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

271–280 of 340 posts

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

#271

Post by thomastjeffery »

kaitai wrote: post #177

This 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…

> 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 are endorsing this false idea here!

> many folks swear on the Bible out of convention or lack of critical thought, rather than belief, but will rationalize if pressed

You have contradicted yourself here. When someone asks why you swore on the Bible, you tell them the surrounding context, which is a story. You don't need to believe a story to appreciate it, or to continue its tradition. That's what symbolism is all about.

> Amusingly, some really Bible-believing folks will not swear, on a Bible or on anything else, due to Matthew 5:34-37. This intellectual consistency is lost of course when we reduce swearing on the Bible to either convention or magic.

The Bible is infamous for being logically inconsistent. It contradicts itself at every turn.

The result is not that humans are unable to use it to back their opinions! Quite the opposite: nearly any arbitrary opinion can be found to have biblical support.

Of course, religious belief is based on the circular conclusion that arbitrary morals come from The Bible itself, and not from the people reading it. That belief doesn't break the system. Instead, humans simply live with the conflicted ambiguity: it's called "cognitive dissonance".

This is the power of natural language at work: ambiguity. It allows us to hear, express, and manipulate ideas that are not logically sound. Symbols can be explicit and literal, or implicit and symbolic.

Just like GPT is claimed to have "features" and "limitations", the ambiguity of language is a double edged sword. The good news is that we know about it. We are able to objectively recognize the difference between explicit definition and inference. We are able to recognize logical fallacies and their implications. We are able to use science and reason to literally reach new horizons.

And that is why I can see someone "swear on" this book, and feel that I would do the same. It's a beautiful symbol, and a thought-provoking response to a tradition that I, like you, am generally quick to criticize.

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

#272

Post by JohnFen »

nonethewiser wrote: post #148
konschubert wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 remov…

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

If you're of the mindset that the value of an oath is that an external force will hold you accountable to it, then I think the nonreligious oath is a more powerful one, because the people you're making the oath to will hold you accountable in the here and now, not some ephemeral being at some point after you die.

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

#273

Post by vidanay »

weinzierl wrote: post #192
neom wrote: post #3

"While many officeholders across the country have placed their hands on books by Dr Suess, the US Constitution, copies of the Quran or other documents, this seems to be the first time someone was sworn in on a book by Sagan." This caught my attention, wondering who got sworn in on a Dr. Suess book?? "A newly elected single mother of two wanted her kids to walk away from her swearing-in with an empowering message. So…

If I can swear on any document I'd prefer an issue of MAD magazine. That would do more justice to the absurdity of the matter.

RIP Al Jaffee

https://apnews.com/article/al-jafee-mad-magazine-cartoonist-...

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

#274

Post by JohnFen »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #146
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.

Why does there need to be a thing?

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

#275

Post by gobrewers14 »

hajile wrote: post #257
gobrewers14 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This definition confuses cause and effect. A person believes something that results in superstition. This definition states that superstition creates itself rather than being the result of external factors. As a finer point, laws of nature could themselves be superstition. Godel's incompleteness theorem proves that we cannot prove all the laws in the universe. As such, we assert a truth that we know we cannot prove t…

> A person believes something that results in superstition. This definition states that superstition creates itself.

This is nonsense. Nothing is "created" when someone says something superstitious. There is no cause and effect. Supernatural entities/realms either exits or they do not. And there is zero evidence they do. Whether or not they actually do doesn't matter, it is rational to not believe in them until someone presents evidence for their existence.

> Godel's incompleteness theorem proves that we cannot prove all the laws in the universe

His theorem says no such thing. It simply makes a statement about the trade-off between the consistency of axiomatic systems and the provability of truth statements. I could easily just argue the universe is a system with inconsistent axioms where every law can be proved.

> we know conclusively that recent discoveries (eg, James Webb showing unexpected galaxy sizes) show that much of our current "laws of nature" are definitely in conflict with reality

This is called science. We collect evidence. We develop approximations of reality that best conform to this evidence. We collect new evidence. We refine our approximations.

> so many theoretical physicists are "simulationists" where they believe the universe is a simulation where the creators can exert complete control

I don't care what "so many theoretical physicists" believe. I care what they publish in peer-reviewed literature.

> Perhaps humans are simply hardwired for religion.

Perhaps humans are hardwired to make spears and kill each other or hunt and gather. That doesn't mean we should be doing that in 2023.

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

#276

Post by mariodiana »

woodruffw wrote: post #235
mariodiana wrote: post #231

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…

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…

An object has the potential to undermine the solemnity of a ritual. As to your hot-rodding example, there is no supernatural power I'm referring to, merely perception.

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

#277

Post by gobrewers14 »

Grustaf wrote: post #268
gobrewers14 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Sure, you can use superstition as a slur for things you don’t believe in. But if you want to use the word in its scientific meaning, then Christianity, or Islam or whatever religion, is not a superstition.

You're not the gatekeeper of words. Christianity and Islam are both superstitions.

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

#278

Post by Beltiras »

klodolph wrote: post #261
Beltiras wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your comment seems to be based on some kind of misconception about what religion is. Like, you seem to base your comments on the idea that the Christian bible is the sole foundation for Christian beliefs and practices. There are two problems with that—it’s not true in the first place, and even if it were true, it is not straightforward to interpret the bible. If you are unwilling to put in the effort to learn what Ch…

Born raised and confirmed in Lutheran Christianity. Go project on someone else.

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

#279

Post by Grustaf »

gobrewers14 wrote: post #277
Grustaf wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you can use superstition as a slur for things you don’t believe in. But if you want to use the word in its scientific meaning, then Christianity, or Islam or whatever religion, is not a superstition.

You're not the gatekeeper of words. Christianity and Islam are both superstitions.

I’m not dictating what the word means, I’m just informing you since you don’t seem aware.

Things don’t become superstitions just because you don’t believe in them.

Just like there are well defined differences between myths, fairy tales, sagas etc.

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

#280

Post by greenhearth »

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.

Swearing is not pointless, but serves a ritualistic role. It has been used as a psychological mechanism that shaped societies and history. And it still does so, as evident in this article. Swearing an oath is a contractual ritual and is the basis for all lawgiving in the English language. It was used as a binding contract between kings and their subjects (you can look up the Salisbury Oath for just the tip of the iceberg on this topic.)
Post reply on HN