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

331–340 of 340 posts

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

#331

Post by Technotroll »

timbit42 wrote: post #254
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.

The English in today's King James Bibles isn't even King James' English. It was originally written in King James' English in 1611 but was updated in 1769: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Standard_te... From Wikipedia: "The 1611 and 1769 texts of the first three verses from I Corinthians 13 are given below. [1611] 1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am becom…

Cool, so it ought to be Early Modern English akin to the language of Shakespeare then?

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

#332

Post by Jedd »

Technotroll wrote: post #330
Jedd wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... 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.

The context is how the teachings of Jesus could make it bearable also for atheists to "get behind" swearing on the the Bible. As such, perhaps it's better to swear on the New Testament. But as you say, The Golden Rule isn't a unique philosophical stance to Jesus. So, sure, perhaps some people should rather swear upon the Pabca-sila, or something equivalent. As for "self-evident social policy" I respectfully disagree.…

Weeellll ... the context is an evidently quite rational / science-driven human seemingly being obliged by regulation or tradition to swear on a physical object, subsequently choosing a piece of non-fiction written by one of the more well known astrophysicists, and then you suggested the golden rule was coined (according to third hand sources, I think?) by someone several centuries after we have prior art to the contrary. In HN parlance that'd be like an Apple apologist claiming Steve.J invented Unix. ; |

Anyway, it was the 'fundamental' bit I was asking about -- I wasn't sure if by that you meant originating there, or just an in passing teaching (which the NT pinched from existing religions / philosophies).

If I were an atheist on the fence, so to speak, I expect that I'd want something a bit better than 'not so bad after all' - but from my readings, the moral philosophy does feel like it falls short of godly, more's the pity.

I'll stand by self-evident, given the sentiment has originated in several places / cultures over the millennia. Happily deferring to Hitch on the wording (from god is not great)

"The so-called Golden Rule, sometimes needlessly identified with a folktale about the Babylonian Rabbi Hillel, simply enjoins us to treat others as one would wish to be treated by them. This sober and rational precept, which one can teach to any child with its innate sense of fairness (and which predates all Jesus’s “beatitudes” and parables), is well within the compass of any atheist and does not require masochism and hysteria, or sadism and hysteria, when it is breached. It is gradually learned, as part of the painfully slow evolution of the species, and once grasped is never forgotten. Ordinary conscience will do, without any heavenly wrath behind it."

As you observe, known thinkers - eg Kant - can provide some guiding insights:

"Kant’s principle enjoins us to “act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law.” In this summary of mutual interest and solidarity, there is no requirement for any enforcing or supernatural authority. And why should there be? Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."

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

#333

Post by Jedd »

jackothy wrote: post #239
Jedd wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... 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.

Well, sure, but my mostly abandoned personal blog has some good messages, similarly due to me pinching the wisdom from other people.

Attributing it all to me would be a tad disingenuous, though.

Like many others before me (here's a prime example) I believe that if a book has earnest instructions on how to manage your slaves, then you really do have to question the legitimacy of the work as a whole.

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

#334

Post by unixgoddess »

wffurr wrote: post #166
unixgoddess wrote: post #163

It's 2023 and people still believe that swearing on whatever book means anything... humans are so damn depressing.

Rituals can still have meaning even in 2023.

perhaps we should rather focus on meaningful actions, rather than empty showbusiness...

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

#335

Post by Technotroll »

Jedd wrote: post #332
Technotroll wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context is how the teachings of Jesus could make it bearable also for atheists to "get behind" swearing on the the Bible. As such, perhaps it's better to swear on the New Testament. But as you say, The Golden Rule isn't a unique philosophical stance to Jesus. So, sure, perhaps some people should rather swear upon the Pabca-sila, or something equivalent. As for "self-evident social policy" I respectfully disagree.…

Weeellll ... the context is an evidently quite rational / science-driven human seemingly being obliged by regulation or tradition to swear on a physical object, subsequently choosing a piece of non-fiction written by one of the more well known astrophysicists, and then you suggested the golden rule was coined (according to third hand sources, I think?) by someone several centuries after we have prior art to the contr…

Respectfully, the context of the post you replied to was that of getting behind the Bible as a book to swear upon by atheists, and even people of other religions. Or in the least that they use some book of moral philosophy, instead of a general book about some unrelated science. I mean, would you also swear on a book on algebra if you wanted to make an important and official oath?

Also, I never suggested that Jesus coined The Golden Rule. Please see the third sentence of the last post if you want to verify that. Jesus certainly never invented equal rights either, but he stood for those principles, and they are foundational within Christianity. There are many things to attack Christianity for, but that's not one of them.

Moreover, Christianity has one thing going for it that atheism (at least in its current form) can't, and that is a certain rigidity and dogmatism which pushes everyone in the same direction in a way that the relativist streak of atheism can never hope for.

Obviously, I think that's a positive trait of Christianity, as long as it isn't taken too far. Pun intended; Lord knows that it certainly has (been taken too far) in the past! But then let us hope they learned from it, instead of repeating the same overreach again. Yet again, kind of a tenet of Jesus (i.e. learning from past mistakes and not repeating them)...

