelation that gives us access to the relevant data and causes.
- He calls attention to religious prohibition against astrology in some authoritative hadiths.
- Astrology is politically dangerous because it encourages crisis thinking.
The arguments underwriting Ibn Khaldun's first two reasons are clearly indebted to Al-Ghazali's views about empirical science (recall). The third one (no revelation) blocks a kind of move to somebody inspired by Al-Ghazali, who thinks that in the context of discovery, would be scientists require guided intuition of structure (or special properties). And that guidance, or inspiration, just is prophecy. Ibn Khaldun can grant the existence of prophecy (he does so in the Muqqadimah); all he needs for present purposes is that prophecy/guided intuition of structure is not sufficient to ground the kind of knowledge presupposed in astrology. (I omitted the details of his argument in the block quote--so you gotta trust me on this one.)
As an aside, I am fairly confident that Al-Ghazali is in the background here, because in this extended discussion, Ibn Khaldun relies explicitly on a kind of occasionalist view of human affairs: there is no agent but God. Ibn Khaldun explicitly notes (in the quoted passage) that philosophy (deductive reason) and religious law (sharia) agree on this point. While others have defended occasionalism, it is, of those with a philosophical sensibility, something very much associated with Al-Ghazali.
The political argument against astrology is two-fold: first, it undermines civic religion -- here understood, in part, as a social practice like history conducive to political flourishing (recall) -- because when it gets lucky, it creates a new source of authority in the eyes of the people. For Ibn Khaldun, thinks that royal authority/sovereignty is founded on group cohesion, but this always presupposes a willing self-subordination to authority. This self-subordination is grounded in the (tacit) good opinion of the authority. (Of course, it's also shaped by it.) We may say that (recall) astrology risks becoming an influential political idol.
Second, astrology generates what we may call crisis thinking. People are encouraged to be on the look-out for extrinsic portents and signs that spell trouble. (I use 'extrinsic; to distinguish this from ordinary prudence and precautionary principles, which Ibn Khaldun praises.) As Socrates (Timaeus 40D) puts it, alarming portents of the things which shall come to pass hereafter become, Ibn Khaldun argues, coordination mechanisms and rallying cries for dissatisfaction and would be revolts. And so they become inherent source of instability. This is especially so because the purported meanings of signs are inherently malleable.
We may, see, here, Ibn Khaldun challenging the art of statecraft as handed down by the ancients (Greek, Persian, Chinese, etc.) more generally. To sum up and simplify, the various competing schools taught the intellectual elites to either shape control of divination and astrology or to accept it and make it into an instrument of statecraft. Ibn Khaldun argues that this is a grounded on a mistake that undermines instability. Because the smart and educated benefit from the market for astrologers, this helps explain (recall) why Ibn Khaldun is so critical of the role of the learned in political life.
Recent Comments