7 ms·

Anyone know why there seem to have been some sort of politician reading from seemingly the bible (or similar religious textbook) and how that's relevant to a sp

Anyone know why there seem to have been some sort of politician reading from seemingly the bible (or similar religious textbook) and how that's relevant to a space mission? Seems wildly out of place from the usually grounded NASA and ESA. Edit: The person in question seems to have been Bill Nelson, former United States senator but now NASA administrator, the highest ranked official in NASA. Which makes this whole thing even more weird, should that person strictly be a person of science, not religion? Edit2: Seems stream is over now, here is the exact timestamp for the speech/reading: https://youtu.be/7nT7JGZMbtM?t=7222 https://youtu.be/7nT7JGZMbtM?t=7222

sschueller 5y ago
Also seems quite nationalistic after what was broadcast before that. As a European quite unappealing.
- mulmen 5y ago
  If it’s worth anything I am American and also find it unappealing.
- keewee7 5y ago
  - mulmen 5y ago
    - syshum 5y ago
      I am American taxpayer, NOT a Christian or any other popular religion, I would appreciate people allowing others to express their religion as they see fit, That is American... The fact this guy is being blasted because of his religion is not American at all. The freedom from religion atheists are more annoying these days than the evangelicals
      - mulmen 5y ago
        Wrong. keewee7 assumed all Americans are Christian. This is absolutely not true. Freedom of religion has nothing to do with it. Believe whatever you want, just don’t drag my name through the mud.
        syshum 5y ago
        Wrong. keewee7 stated the Christian Americans Taxpayers paid for 80% of the program, turns out keewee7 is only slightly off, and as Christian American Taxpayers only paid for about 63%
        mulmen 5y ago
        The 80% number is based on US taxpayer funding. For that to be true all Americans would have to be Christian, which they aren’t. This was my objection. The difference between all Americans being Christian and some or even most of them being Christian is not “slight”. 80% and 63% are not close by any measure. Qualifying the original statement with religious affiliation still ignores the fact that tax dollars are not paid with religious affiliation in mind and JWST has no (official) religious meaning. Further calling out American Christians but ignoring the Canadian and European Christians further distorts the 63% number. This entire thread has been a textbook example of lying with statistics. Even if you manage to get them right the numbers don’t justify the message.
  - geenew 5y ago
    Well, at some point in the past Denmark was changeable and was changed, so there is no reason to think that at present other places are changeable and will be changed in a similar way. Merry grav-mass!
  - dwaltrip 5y ago
    I think it’s down to around 50%, according to the latest surveys.
    - keewee7 5y ago
      These numbers are from Wikipedia. I don't know how reliable they are: NASA: 8,800m ESA : 850m CSA : 200m ------------ All : 9,850m
      - mulmen 5y ago
        syshum 5y ago
        mulmen 5y ago
        I still disagree with the argument that the religious affiliation of those taxpayers deserves a specific callout rather than any other characteristic. I also disagree with the initial characterization that all Americans are Christian. Or that Christian messaging is somehow “American”. It isn’t. It is a harmful stereotype. JWST is not about religion. Defending the directors poor choice of message with religious statistics reduces both American Christians and Americans in general to oversimplified caricatures. Christianity and the JWST have nothing to do with each other. To claim otherwise is insulting to both Americans and any contributors to the JWST, including the international community. Saying JWST is funded 63% by Christians is false anyway, the other contributors also have some amount of Christian affiliation. Further, why choose the religious angle? Why not say it was half funded by women? Or by some ethnicity? Any way you apply these statistics is going to be insulting because they are irrelevant. This is why the directors messaging is problematic.
