Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

I was watching a debate on a question of whether or not we as a species would be better off without religion (for a class) and just so happened to notice that all of the presenters for a society better off without religion, Anthony Grayling, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens, have Pisces Suns. In fact, Christopher Hitchens & Anthony Grayling have more than three inner planets in Pisces, both have Sun, Venus, Mars, and Mercury in Pisces.

I was wondering if anyone has noticed a trend of this or has any thoughts on why this might have been the case in this debate and potentially in the wider world?

As a side-note, the presenters for religion (Nigel Spivey, Julia Neuberger, and Roger Scrunton) all have Sun in Aquarius and/or Mars in Virgo or Taurus.

Nigel Spivey: Sun in Virgo, Mars in Taurus
Julia Neuberger: Sun in Aquarius, Mars in Virgo
Roger Scrunton: Sun in Aquarius, Mars in Taurus

Hannah wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 4:00 pm I was wondering if anyone has noticed a trend of this or has any thoughts on why this might have been the case in this debate and potentially in the wider world?

Fascinating observation, and good of you to catch it.

This would not be typical of Pisces Suns, but... let's take a look at what IS typical of Pisces Suns that might be at play.

Presuming this isn't just Pisces being dramatic (giving them full credit for sincerity), and recognizing that Pisces would most often gravitate toward the most mysterious and insubstantial window on reality what Pisces traits might lead them to assert this position on their own (in contrast to, say, just taking a position in a debate which may or may not be their own view)? Of course, there could be other things in their charts (all have strong Saturns, for example), but it's better to argue from what we know instead of what we suspect.

First, Pisces are slippery. That is, they are malleable, can be anything because they are nothing specific. They are known for shifting loyalties: one sometimes things that, eventually, Pisces will be disloyal to everything. Alliances and affiliations shift and slide easily. Bradley did a statistical study of everyone in a several thousand person sample that had converted to and then converted away from a religion (converted to at least two of them formally), and Pisces was tops. IIRC he also took everyone in one volume of Who's Who that had changed nationality and, again, Pisces was tops. He also found Pisces most common in a volume of FBI case histories about political spies and defectors.

Bottom line, as a group they are known for passionately adopting an allegiance and then, just as passionately, abandoning it. (This is the traditional Pisces association with betrayal and treason.)

Normally Pisces has strong religious drives, even though they tend to change religions. One place this shows powerfully is in their often conflicted intertwining of Eros and repressive religious morality. (The two themes are intimately connected in their minds.) There's a whole "module" of Pisces psychodynamics as they swing around this particular maypole.

These two themes (and the tendency to become too narrow and judgmental with strong Saturn elements) are really all I have to bring to this I guess: Their Spoke mutability, enhanced by the distinctly Pisces themes of conversion and betrayal, plus a strong Eros vs. repression tension feel somehow connected to what you saw. These may not answer your question at all; or maybe they resemble something specific about the arguments and points of view of the particular participants.

PS - If this was an academic exercise instead of experts arguing sincerely held points of view, it wouldn't be unusual to ask people to defend points of view opposite those they actually hold.

Sorry for the late response, it takes me a while to think about astrology and I have been so busy lately! This is an hard one to wrap the brain around...

All three of the speakers have had a consistent professional career supporting their arguments against God, with little internet data on shifting allegiances. So, I am unsure if they were play-acting their disbelief or not. Some of them had traumatic experiences surrounding religion in their early life, so they might be acting out from betrayal perhaps? Christopher Hitchens' especially, who was the most vehement opposer of religion and whose mom committed suicide for religious reasons. The other two, I am more unclear as to why they might be opposed... Richard Dawkins has Moon in Aquarius, and has said that Darwin's evolution theory provided more profound analysis of the complexity of nature than any religion. So, perhaps he was more motivated by the desire for invention and discovery? With the Pisces Moon to add mystique and romantic flair to his writing style (with book titles like: "The Greatest Show on Earth," "The Magic of Reality," and "The Ancestor's Tale"). With Anthony Grayling.. I don't know enough of to say for sure.. his Moon is in Taurus and he was more concerned about the inconsistencies of religious morality to the true morality that dictates every-day life.

