Apparently, Richard Dawkins has turned his attention to astrology. He is either unaware, or else pretends to be, that modern science was first able to arise precisely because of the Mediaeval Catholic Church condemnation from Scripture of the theories, as expressed by Aristotle but always held apart from the Biblical Revelation, of eternalism (that the universe has always existed and always will), animism (that the universe is a living thing, an animal), pantheism (that the universe is itself the supreme reality, is God), cyclicism (that everything which happens has already happened, in exactly the same form, an infinite number of times before, and will happen again, in exactly the same form, an infinite number of times), and astrology (that events on earth are controlled by the movements of the celestial bodies).
None of these propositions is self-evidently false, nor can that falsehood be proven scientifically. Rather, science must, and does, simply presuppose their falsehood. It was first able to do this, and thus to get going at all, because of the exercise of ecclesial authority by reference to Scriptural authority. “Post-Christian” culture is visibly regressing to all five of these errors. And if you believe in the first four (which I have sometimes heard it claimed might be compatible with science, although I cannot see how), then you must believe in the fifth one, namely astrology.
Perhaps Dawkins knows this and is declining to mention it to the common herd, contrary to his interdisciplinary responsibilities as a Professor, and specifically contrary to the whole purpose of the Chair that he occupies, which is “for the Public Understanding of Science”. In that case, he is morally unfit to occupy that Chair, or to comment on such matters generally. Or perhaps he does not know it. In that case, he is intellectually unfit to occupy that Chair, or to comment on such matters generally. Which is it?