        syshum 5y ago
        >>It isn’t. It is a harmful stereotype. I dont see it has either a stereotype, nor harmful to acknowledge Christians in our society, or their contribution. In fact pretending they do not exist is IMO more harmful >JWST is not about religion I dont believe anyone claimed it was, nor did the NASA director. What you are attempting to do however is exclude any mentions of religion from the topic, I would not want to make JWST about religion, but I also have no desire to pretend religion does not exist, nor am I so fragile in my beliefs that someone else expressing theirs causes me consternation or an identity crisis like it seems to have done with you. I recognize that it likely people of all religions have worked on some part of the JWST, I recognize that the current director of NASA is a christian, I can separate these thing in my mind, and believe that the director of NASA acknowledging his own religion in public does not paint either NASA nor the JWST program as "christian" >>Christianity and the JWST have nothing to do with each other. and this is where I believe you are wrong to a limited extent, in that religion is a part of the people that worked on JWST, all religions. As such all religions are a part of JWST just as people that do not believe in religion are a part of JWST. Denying this is to deny reality >>Saying JWST is funded 63% by Christians is false anyway, the other contributors also have some amount of Christian affiliation. Now you have moved the goal posts, I suspect because you know the foundation of our argumentation is sand that is quickly disappearing out from under you The statement was limited to American's for which you took offense to what you believed was a statement implying all Americans where Christian, I then clarified the % of funding that could be attributed to American Christians, now you want to move the goal posts to talk about world wide christian contributions. I could do the math if you would like? not sure why that matters but... >> Further, why choose the religious angle? I did not choose it, I simply interjected facts into the conversation. I also interjected an opposing Agnostic position to that of Freedom From Religion Atheists that I have grown tired of over the years, something that has caused me to reject the label of "atheist" to describe myself because people that use this label themselves tend to be the most arrogant, toxic people proclaiming some level of moral and intellectual superiority over others. I would rather have a Jehovah Witness at my door telling me that I am going to Hell, than sit in a room with a Freedom From Religion Atheist complaining about some old guy saying "god Bless" >>This is why the directors messaging is problematic. Ohh Please, what is problematic is that fact that we have soo strayed away from the idea of Pluralism that people are sooo sensitive, that "political correctness" is soo run amok that we have to make a big deal about some one saying "God Bless" something... Jesus (and yes I did that intentionally) what a farce we have become. Hell that is not even Christian, the vast vast vast majority of people on this planet believe in a god... Saying "God Bless" should not be "problematic" or offensive. Come On Now
- mabbo 5y ago
  The reality is the Americans footed most of the bill. That gives them certain authority. Even as a member of a highly involved country (Canada) I can acknowledge that on this road trip, they're the driver of the vehicle and they get to decide what's on the radio. It would be nice if the Americans were more considerate, but that's a general problem and not specific to this. (I kid, I kid).
jdiez17 5y ago
No idea. It did seem extremely out of place though.
- capableweb 5y ago
  Yeah, not sure how I'd feel if I worked on the project for years and then someone starts ranting about "the glory of god", "handiwork of god", "god bless planet Earth" and similar stuff.
- rahen 5y ago
  Not only out of place but it even felt downright offensive for some of us European folks. No different than quoting the Quran and praising Allah for the JWST. How about praising NASA, CSA, ESA and CNES for this brilliant endeavor?
Symbiote 5y ago
It was Bill Nelson, head of NASA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson I assumed it was intended for the American audience.
- mulmen 5y ago
  As an American I find any religious expression by government officials in the course of their duties to be offensive and harmful to our nation.
  - Symbiote 5y ago
    Understood, but it's still there, and is obvious to foreigners and visitors. We see "In God We Trust" printed prominently on the money, senior politicians emphasizing their religious credentials, and much more visible religion in daily life. See, for example, the chart at [1], for the number of people who pray daily. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/31/americans-are-far-more-religious-than-adults-in-other-wealthy-nations/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/31/americans-a...
    - el_nahual 5y ago
      "In God We Trust" was added to currency in the mid 1950s as part of the "Red Scare" and anticommunist sentiment. Before 1957 the national motto was E PLURIBUS UNUM - One From Many. Too commie! This was the same time that "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance, which before just read "... One nation, indivisible"
      - mulmen 5y ago
        It turns out Barry Goldwater was right about the preachers.
    - mulmen 5y ago
      Ok? So we agree? I have seen American money. I find it particularly distasteful that we also carved “In God we trust” into the halls of Congress. I’m missing your point though.
mulmen 5y ago
I believe that is Bill Nelson, the director of NASA. Definitely an embarrassing moment. I turned it off.
dalrympm 5y ago
That was NASA administrator Bill Nelson trying to recreate the awe of the Apollo 8 Genesis reading. A bit out of touch...
