For the astrologer or for the person who comes to consult him, the question of whether or not to believe in astrology does not arise, because Astrology is not an act of faith: it is validated by the experience that each person can have of it if he or she wishes, an experience that has been confirmed by two millennia of practice.
Astrology is a science that implements two simultaneous modes of operation: logical thinking and analogical thinking. What irritates its opponents the most is that astrology calls into question the supremacy of reason over the other faculties of the mind. Indeed, the Cartesian mind erects systematic doubt as a method of reflection and subjects all thought to the exclusive sieve of reason. As a result, it cannot admit the existence of a phenomenon that (as of yet) escapes any scientific explanation, which is why it denies it purely and simply.
Of course, the phenomenon that is the basis of astrology, that is to say the correspondences between man and the sky, remains totally unexplained. Moreover, since astrology proceeds from an essentially qualitative approach, it is difficult for it to be statistically represented insofar as the latter only accounts for quantifiable facts. This is also why astrology is so decried in scientific circles. However, the study and practice of astrology requires an important part of calculation, reasoning, logic and method in the interpretation of celestial figures, whether it is the birth chart or the other methods of investigation that Tradition has bequeathed to us.
Among the scientists who came to astrology to better combat it, many were convinced of its reality. Didn't Kepler write: "Twenty years of practical study have convinced my rebellious mind of the reality of astrology"? Since the time it was codified, astrology has sought neither to demonstrate nor to convince. It is enough to study its principles and to implement them with sincerity for this extraordinary phenomenon to occur: beyond the veil of observable reality appears another reality which is superimposed on the first and explains its intimate mechanisms.