On Saturn: Anthony Grayling has Saturn sextile Uranus 3°6' and Saturn/Sun sesqui-square 1°39'
Christopher Hitchens had Saturn sextile Moon 2°22', Saturn sextile Uranus 2°24', and Saturn semi-square Neptune 1°2'
Richard Dawkins has Saturn conjunct Jupiter 3°24', Saturn semi-square Venus 1°31', and Saturn sesqui-square Neptune 1°34'

All of this makes me realize more fully how fluid and dynamic astrology is... that Pisces is a kind of energy swirling in the mind with all the other energies swirling alongside it, molding it in different expressions as a result of exchanges between self and environment. Thank you Jim.

It would be valuable to have full birth data on them.

Even without the birth times, I'm of course drawn to figure out what might be going on (though, without the birth times, there's a really good chance we won't see it because it's based primarily on angular planets or some such thing).

Hannah wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:21 pm Some of them had traumatic experiences surrounding religion in their early life, so they might be acting out from betrayal perhaps? Christopher Hitchens' especially, who was the most vehement opposer of religion and whose mom committed suicide for religious reasons.

That's pretty traumatic, of course. He was born April 13, 1949, in Portsmouth, England, hour unknown, and clearly has Sun in Pisces (though Moon might be in Virgo if he were born very early in the day... but probably Libra). He is clearly a creature of passion with four planets in Pisces including sa tight Sun-Mercury-Venus conjunction, then Mars a bit farther off). Without a time, we can't tell if there are Moon afflictions for the mother experience (though, given his views on religion, it seems unlikely he was born late in the day with a really tight Moon-Jupiter square). Not much else to clearly see without a time so, bottom line, it's basically the conjunction of four Pisces planets.

Richard Dawkins has Moon in Aquarius, and has said that Darwin's evolution theory provided more profound analysis of the complexity of nature than any religion. So, perhaps he was more motivated by the desire for invention and discovery?

Yes, Pisces-Aquarius: born March 26, 1941, Nairobi, Kenya. Definitely we'd think this is a guy into weird stuff, at least occultism and avant garde art. No aspects that make this strong. He does have the Mars-Uranus-Neptune grand trine of spring '41 which at least makes him polemical, and close Sun-Pluto trine which makes him break out of the herd. (I'm curious about his partile Sun-Eris conjunction, but not going to make a case based on a little-known factor.) He does seem, in general, like he doesn't want to ride with mass mind or the herd mentality and would look for ways to position himself against it, so this one isn't so surprising to me on purely intellectual grounds.

With Anthony Grayling.. I don't know enough of to say for sure.. his Moon is in Taurus and he was more concerned about the inconsistencies of religious morality to the true morality that dictates every-day life.

"Inconsistencies of religious morality" is often a big theme with Pisces, usually seen as complex relationships between intense Eros and intense belief, though usually with the sense that they have to hold tightly to both of them however much it guilt-tortures them. Grayling was born April 3, 1949, Luanshya, Zambia. He's a strange one. Again we have intense passion with a partile Venus-Mars conjunction in Pisces 3-4° from Sun, with Sun exactly opposite Neptune. Sex and passion would be gigantic presence in his life. Without a birth time, the one thing that stands out is another Sun-Pluto trine (supported by an exact Sun-Saturn sesquisquare).

Those two Sun-Pluto trines are the most interesting thing, but that doesn't get us anywhere with Hitchens. So, really, this got me almost nowhere except back to wanting birth times.

I commented a while ago on how all "Four Horseman" who spearheaded the New Atheist movement (Dawkins, Hitchins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett) were Pisces Suns. From my experiences associating with "new atheists" for a decade now, the movement started as a counter to the religious views of the Bush administration and conservative America in general.

Their big error IMO was their conciet, thinking they were making a stunning critique of Christianity and religion when they were really attacking the ideology of an American subculture. And the New Atheist movement morphed into its own wierd ideological sect. The important thing is how New Atheism was more about belief and values (very Neptune) than any rigurous scientific analysis. The Four Horseman were not sharks in the ocean but goldfish in a bowl.

Hannah wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 4:00 pm I was watching a debate on a question of whether or not we as a species would be better off without religion (for a class) and just so happened to notice that all of the presenters for a society better off without religion, Anthony Grayling, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens, have Pisces Suns. In fact, Christopher Hitchens & Anthony Grayling have more than three inner planets in Pisces, both have Sun, Venus, Mars, and Mercury in Pisces.

I was wondering if anyone has noticed a trend of this or has any thoughts on why this might have been the case in this debate and potentially in the wider world?

I notice that signs can act like their polar opposite signs, and it happens way more often than I previously thought. It could be a sign's reaction to what it percieves to be its deficiencies, and an attempt to correct them. I feel that way about myself at least.