- mulmen 5y ago
  Even Apollo 8 was inappropriate and NASA has very deliberately avoided those kinds of embarrassments since.
  - robwwilliams 5y ago
    Agreed. It was pompously Abrahamic, evidently as much for political show as a heart-felt expression of wonder. We all do feel the wonder, but let’s avoid the Christmas kitsch and the tacit “God, the father” image he evoked.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
MarcScott 5y ago
Yeah, it was odd. Then again, people can believe what they want and make links that don't make sense to everyone. He seems like a fairly progressive guy and an actual astronaut - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson
- tosser0001 5y ago
  Buzz Aldrin took communion on the Moon. Not everything is Either/Or
Game_Ender 5y ago
It’s referring to the Christmas Eve broadcast of Apollo 8, the first manned mission in orbit around the moon, another large milestone in spaceflight and for humanity overall [0]. The American space program likes to refer to its past accomplishments and this is the biggest and most complex space telescope ever launched. It’s also tradition to use “big” and inspiring language, so calling back to that era makes for a more compelling message. 0 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8
- capableweb 5y ago
  That broadcast seems to even have it's own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8_Genesis_reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8_Genesis_reading > On Christmas Eve, December 24, 1968, the crew of Apollo 8 read from the Book of Genesis as they orbited the Moon Seems no one was happy with what they came up with, so they ended up going with Genesis part from the bible instead. Not everyone was happy with that though: > Madalyn Murray O'Hair, founder of American Atheists, responded by suing the United States government, alleging violations of the First Amendment Ended up being dismissed by all the courts though. But still, I cannot believe that people who are supposedly scientists start quoting the bible when they are themselves involved in maybe one of the greatest scientific achievements of our time. How does that resolve?
  - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
    I'm an Atheist. At some point you will have to realize that religious people exist, and many astronauts are devout Catholic.
  - kuschku 5y ago
    > But still, I cannot believe that people who are supposedly scientists start quoting the bible when they are themselves involved in maybe one of the greatest scientific achievements of our time. How does that resolve? As atheist: even if you don’t believe in christianity, the bible is still a book with some stories that have made a massive impact and which can evoke deep emotion in many readers/listeners. Especially in such an emotional context as venturing out into space.
gameswithgo 5y ago
Because we have a representative government and most of our population still thinks this is a reasonable way to view the universe
willis936 5y ago
He ended his speech with "God bless Planet Earth". I view this as quite progressive for a bureaucratic representative of the fed and an encouraging sign of the times.
- davidwritesbugs 5y ago
  "God bless Amer...er, the Earth"
1_player 5y ago
He's a 80 year old American politician. It's the demographic of people that see religion and God everywhere, even when talking about an international, deeply scientific endeavour. It's a cultural quirk I guess.
- darknavi 5y ago
  I don't agree with much Trump did as president but damn if I didn't respect Jim Bridenstine so much more than this guy.
  - dreamcompiler 5y ago
    I liked Bridenstine too but Bill Nelson has been an ardent space supporter longer than Bridenstine has been alive. And Nelson has actually flown in space. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson
    - garaetjjte 5y ago
      Politician-turned-astronaut seems more like space tourism though.
    - Rebelgecko 5y ago
      I don't know if his stunt is something that should be applauded. The original payload specialist was an engineer who had worked on the actual payload at Hughes. After the second time being bumped from a mission to be replaced by a politician, he was reassigned to the Challenger where he died.
bell-cot 5y ago
It's a giga-budget space telescope, mostly paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Most of whom are not nearly so interested in science geekery than the average HN'er. If it can be sold (as worth funding) to a bunch of the more-religious taxpayers as "a pilgrimage to discover and admire the handwork of God", or something similar, that's a plus in my book. The country is already suffering far too much "science vs. religion" divisiveness.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  I don't think tricking people into funding things they don't want is a good social contract.
