Are you more comfortable believing in astronomy or astrology? Is science more trustworthy than faith?

Are you more comfortable believing in astronomy or astrology? Given that astronomers have often been wrong, do you think it's fair to say that science is more trustworthy than faith?

Astronomy , a science, is amenable to rational and evidentiary proof. Faith - if you want to label astrology as a faith - is belief in the absence of proof, and requires a great deal of trust. So the question of which is more believable is pretty easy for me. Faith requires more trust, whether or not it is more trustworthy.

Laurap has stated it well. Astronomy, to me, is an accepted science, while astrology is a "fun" quasi-science.

I like facts and evidence that are provable using the scientific method. That being said, I have always believed that the date of conception should be the date that astrologers should work from.

You know, if you asked me I'd swear up & down that astrology is junk, that there's absolutely nothing to it. And yet, my upbringing is such that every now & then I think - "Oh, early August birthday, huh? I probably won't get along with him - he's another Leo!" LOL. And I read the horoscopes in the newspaper & think, "Oh good, looks like I'm going to have a good day!" or "Oh, I'd better not spend any money today!" - or something like that.

Why is that, that a perfectly rational person will still read horoscopes & somehow think they apply? Do you think it's upbringing? Or maybe it was growing up in the 60s & 70s, when (I believe) astrology saw a resurgence? (Great, now I've got "Age of Aquarius" stuck in my head...)

I'm more comfortable with astronomy, but I find astrology fun and interesting. It's almost scary to read about the typical characteristics of people born under my sign (Scorpio) and recognize so much of myself in the description. That said, in the novel, both astrology and astronomy were made to seem "trustworthy," though I found myself thinking that Bernice must have recognized George, and that's why she gave him the reading about the brown haired astronomer.

Astronomy is a science. While I don't believe in astronomy, I recognize that it provides valuable information. Astrology is not something I believe in. It's an entertainment.

Sometimes I like to imagine that everything we call scientific and proven is, in reality, mistaken but we're not "smart enough" or "evolved enough" to truly understand. For example, we think gravity is a fact but maybe it's really not but no one brilliant enough has come along to figure out the real reason why apples fall downward. Try that with every scientific "fact" we usually accept as "truth"! It's fun. And makes astrology a plausible reality. Do you think George and Irene would eventually come to agree with this?

I am a believer in science and proven facts. Saying that, I do not discount astrology and other beliefs that go bump in the night. Like many other things in this world, who are we to say that something can not exist because we can't prove it.

Science doesn't require belief; it attempts to describe and explain the world as it exists. Astrology is just a story people use to make sense of what they can't explain. The focus on astrology in the story made it slightly more difficult for me to get into the plot, although by the end I enjoyed it despite that.

Astrology is more general. Astronomy is a science and holds proof. The astrology chunk in the story added comedy and contrast. Choices...gotta love them.

Science requires proof. Pseudosciences do not. Astronomy is a science while astrology is a pseudoscience. Yes, errors can be made. But science is based on experimentation and seeking solid evidence. I would take that any day over accepting something because it sounds right.

Astronomy is based on facts and evidence. Astrology is based on a theory, a leap of faith, that the stars and forces in the universe collide to influence the fate of individuals on earth. Yet, at some point even in science there is a theory, a theory that fuels the search for proof. Think about the science of black holes and atomic material, didn't it all begin with someone thinking beyond the facts they had. The book's juxtaposing of astronomy and astrology made me realize though extreme they are not mutually exclusive. Hope that makes sense.

Yes, to the last post (Tracyn). That does make sense! And the book does a fine job of exploring the interplay of science and faith. It would be hard to do without either. There is a wonderful summation at page 57 of the book--------"There is no evidence or proof of the legitimacy of any theories or principles of astrology.....Neither is there any empirical evidence to show that true love is anything but a construct created by humans to solidify a family unit......No evidence of any true god. And yet we watch the stars, we fall in love, we pray. Therefore, scholars of astrology, love and religion have been forced to accept that something can be real, even if it is not true. Scientists, obviously, acknowledge no such paradox." Our age of reason downplays the mysterious and what is taken on faith, but both are real.

This is an interesting question. The science of astronomy is fairly easy to believe as we can, as said above, prove the facts as stated but in every field of science there is much that is not known yet but may in fact be true and affecting our world. The field of astrology is another interesting and somewhat fun view of the world and may have some truth in it but to date I have a problem with it as a reliable source of info. I think there is not enough reliability to it that anyone one should make life decisions based on it So much of so called astrological advice has value only in reminding you to think about certain things which you may not have otherwise and may thus be helpful.

Astronomy for sure, I agree what Mal said about astronomy & astrology. as far as astrology goes, it is more of an entertainment, but I agree with some of the aspects of it. Certain parts of it are spot-on in certain people, but I agree it is more of a quasi science.

Astronomy seems to be the scientific basis for astrology or astromancy. Astrological signs are named after constellations and interpretations are based on positions of planets and stars at various times from birth through death. "It is written in the stars" reflects the symbiotic relationship between science and divination.

Astronomy is more factual but it too changes. Facts change even in science. Astrology to me is more of a fun thing to be taken with a grain of salt. Sometimes astrology seems to hit the nail on the head.

Scientifically, what we view as fact is limited by the currently available knowledge/technology/archaeological discoveries/etc -and as those components evolve, those facts sometimes are altered. Faith can be a lack of evidence/proof, or our, as yet, lack of knowledge/technology/archaeological discoveries/etc. I try to keep an open miind.