Taurians being aggressively sexual or radical.
Leos being quiet, dark, and self-effacing.
Scorpios being gentle, gracious, and roundabout.
Sagittarians rejecting title, tradition, and religious convention.
Piscians being hyper rational and rigidly principled.

Maybe Solar Astrology has some validity. – Solar Astrology is when you calculate a natal chart using the Sun and not the Earth as the center. – My Sun sign is Sagittarius, but my "Earth sign" is Gemini.

I have noticed a strong aversion to metaphysics and escpecially astrology in some charts with Moon in Pisces. Maybe the reason is fear as they like to keep hidden their vulberability and secret sides. They dont feel well with readings because they dont like to analyse them (Virgo polarity). Ι have seen that some piscean persons are highly secretive and maybe this is the reason or idendity problems. I can give you as example from my archive a female chart with Moon is in Pisces in 12th house and Neptune in Scorpio squaring Sun in Aquarius. Aries rising conjunct Saturn. This is a very dogmatic and "realistic" person, unwilling to learn or listen anything about astrology and metaphysics, and she is extremelly closed person and secretive. Another case know is a astronomer with Moon in Pisces.

I use Sidereal zodiac.

I have noticed the same with some of my friends who have the Moon in Pisces. They do not want to hear about astrology neither metaphysics, they don't like it.

I must confirm that my Pisces Moon dad is just as "hyper-realist". He has contempt for anything "too imaginative" from religion to superhero movies to even Shakespeare.

By Jove wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:47 pm I commented a while ago on how all "Four Horseman" who spearheaded the New Atheist movement (Dawkins, Hitchins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett) were Pisces Suns. From my experiences associating with "new atheists" for a decade now, the movement started as a counter to the religious views of the Bush administration and conservative America in general.

That is really interesting... I totally forgot about Sam Harris too. He has a lot of Pisces! They all are Athiest missionaries... they definitely make a religion out of having no god. That does seem quite Piscean.

Jim Eshelman wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:48 pm
That's pretty traumatic, of course. He was born April 13, 1949, in Portsmouth, England, hour unknown, and clearly has Sun in Pisces (though Moon might be in Virgo if he were born very early in the day... but probably Libra). He is clearly a creature of passion with four planets in Pisces including sa tight Sun-Mercury-Venus conjunction, then Mars a bit farther off). Without a time, we can't tell if there are Moon afflictions for the mother experience (though, given his views on religion, it seems unlikely he was born late in the day with a really tight Moon-Jupiter square). Not much else to clearly see without a time so, bottom line, it's basically the conjunction of four Pisces planets.

I believe Christopher Hitchens is described as being a philosopher of Epicurianism... loves those senses! I believe you record Pisces as being epicureans? Why might that be the case, I wonder? My brother is a strong Neptune person and he seems to be completely out of control with impulses, especially concerning drugs... and more recently food.

Jim Eshelman wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:48 pm So, really, this got me almost nowhere except back to wanting birth times.

This comment threw me a little out of the loop, feeling like perhaps I was wasting your time about the details, while missing the point of the question I first posed. At first, the realization that each person seems to relate to Pisces a little differently was a nice "aha" moment about the fluid nature of the forces we try to understand that are hidden behind the astrological symbols. That there are objective realities existing in the same space as the many subjective realities of all people.

I sometimes get tripped up on this... am I seeing something in a chart that is an astrological expression dependent on that individual's makeup? Is it even possible to draw accurate interpretations of what these astrological forces really mean with such a small database as my personal circle? What is more important: studying the subjective reactions to these seemingly impersonal forces in people's personalities or searching for some astrological essence that can be applied again and again? I don't know the answers to any of these questions.

I know someone with Pisces in Moon who doesn't especially like astrological readings as well... she is not entirely opposed to them, but she will turn her ear whenever the information makes her insecure (normally in synastry and solar returns).

I noticed this old thread and this struck me. I have read the new atheist authors above, especially Dawkins, and the Pisces missionary zeal is evident. Atheism only intrinsically means "doesn't believe in gods". But the new atheism (Dawkins is a particularly good example) affirmatively disbelieves in any god in general and the Abrahamic God in particular and demands we do the same on pain of not being considered a sane human being. The fact is, born into different life circumstances, Dawkins would be a hardcore fundamentalist Christian or Muslim. The same Pisces tendency toward the extremes could serve any purpose. The one thing that the more pathological Pisces can't do is live and let live--I know, I had to learn to as a child--some few never do.