  - Grakel 5y ago
    They've already been tricked, and they donate every Sunday. They may as well also donate to what's really going on in the sky.
  - yostrovs 5y ago
    It's not, especially when you're funding things that are fascinating, but are inherently not useful. I love astronomy and physics, but much of it is now being spent on pure knowledge. The discovery of the Higgs boson hasn't improved any lives or led to new technology, but it did eat untold amounts of money that could have been spent on other things in science.
    - drivebycomment 5y ago
      I recommend this book https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/3319155237?psc=1&ref=ppx_pop_mob_b_asin_title https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/3319155237?psc=1&ref=ppx_pop_... . It makes a clear case why trying to aim certain objective, when it comes to innovation, doesn't necessarily work and we still need "aimless wandering" and the pursuit of pure knowledge is a good guidance when it comes to that.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    It is not a trick, just a matter of perspective. Finding an atheist universe beautiful is not in conflict with finding beauty in a universe which is created by a deity.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
JaimeThompson 5y ago
Until China starts launching large scale space telescopes perhaps such readings are required to keep the more conservative politicians voting for science funding.
tosser0001 5y ago
> seemingly the bible (or similar religious textbook) You seem to be going out of your way to demonstrate your atheistic bonafides by expressing an affected ignorance of some of the most important texts in human history. Understand that these can be read as metaphors and many people find pleasure in the words and sentiments even if they don’t accept their literal truth.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- croes 5y ago
  Important doesn't mean good.
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  Because the books within the ketuvim/Hagiographa are basically a mishmash of stuff that doesn't fit within the Torah or Prophets, I think a bit of confusion is understandable and not inherently dismissive. I've read a good chunk of the bible (as a kid my parents made me skip some parts that they felt espoused immoral sexual behaviors) and still needed to look up the taxonomy of the 5 books within the Book of Psalms
no_identd 5y ago
For further reference, here's the only part in the entire New Testament referencing the old testament's Psalms 19 (which NASA's Bill Nelson referenced here), more specifically Psalms 19:4. And that part is Roman's 10 (more specifically 10:16 to 10:21), given here in the Modern Literal Translation, which (mostly, not always) avoids fucking up the Ancient Greek: http://www.modernliteralversion.org/bibles/MLV/Romans10.htm http://www.modernliteralversion.org/bibles/MLV/Romans10.htm
parsimo2010 5y ago
The NASA administrator is a political appointee, so they will be as religious as the president wants (or allows) them to be. Positions like these are sometimes given as reward for loyal party members who supported the president’s election campaign rather than the most qualified candidate. However, Bill Nelson is an astronaut so he probably is the most qualified (politician) for the job. I’m sure he works hard to get NASA the funding it needs regardless of his personal beliefs (and it would be illegal to make atheism a job requirement). Aside from awkward speech giving I think most people are optimistic about how he’ll do as administrator.
- reportingsjr 5y ago
  Calling Bill Nelson qualified since he is an astronaut is hilarious to read. Consider that the other, legitimately qualified people on that mission gave him the nickname "ballast" and it is widely regarded that the only reason he went up is by strong arming his way in since he had a powerful congressional position. He is not considered a great NASA admin and it was pretty disappointing when he was chosen.
Mesisio 5y ago
I was weirded out by this as well.
chernevik 5y ago
Ask Isaac Newton whether a religious person can do science
- yamrzou 5y ago
  Thanks. For the curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newto...
  - belter 5y ago
    I wonder what he would say about the missing of any mention to Dinosaurs in the Bible...
    - yamrzou 5y ago
      Using Set terminology, religious knowledge and scientific knowledge are just intersecting sets. It's not necessary that one of them contains the other. As such, it's not surprising that there is no mention to Dinosauirs in religious textbooks.
      - belter 5y ago
        Not really. If the Deity dictated a book, telling how the world come to be, and to guide all aspects of the life of their disciples...So much the participants of the religious group believe it comes directly from their creator...Would have been nice to mention this major change of mind, after letting these creatures roam free for 200 million years..And some mention of the real earth position and structure of the solar system would have been nice.
