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

141–150 of 340 posts

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

#141

Post by nonethewiser »

WJW wrote: post #100
rob74 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well no, God apparently hasn't done that since the Old Testament, but some Christians certainly do believe that breaking an oath you swore on the Bible will have certain repercussions for you in the afterlife...

And apparently the new NASA director is not a Christian, so what that group believes is not so relevant to this discussion.

I don’t think you’re following the argument, which is that swearing an oath over something like Sagans book doesn’t mean as much because the person making the oath doesn’t believe Sagan will hold them accountable.

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

#142

Post by foobarbecue »

This title (and the original article title) makes it sound like she will lead NASA, but actually she's leading Goddard Spaceflight Center, one of the 19 NASA Centers. (NASA leader is called the Administrator, center leader is a Director.)

Awesome news though; I love it.

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

#143

Post by baryphonic »

Jedd wrote: post #135
mensetmanusman wrote: post #134

What’s interesting is that many theologians believe swearing to God in public this way actually breaks the third commandment. Interesting quirks of Protestant culture in America.

> What’s interesting is that many theologians believe swearing to God in public this way actually breaks the third commandment. I'm curious how that may break "Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you." ?

The third commandment of the Ten Commandments.

The trouble is, there are two possibilities for this commandment: do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, or remember the sabbath day by keeping it holy. Pretty clear which is meant here, but the numbering of the Ten Commandments is controversial.

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

#144

Post by azernik »

inglor_cz wrote: post #89
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…

Oaths tend to be sworn to people with a deity as a guarantor and with the understanding that the invoked deity will punish you accordingly if you break your oath. Without the "deity as a guarantor" element, the oath becomes a bit weird. The substitution of, say, the US government for the deity would probably work in the narrow sense (the government will, after all, probably retribute painfully if you break your oath…

Though there is, as I commented there, in which the "on penalty of perjury" construction very closely mirrors the original religious structure, with punishment by the state taking the place of punishment by God or the gods. Interestingly, lots of states require the "on penalty of perjury" only in cases where a religious oath is not being made.

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

#145

Post by gaius_baltar »

boredhedgehog wrote: post #23

Swearing an oath on a book in which the main protagonist counsels against swearing any oaths always seems a bit awkward.

> Swearing an oath on a book in which the main protagonist counsels against swearing any oaths always seems a bit awkward.

Or a pretty good message if you are legally required to swear on a book.

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

#146

Post by pclmulqdq »

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…

It doesn't have to be a document, but I think it does need to be a thing. For example, most courthouses have an eagle feather you can swear oaths on if you want (several native American tribes do this).

I think you can also "affirm" instead of "swearing an oath," and that avoids any need for an object.

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

#147

Post by Jedd »

Technotroll wrote: post #129
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.

The ultimate source of consequence is your own conscience, though sadly some people don't have one. But some people who otherwise lack a conscience might still be fearful of God, and so that's why the Bible was seen as a great document to make people swear upon, once upon a time. Though, while the fear of punishment might trump your inclination to do evil, it does not really make you a fundamentally better person. So…

> ... his fundamental ideas about The Golden Rule (i.e. that you should treat others as you would like to be treated yourself),

Would you clarify the fundamental phrasing please?

The Golden Rule existed long before the Jesus mythology was created - I gather Buddha and Confucius (ostensibly original attribution lands to him) were describing this fairly self-evident social policy several centuries BCE.

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

#148

Post by nonethewiser »

konschubert wrote: post #99
tescocles wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you don't believe in God, there is no difference between the Bible and any other book. You then choose whatever you value.

But do believe that the book you value will hold you accountable for breaking the oath?

That’s the point - that a non religious oath is emptier gesture because you don’t expect the thing you’re swearing on to hold you accountable.

The point is not that she shouldn’t be able to swear on Sagans book. Or that it doesn’t have meaning to her. Just that there are inherently religious roots to these oaths and when you remove them the oath makes less sense.

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

#149

Post by gobrewers14 »

leeroyjenkins11 wrote: post #121
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is silly is that laicism is still not a thing in US government in 2023. Your founding fathers actually wanted a government without religion. Nobody is telling you to not hold your beliefs, just don't impose them on others. > The point on swearing on the bible is that God (karma, the universe, a higher power) will judge/punish you if you act evil Humans can swear and have morals and ethics without fear of punishm…

No, they wanted a federal government without a state religion. Like the church of England. The founders saw it necessary that people have a religious based moral system. The same system and values that they based the government on. The premise all men are created equal relies on religion to be true. Inalienable rights is a judao Christian idea. Try arriving there with reason. Otherwise the will to power is exploitati…

>The founders saw it necessary that people have a religious based moral system. The same system and values that they based the government on.

In the system of government they created women were not able to participate in the body politic and slavery was legal. The suppression of women in society and slavery are both endorsed in the bible. Being superstitious has nothing to do with morality or ethics.

> The premise all men are created equal relies on religion to be true. Inalienable rights is a judao Christian idea.

This is demonstrably false. Christianity had 17 centuries before the French Revolution to setup a system of government based on these ideas but instead was aligned with Monarchy and Feudalism. Equality and inalienable rights are Enlightenment ideas.

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

#150

Post by Jedd »

baryphonic wrote: post #143
Jedd wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What’s interesting is that many theologians believe swearing to God in public this way actually breaks the third commandment. I'm curious how that may break "Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you." ?

The third commandment of the Ten Commandments. The trouble is, there are two possibilities for this commandment: do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, or remember the sabbath day by keeping it holy. Pretty clear which is meant here, but the numbering of the Ten Commandments is controversial.

Well, yes, there's obviously some confusion and ambiguity there.

Exodus has a couple of sets, but that one I cited is the third one from 34.

If you're constrained to the OT then it's tricky, as the NT suggests JC only mentioned 5 or 6 and they were also poorly enumerated and conflicting.

Worse, those were of course third- (or more) hand accounts of what JC may have actually claimed.

I'm not sure if the whole 'mixed fabric, shellfish are okay, etc' covenants that were undone in the NT included week-long unleavened bread obligations, or how else they may have adjusted the intent around interpreting the several conflicting sets of commandments from the OT.

So I can definitely understand why Makenzie chose a Sagan book -- much more clarity, much less ambiguity.

Post reply on HN