But the fact that atheism is so relativistic is one of its weakest points, and the reason no atheist can agree on morality, or what is good either for the individual or society as a whole – and not even UPB! If atheism ever changes on this topic, I'm sure a lot more people will find it a worthy endeavour. But as it is, I doubt that it will get much traction for that very reason, and if not that, then certainly because religious customs and rituals are so much more fulfilling, if not outright dramatic and thought provoking.

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

#336

Post by jjk166 »

leroy-is-here wrote: post #327
jjk166 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unformalized ritual is an oxymoron. None of those examples are rituals. I mean if you want to call them rituals, go right ahead, but you're using a different definition of the word than everybody else, and the definition you are using is the one everyone else uses for habit.

I guarantee that you do rituals every single day because you prepare for them just like a ritual. A habit? Sure. A ritual, of course.

Ritual does not mean "thing you prepare to do." No one is arguing that rituals are not done regularly, but those specific sorts of things you are describing are not rituals.

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

#337

Post by leroy-is-here »

jjk166 wrote: post #336
leroy-is-here wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guarantee that you do rituals every single day because you prepare for them just like a ritual. A habit? Sure. A ritual, of course.

Ritual does not mean "thing you prepare to do." No one is arguing that rituals are not done regularly, but those specific sorts of things you are describing are not rituals.

A crucial aspect of ritual is preparation. I prepare to drive by adjusting all of my mirrors. A ritual is more than just a habit, it is a preparation for a specific habit. Again, I guarantee you do some kind of ritual in your day-to-day that, once understood, can be formalized for you.

I cannot know what that ritual looks like for you. But do you wanna know how I know you have one? Because I read a lot of old books that told me I had one too. How did someone 1500 years ago who couldn’t have even imagined me know these things about me and be right about them?

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

#338

Post by midasuni »

bender00 wrote: post #45
compmanager1234 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It all boils down to the person. Some are honest and keep their promises by default. Some make missteps every now and then, but remain truthful if they really try. And some are just broken beyond repair. I'm Christian and for me, taking an oath on the Bible is the biggest binding I can imagine. I hope Lystrup made her choice as that book is close to her heart and provides her great support to stay true to her oath. I…

I agree with you that it all boils down to the person, but only for the swearing on the Bible version. Swearing on Pale Blue Dot is meaningless, that is, she won't lose sleep thinking how she let down Carl Sagan lol.

I suspect she’ll lose more sleep for feeling she’d let down Sagan than letting down a fictional character. Maybe you’re different, and that’s fine.

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

#339

Post by Jedd »

Technotroll wrote: post #335
Jedd wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weeellll ... the context is an evidently quite rational / science-driven human seemingly being obliged by regulation or tradition to swear on a physical object, subsequently choosing a piece of non-fiction written by one of the more well known astrophysicists, and then you suggested the golden rule was coined (according to third hand sources, I think?) by someone several centuries after we have prior art to the contr…

Respectfully, the context of the post you replied to was that of getting behind the Bible as a book to swear upon by atheists, and even people of other religions. Or in the least that they use some book of moral philosophy, instead of a general book about some unrelated science. I mean, would you also swear on a book on algebra if you wanted to make an important and official oath? Also, I never suggested that Jesus c…

> [christianity ...] rigidity and dogmatism which pushes everyone in the same direction in a way that the relativist streak of atheism can never hope for.

This is a pretty incredulous assertion to make - given the existence of six broadly recognised and highly divergent branches, but more so the tens of thousands of sects worldwide, that would all claim to hide under the 'christianity' umbrella.

How does their very existence, let alone the myriad famously violent contra-examples to 'let's all push in the same direction' (let's pick Ireland as just one example among many) reconcile with this claim?

You mentioned relativism twice, as a point against anti-theism, but don't seem to accept it's rampant within every religion (AFAIK) but certainly every christian denomination.

I'm referring to the way practitioners will select and abide by only the teachings they agree with, and happily discard the ones they don't. The very definition of relativism, yes?

Claims that atheists can't agree on morality are hard to argue against, but I posit they're even harder - for you - to substantiate. All research I've seen suggests that in general atheists express higher empathy, understanding, tolerance to the rest of the world (not just their clique, as we tend to see with religious in-groups).

I'd suggest, returning to where we came in, the ethic of reciprocity - or rather than negation - don't do things to other people that you wouldn't want them doing to you - would be fairly widely accepted by non-theists the world over as a starting point. From there you can draw out a fairly robust moral framework, without needing to invoke the supernatural.

This is extra fortunate for me, as I wouldn't want to have to choose between a purported moral code, and giving up my mixed-fabric clothing.

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

#340

Post by altacc »

angelbar wrote: post #322
altacc wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I gained citizenship of a highly religious country I had to swear an oath with my hand on a cross, with silver Jesus attached. I asked if there was an atheist option and the the answer was basically "No, we have enough faith to know that God will punish you for lying."

Great... no danger from being prosecuted for anything in that country... Jesus will take charge of that...

Well, it also happens to be an incredibly corrupt country with inadequate policing and government, so "let God deal with it" pretty much sums up the approach to everything.
Post reply on HN