You`re a microscopic bug on an enormous windshield, battling hail and heat, day and night, simply trying to hang on to something... anything!

You`re a mere individual trying to make sense of a complex world, relying on logic and superstition. You can`t help being curious -- it`s in your genes and spirit (refer to the discussion between The Angels and God upon the creation of Adam), so this pursuit is natural.

But here is the paradox.

Superstitions command both harmless and harmful behaviour. Some superstitions (such as belief in psychics) encourage `self-defeating behaviour`, says Dr Stuart Vyse, author of the award-winning book, Believing in Magic The Psychology of Superstition.

Similarly, Richard Dawkins believes that irrational superstitious thinking undermines the source of our progress -- evidence and logic -- and therefore impoverishes our civilisation. Furthermore, it empowers fundamentalists who obscure the truth for personal benefit. This sounds all too familiar.

We often believe so strongly in illogical dogma (such as astrology) that more harm than good is availed. Labelled a `pseudoscience`, astrology has been proven false on scientific, psychological, moral and religious grounds, yet it continues to command a large number of believers.

A superficial argument against the validity of horoscopes is “How can the movements of stars and planets, thousands and millions of miles away, signal changes in our lives?” The stalemate response to this inquiry is likely to be, “It`s a mystery, but the system`s efficacy is evident by its widespread acceptance.”

Therefore a scientific argument is a stronger argument here.

The root of the most widely followed branch of astrology (based on the meanings of stars and planets) is a cosmos map created by the Greek astronomer Claudius Ptolemy 1,900 years ago.

But this map has three glaring flaws. Firstly, the fact that the earth`s axis has a tilt of 23.5 degrees relative to the sun has not been accounted for by Ptolemy. Secondly, Ptolemy considered the earth the centre of the universe; and lastly, many planets have recently been discovered in our solar system (16 were spotted in 2006 alone). Even though some astrologers adjusted their calculation, this constant discovery of new planets and stars proves that the designs of zodiac systems and horoscopes are not comprehensive, which severely undermines their precision.

Many Muslim scholars such as Al-Farabi and Ibn-i-Sina noted that the predictions of astrologers are, apart from training, largely guided by intuition. As a result, there is a lack of empirical proof these ambiguous calculations work.
Psychology lends another argument against the validity of astrology through the Forer Effect, which has the motto we`ve got something for everyone.

In the 1950s, as an experiment, Dr Bertram Forer (a psychologist) asked his students to rate the personality assessments he had made for each student based on a test. In reality, each student received identical copies of generalized statements, such as, `... At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have done the right thing... you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable... while at other times you are introverted and reserved....`

As expected, most students believed the results were accurate, not realising that these descriptions were vague enough to apply to many people. Similar experiments have been conducted for horoscopes with similar results, which partially explain the prevalent acceptance of astrology.

Dawkins, on the other hand, leverages morality to introduce a controversy. He thinks the belief in horoscopes is similar to the modern taboo of stereotyping since both practices aim to divide people into groups without evidence.
“Imagine a newspaper column reading, `Germans In your personal relationship, you`ll need to curb your natural tendency to obey orders. Chinese inscrutability has many advantages but it may be your undoing today... and so on for 12 national horoscopes`”. Even though astrological horoscopes are not as offensive, both types of façade follow the same principal.

Horoscopes often appeal to people on a basic level; this does no good but does no harm either. Problems arise when people go beyond this. They not only feel that `star traits` are a powerful signal of their personalities (which may help them escape reality) but they also prepare for the implications of their horoscopes (consider determining the compatibility between friends or a couple based on star signs, or deciding whether to appear for an interview on a particular day when the `mystical verdict` gives a pessimistic signal). All this, in light of the shortcomings of horoscopes, seems absurd if not destructive. This scenario is remarkably akin to the practices of numerology and fortune-telling.

According to Dawkins, the blame for this prejudice against science and logic falls on two factors first, there is a widespread tendency of people to promote their `personal feelings` over evidence and second, the plethora of accessible misleading information on the Internet.

Fortunately, this predicament has a simple solution. Interestingly enough, Dawkins, an atheist, suggests a way out that that has also been emphasised by God Himself. Dawkins believes we need to rekindle the respect for feelings based on evidence and thought.