Thanks for the link, Wolfgang.

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required--not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes ....

To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible....Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature..." (Einstein)

This is why, to date, science has always failed as a method of studying and investigating astrology. The scientific method cannot do justice to the seemingly endless number of complex factors at work in an astrological natal chart - some conscious and expressed (at least to some extent), others unconscious, latent, unexpressed.

I don't agree with Einstein that "religion" must give up the idea of a personal god, though. Human beings - even almighty scientists! - cannot know a thing except "personally" ie via their own physical senses (and technological enhancements thereof), emotions nad thoughts.

And I do wish Einstein had believed in the Paragraph!   8-[


" Major claims:

- The universe was created intentionally by a god or a group of gods.
- The individual human has a spirit which is a separate (if associated) entity from the body, and will continue to exist after the body's death.
- There is a power which will determine the future state of that spirit, punishment or reward in whatever form depending on the behaviour of the body/ spirit complex."

I don't agree with any of that, Paul - except partially with the second one, even though it's incomplete. But then again, I'm not a "highly religious" person either.