Absolutely. I recommended Richard Tarnas specifically because that the exact path he took. From page 62–69 of Cosmos and Psyche:

“Like most products of a modern education, I myself long viewed any form of astrology with automatic skepticism. Eventually, however, influenced not only by Jung’s example but also by a number of colleagues whose intellectual judgment I had reason to trust, I came to think that some essence of the astrological thesis might be worth investigating. Several factors contributed to my interest. Once I moved past the usual disparagements of the conventional accounts, I noticed that the history of astrology contained certain remarkable features. It seemed curious to me that the historical periods during which astrology flourished in the West — classical Greek and Roman antiquity, the Hellenistic era in Alexandria, the High Middle Ages, the Italian Renaissance, the Elizabethan age in England, the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries in Europe generally — all happened to be eras in which intellectual and cultural creativity was unusually luminous. The same could be said of astrology’s prominence during the centuries in which science and culture were at their height in the Islamic world, and so too in India. I thought it curious as well that astrology has provided the principal foundation for the earliest development of science itself, in the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, and that its intimate bond with astronomy had played a significant role in the evolution of Western cosmology for two thousand years, from its Greek origins through the pivotal period of the Copernican revolution. I was also impressed by the high intellectual caliber of those philosophers, scientists, and writers who in one form or another had supported the astrological thesis, a group that to my surprise turned out to include many of the greatest figures of Western thought: Plato and Aristotle, Hipparchus and Ptolemy, Plotinus and Proclus, Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, Dante, Ficino, Kepler, Goethe, Yeats, Jung.

…

But what especially stimulated and, in the end, compelled my reconsideration of astrology was, as in Jung’s case, the unexpected results of research I myself decided to undertake. I believe now that only this direct encounter with empirical data that one has personally investigated can effectively serve to overcome the extreme resistance that virtually every person educated within the modern context must initially experience toward astrology. Despite the parallels with other emerging theories and perspectives just mentioned, and despite its perhaps noble ancient lineage, astrology has far too long represented the very antithesis of modern thought and cosmology to permit most educated individuals today to approach astrology effectively in any other way. Of all ‘new paradigm’ perspectives and theories, astrology is the most uncomfortably beyond the prevailing paradigm boundary line, the most likely to evoke immediate scorn and derision, the most apt to be known more through its caricature in popular media than through its serious research, journals, and scholarship. Above all, astrology is that perspective which most directly contradicts the long-established disenchanted and decentered cosmology that encompasses virtually all modern and postmodern experience. It posits an intrinsically meaning-permeated cosmos that in some sense is focused on the Earth, even on the individual human being, as a nexus of that meaning. Such a conception of the universe uniquely controverts the most fundamental assumptions of the modern mind.

For just this reason, astrology has long been uncompromisingly opposed, often with vehement intensity, by most contemporary scientists. As they frequently point out, if astrology were valid in any sense, the very foundations of the modern world view would be placed in question. Its inherent absurdity has been regarded as so self-evident as to be beyond discussion: Astrology is the last lingering vestige of primitive animism, a strangely enduring affront to the objective rationality of the modern mind.

These are formidable obstacles confronting anyone considering this perspective and method of inquiry. Yet human knowledge constantly evolves and changes, sometimes in quite unexpected ways. What is unequivocally rejected in one age may be dramatically reclaimed in another, as happened when the ancient heliocentric hypothesis of Aristarchus, long ignored by scientific authorities as valueless and absurd, was resurrected and vindicated by Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. Widespread or even universal conviction at any given moment has never been a reliable indication of truth or falsity of an idea. I could not dogmatically rule out the possibility that there was more to astrology than the modern mind had assumed.

…

Many critics will of course object to the entire project of this book. Anything astrological, they will say, must be both simplistic and absurd. Having once held that opinion myself, I now believe that such an indiscriminate rejection is virtually always based on personal and cultural prejudice rather than conscientious inquiry. I can sympathize with such a prejudice, and I appreciate its background. For myself, however, a sustained examination of the evidence has been decisive.”