Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 340 posts

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#71

Post by nonethewiser »

s1mplicissimus wrote: post #39
nonethewiser wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the point of swearing to a document to signal your values? Isn’t it to make a promise to a higher power? If it’s not to make a promise to a higher power, and I’m not necessarily arguing this should be required, then there isn’t really a point.

i would argue that the (almost exclusive) point of swearing something publicly is to signal your values. otherwise why not just swear it to yourself?

That’s an interesting point. It certainly signals that you made a commitment. So in that sense it’s a social promise in addition to potentially being a promise to one’s higher power. It could also be used to signal religious values but that comes down to intent of the individual and seems secondary to the main purpose of making the oath to (ideally) increase integrity.

But I still don’t think making a promise to some set of values that is not believed to have the capacity to enforce them makes much sense. Christians aren’t swearing an oath to Christian values - they are swearing to God. Obviously not everyone is religious, but that’s exactly why it doesn’t make sense to sub in some non religious belief in its place.

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#72

Post by WJW »

tescocles wrote: post #29
highwaylights wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To follow your argument here, perhaps the person in question believes the Pale Blue Dot to be more meaningful than a legal document. I certainly do - it’s a wonderful book that absolutely captures Carl Sagan’s sense of wonder for the universe, which to me seems like exactly what you should want from a NASA director. Most importantly, it also sends a strong message to the staff within NASA about how the new director v…

I mean, yes, it is a very impactful book; I enjoyed it very much. What I'm meaning, though, is that if you were to go against your duty as the head of NASA, Carl Sagan isn't going to rise from the grave and smite you for your transgression. Whereas I believe that is exactly the point of swearing over a bible. I'm not meaning to say it's meaningless to swear over an important book (or that it doesn't make some kind of…

God is not going to smite you for oath-breaking either though. What matters is that you keep your promise to (in this case) society, not whether you swear it on any book in particular. If the law requires the promise to be sworn over a book because the lawmakers at the time were religionists, you might as well choose a book you think represents your values.

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#73

Post by pigsty »

nonethewiser wrote: post #22
highwaylights wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To follow your argument here, perhaps the person in question believes the Pale Blue Dot to be more meaningful than a legal document. I certainly do - it’s a wonderful book that absolutely captures Carl Sagan’s sense of wonder for the universe, which to me seems like exactly what you should want from a NASA director. Most importantly, it also sends a strong message to the staff within NASA about how the new director v…

But what does meaning have to do with it? Your marriage certificate and car title have meaning. But if the people being sworn in don’t view their documents as having some authority over their promise then what is the point? It’s equivalent to no document in that regard. It really doesnt make much sense unless you’re using a Bible, Quran, etc. Edit: Here is the crux: God holds you accountable, or at least is believed…

A person who doesn’t believe in religion being sworn in on a religious book is probably just annoyed. They’re not going to feel loyal to it.

Sworn statements as a whole are just entirely symbolic and don’t really guarantee loyalty or honesty, but if someone who doesn’t believe rejects a religious text that they disbelieve and instead choose something that has meaning and value to them, it’s better in the symbolic sense. A scientist swearing in on a scientific text that’s meaningful to them and that also addresses human morality makes as much sense and symbolically reflects their devotion to their mission as a Bible to a devout Christian.

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#75

Post by seanhunter »

quitit wrote: post #62
tescocles wrote: post #9

Is there any actual strict requirement that you have to swear over a document of some kind? I'd have thought swearing over the bible is a stand-in for swearing "before God", and that God would ultimately be your reckoner should you break your oath. If you don't have that meaning behind the oath, what is the point in using a book at all unless it's something meaningful like the constitution of your country, as another…

This article by the New Yorker gets to the meat of your question within the first few paragraphs: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-brief-history-... Since swearing in on a document has no official requirement, the idea is to telegraph your values.

Yes.

Fun fact about swearing on things: There is a widely-held but probably untrue belief that the origin of the words "testify", "testimony" etc was that in ancient Rome you swore an oath with one hand on your testicles, I guess the implication being "If I don't tell the truth you can cut these off". Women weren't allowed to give legal testimony so the fact they wouldn't be able to do this isn't a drawback to this theory. This is probably a myth because there's no written evidence of this particular form of oath being taken in Rome and the word for "witness" is "testis". "Testicle" actually derives from the diminutive of this word (rather than the other way around).[1]

The origin of this myth seems to be a biblical passage in which such an oath was taken.

[1] https://worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-swe1.htm

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#76

Post by yetihehe »

nonethewiser wrote: post #46
yetihehe wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People give meaning to things. Bible, Quran, etc have meaning only because people express that meaning. > But if the people being sworn in don’t view their documents as having some authority over their promise then what is the point? The point is that swearing on a "Pale blue dot" is exactly expression of submitting to authority of that book.

People believe different things about the Bible. She me people think swearing on it is making a promise to God. Does the person swearing on Sagans book think Sagan is going to hold them accountable to a broken promise?

Yes, I think it's equivalent and Sagan will held them as accountable as your chosen god. For "the person", you can just ask directly.

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#77

Post by WJW »

qikInNdOutReply wrote: post #19
callahad wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it would be uniquely challenging for the director to do his duty or to blind himself, being that she's a woman. And, as mentioned in the article's subtitle and second sentence, the first woman to direct the Goddard Space Flight Center since its founding in 1959.

? What has gender to with anything in this regard? I grew up in a cult, the fiercest and deepest believers were all woman, often pushing some married hapeless guy around as a "dog on a leash" to bite and bark for them..

I think the point was that a woman cannot blind "him"-self but rather blinds "her"-self. It was a comment on language, not about which gender can be more or less fierce in their beliefs.

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#78

Post by pohl »

sourcecodeplz wrote: post #33

I don't get it. The point on swearing on the bible is that God (karma, the universe, a higher power) will judge/punish you if you act evil. This is just silly / virtue signaling.

Swearing on a bible is the ur signal of virtue

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#79

Post by seanhunter »

skissane wrote: post #24
tescocles wrote: post #9

Is there any actual strict requirement that you have to swear over a document of some kind? I'd have thought swearing over the bible is a stand-in for swearing "before God", and that God would ultimately be your reckoner should you break your oath. If you don't have that meaning behind the oath, what is the point in using a book at all unless it's something meaningful like the constitution of your country, as another…

Traditionally there is a distinction between an oath and an affirmation Swearing an oath was a religious ritual – a solemn promise made invoking the name of the deity, with the implication that any violation of the promise would be risking divine judgement, quite apart from whatever earthly consequences might follow (e.g. criminal prosecution for perjury) Then along came the Quakers, who objected to oaths on religiou…

This oath vs affirmation distinction is made clear in the UK for sure. For example when I became a British citizen I was given the option of swearing allegiance to the queen or making a "solemn affirmation" of the same. The only difference being a slight difference of wording. Weirdly I still remember the wording even though it was more than 30 years ago and I only heard it once just before I said it.

   > I, Sean Hunter, do hereby swear by Almighty God/solemnly affirm that I wil bear faithful and true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the second, her heirs and successors according to the law.

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#80

Post by boeingUH60 »

I don’t think this is a big deal. Swearing in is pointless anyway…I can swear on a religious book and go do the opposite of what it says. The ultimate source of consequence is the constitution, laws, and regulations.

Maybe I’ll swear on the biography of Steve Jobs if I’m appointed.

Post reply on HN