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

101–110 of 340 posts

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

#101

Post by xupybd »

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…

As someone who does believe in God, it seems odd to get someone to swear on a book that tells you not to swear an oath at all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_5#Verse_12

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

#102

Post by Grustaf »

witx wrote: post #42
Grustaf wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

And why does it need to be compared to a religious belief? Why not just swearing on something impactful for him? It doesn't mean he is deifying Sagan. Why his he a clown again?

Because Carl Sagan can’t strike him down with a bolt of lightning or send him to hell, so it’s just an empty gesture. For a religious believer it isn’t.

Religious rituals are not just symbolic, they are real. Communion for example is not just a nice symbolic act, it’s as real as taking your medicine, and much more important if you’re Christian.

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

#103

Post by Technotroll »

shaftoe444 wrote: post #66
echelon wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My brain literally locks up when I read King James-style English. I wonder if AI can discover patterns in language or other signal domains that totally disrupt the modern brain and cause humans to crash. Biblical passages nearly do that to me, so I think that they must exist.

That's not King James that's a more modern translation. KJV: Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy…

I really like the use of the word "thine" here. In the Scandinavian languages it's translated to "din" (singular) or "dine" (plural) (with an ee sound like in leek, instead of ay like in fine dining). It means yours. In the Scandinavian languages "min" (also with ee pronunciation) means mine. So the thing can either be thine or mine. It's very familiar language to us Nordic types, albeit archaic.

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

#104

Post by callahad »

WJW wrote: post #77
qikInNdOutReply wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? 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.

Yes, that was my intent. If we're going to celebrate this choice, then we should also give the Director her due respect. :)

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

#105

Post by Grustaf »

dspillett wrote: post #93
Grustaf wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is not a source of mores, it’s about observing facts.

To the true believer a religious text is considered as factual as any scientific work, so that isn't really as much of a differentiating factor when you think about it from their PoV.

I’m not saying that religious texts are non-factual, I’m saying scientific texts have no moral implications, they ONLY lay out material facts.

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

#106

Post by Grustaf »

tigerlily wrote: post #98
Grustaf wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Placing your hand on a book and uttering words is the essence of being “superstitious”, at least if you aren’t religious.

In fairness, the act of it could equally be held superstitious even if one is religious.

Well, not if the words are aimed at your God.

In Christianity and many other religions it’s a very real thing to promise God you will do something, it’s not superstition.

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

#107

Post by rbanffy »

noirscape wrote: post #95
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…

The ultimate usefulness of swearing before a God (if you believe in one) isn't that relevant. The psychological reason we tend to request it is because of something far simpler: it reminds us of our convictions. There was a study about a decade ago about this by some social scientists. They made 10 people swear on the ten commandments before making a test intended to check for their honesty, they made another group o…

When I graduated as an Engineer, I swore an oath. I still remember one value that gets tested from time to time is to remember my work is for the betterment of the human condition, not only the perfection of machines. This has guided me through some difficult choices.

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

#108

Post by heresie-dabord »

boeingUH60 wrote: post #80

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.

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

This is a good test of the meaning of making a solemn promise of service.

My reaction to a pledge invoking the career and achievements of Steve Jobs might be to keep my investment in the operation while seeking employment elsewhere. But if you were to make your pledge of service while invoking Ayn Rand, I might not keep my investment in the operation either. ^_^

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

#109

Post by jpm_sd »

rbanffy wrote: post #107
noirscape wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ultimate usefulness of swearing before a God (if you believe in one) isn't that relevant. The psychological reason we tend to request it is because of something far simpler: it reminds us of our convictions. There was a study about a decade ago about this by some social scientists. They made 10 people swear on the ten commandments before making a test intended to check for their honesty, they made another group o…

When I graduated as an Engineer, I swore an oath. I still remember one value that gets tested from time to time is to remember my work is for the betterment of the human condition, not only the perfection of machines. This has guided me through some difficult choices.

What school did you graduate from? This is great.

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

#110

Post by yetihehe »

mnw21cam wrote: post #53
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 give meaning to things. Bible, Quran, etc have meaning only because people express that meaning. A fairly central part of the philosophy of quite a few religions is that there is a God who is quite capable of giving meaning to things independently of humans. Not everyone views these as "that's nice" documents. I mean, there's a bit in the Bible (1 Corinthians 15) that says that if the stuff in the Bible is a…

> A fairly central part of the philosophy of quite a few religions is that there is a God who is quite capable of giving meaning to things independently of humans.

I think it's like that with all religions. I'd like to speak a little with that god about some meanings.

> Not everyone views these as "that's nice" documents.

You say that those people give a meaning to those documents?

Addendum:

What I mean is that when there is no people who express some meaning, it ceases to exist. If there appeared a god before me to give me a new meaning for something, I would accept it as given from god. But none did so far, ALL meanings are currently expressed by people as far as I know.

Post reply on HN