I think the whole purpose of the ritual is shared solemnity. Laying aside Matthew 5:34-37, using the Bible fits in the context of Western civilization. Likewise, using nothing and merely affirming fits as well. But by its very nature bringing in any book or other item because it has "meaning" to you doesn't fit. It violates shared solemnity by the individualist nature of the act and opens the ritual to trivialization. What's next, someone's Teddy Bear?
New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible
231–240 of 340 posts
Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible
#232This discussion is fascinating, anthropologically speaking. Some observations: * Many commenters seem to be holding to this weird idea that if you don't believe God will smite you, you will not be able to behave responsibly, give your word in a trustworthy manner, etc. If there's not a supernatural enforcer then there are no consequences to lying/breaking your oath. Interestingly, it looks to me that even atheists ar…
The Princess Alice experiments imply superstition would have a practical role in a society where (lacking CCTV and other modern technology to supervise) it's important that people do what they're supposed to without actual oversight:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21377689/
Children in that study are markedly less likely to "cheat" in a task if they believe they are being supervised. This can happen because an actual adult supervises them, or because they believe (as they were told) that an invisible person "Princess Alice" is supervising them.
Sceptical children confirmed Princess Alice wasn't real behaviourally, that is, they'd verify that she just doesn't exist by passing their hand through the space supposedly occupied by Alice, having done so they would cheat at the same rate as unsupervised children. If you remove those children from the results, Alice and an actual supervising adult are equally effective in deterring cheating.
Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible
#233This discussion is fascinating, anthropologically speaking. Some observations: * Many commenters seem to be holding to this weird idea that if you don't believe God will smite you, you will not be able to behave responsibly, give your word in a trustworthy manner, etc. If there's not a supernatural enforcer then there are no consequences to lying/breaking your oath. Interestingly, it looks to me that even atheists ar…
I come from a country where the majority of people count themselves as non religious. As atheism became a mainstream opinion in the 1980s a "solemn pledge" was introduced into the Constitution as an alternative to swearing on the Bible.
Keeping Christianity around as some hollow ritual handed down by our ancestors seems to me much more insulting to true believers.
Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible
#234This discussion is fascinating, anthropologically speaking. Some observations: * Many commenters seem to be holding to this weird idea that if you don't believe God will smite you, you will not be able to behave responsibly, give your word in a trustworthy manner, etc. If there's not a supernatural enforcer then there are no consequences to lying/breaking your oath. Interestingly, it looks to me that even atheists ar…
> Many commenters seem to be holding to this weird idea that if you don't believe God will smite you, you will not be able to behave responsibly
If anyone actually believed that a god would smite them, or in hell or any of that stuff, they would behave very differently. It's stupidly easy to find "Christians" who completely disregard any teachings of Jesus. It's stupidly easy to find Muslims who drink alcohol, including (or perhaps mainly) those from Muslim countries. It's stupidly easy to find Jews who flagrantly break the rules the second someone discovers the smallest loophole.
I see only two possibilities: either they live every day in conflict knowing what they are doing is wrong but they don't have the will to make the necessary changes, or they simply don't believe. I am sure there are many in the former category (I was a carnivore for many years but knew I needed to stop so I know it's possible), but I believe most are in the latter.
Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible
#235I think the whole purpose of the ritual is shared solemnity. Laying aside Matthew 5:34-37, using the Bible fits in the context of Western civilization. Likewise, using nothing and merely affirming fits as well. But by its very nature bringing in any book or other item because it has "meaning" to you doesn't fit. It violates shared solemnity by the individualist nature of the act and opens the ritual to trivialization…
I'm one among many (a majority?) of people who don't find anything about the NASA director sweating an oath particularly "solemn." You might find that your "shared solemnity" isn't so shared if you asked around.
Besides: solemnity isn't particularly bound to an object; the ritual seems more important. It wouldn't detract from your experience to not realize that I had preserved the bible's cover but replaced the pages with a hot-rodding magazine.
Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible
#236Is 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…
It only "comes apart at the seams" for people that believe there is some ambient authority, which then becomes less powerful or disinterested due to not being involved with the oath.
The secular view is that the person swearing is pointing to a symbol and promising to uphold the values it represents, regardless of whether that symbol represents a traditional organized religion or not.
Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Believing that there is a god to promise something to is the definition of superstition.
No, that’s not what the word means. Religion and superstition are different concepts. This is a linguistic fact, regardless of your personal beliefs.
> Religion and superstition are different concepts.
Please point to the part in my original response where I said religion and superstition are the same concept.
I said believing in a god is superstition. Which it is.
Superstition (n): A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible
#238I think the whole purpose of the ritual is shared solemnity. Laying aside Matthew 5:34-37, using the Bible fits in the context of Western civilization. Likewise, using nothing and merely affirming fits as well. But by its very nature bringing in any book or other item because it has "meaning" to you doesn't fit. It violates shared solemnity by the individualist nature of the act and opens the ritual to trivialization…
I don’t want anything to do with the Bible, thanks.
Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think the main point is that the Bible can have some good messages. Whether or not the Christians were the inventors of those messages does not change that fact.
Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm saying it's mostly performative. I can't denigrate something that actually doesn't exist.
You said, “the Skygod that the Christians pretend to worship on Sundays”. This comment is uncivil and does not belong here. That behavior is not acceptable and please do not behave this way in the future. To be clear, the comment denigrates Christians, by (among other things) saying that they pretend to worship.
If you don't call out the hypocrites, how would they ever know they are wrong? Did I cast them in a negative light? Yes. Do they ever read that book of theirs? No.
Once in a while you see a shining example of compassion and generosity born from church activities like this one: https://twitter.com/MorePerfectUS/status/1645867657697153046
That's the true Christian faith at work. Sadly it's the exception.