        ALittleLight 5y ago
        To my knowledge only the ten commandments are considered divinely dictated. The rest are written versions of oral histories, letters, and such by human authors.
jorgesborges 5y ago
Science doesn’t need to be scared to acknowledge religion. It’s a humble, enduring relic of our past, a part of our shared history, and it helps to punctuate the magnitude of our growth and accomplishments as a species.
Maursault 5y ago
> The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. This is what is confounding you, or is offensive to you as an atheist? This one line from Psalm 19, which is just a consideration or an awe of creation? I would expect any competent and honest scientist to admit that they just don't know. This is the fundamental problem and fatal flaw of atheism, claiming knowledge that is unknowable. Not very scientific, is it?

sschueller 5y ago

Also seems quite nationalistic after what was broadcast before that. As a European quite unappealing.

mulmen 5y ago
If it’s worth anything I am American and also find it unappealing.
keewee7 5y ago
- mulmen 5y ago
  - syshum 5y ago
    I am American taxpayer, NOT a Christian or any other popular religion, I would appreciate people allowing others to express their religion as they see fit, That is American... The fact this guy is being blasted because of his religion is not American at all. The freedom from religion atheists are more annoying these days than the evangelicals
    - mulmen 5y ago
      Wrong. keewee7 assumed all Americans are Christian. This is absolutely not true. Freedom of religion has nothing to do with it. Believe whatever you want, just don’t drag my name through the mud.
      - syshum 5y ago
        Wrong. keewee7 stated the Christian Americans Taxpayers paid for 80% of the program, turns out keewee7 is only slightly off, and as Christian American Taxpayers only paid for about 63%
        mulmen 5y ago
        The 80% number is based on US taxpayer funding. For that to be true all Americans would have to be Christian, which they aren’t. This was my objection. The difference between all Americans being Christian and some or even most of them being Christian is not “slight”. 80% and 63% are not close by any measure. Qualifying the original statement with religious affiliation still ignores the fact that tax dollars are not paid with religious affiliation in mind and JWST has no (official) religious meaning. Further calling out American Christians but ignoring the Canadian and European Christians further distorts the 63% number. This entire thread has been a textbook example of lying with statistics. Even if you manage to get them right the numbers don’t justify the message.
- geenew 5y ago
  Well, at some point in the past Denmark was changeable and was changed, so there is no reason to think that at present other places are changeable and will be changed in a similar way. Merry grav-mass!
- dwaltrip 5y ago
  I think it’s down to around 50%, according to the latest surveys.
  - keewee7 5y ago
    These numbers are from Wikipedia. I don't know how reliable they are: NASA: 8,800m ESA : 850m CSA : 200m ------------ All : 9,850m
    - mulmen 5y ago
      - syshum 5y ago
        mulmen 5y ago
        I still disagree with the argument that the religious affiliation of those taxpayers deserves a specific callout rather than any other characteristic. I also disagree with the initial characterization that all Americans are Christian. Or that Christian messaging is somehow “American”. It isn’t. It is a harmful stereotype. JWST is not about religion. Defending the directors poor choice of message with religious statistics reduces both American Christians and Americans in general to oversimplified caricatures. Christianity and the JWST have nothing to do with each other. To claim otherwise is insulting to both Americans and any contributors to the JWST, including the international community. Saying JWST is funded 63% by Christians is false anyway, the other contributors also have some amount of Christian affiliation. Further, why choose the religious angle? Why not say it was half funded by women? Or by some ethnicity? Any way you apply these statistics is going to be insulting because they are irrelevant. This is why the directors messaging is problematic.
        syshum 5y ago
        >>It isn’t. It is a harmful stereotype. I dont see it has either a stereotype, nor harmful to acknowledge Christians in our society, or their contribution. In fact pretending they do not exist is IMO more harmful >JWST is not about religion I dont believe anyone claimed it was, nor did the NASA director. What you are attempting to do however is exclude any mentions of religion from the topic, I would not want to make JWST about religion, but I also have no desire to pretend religion does not exist, nor am I so fragile in my beliefs that someone else expressing theirs causes me consternation or an identity crisis like it seems to have done with you. I recognize that it likely people of all religions have worked on some part of the JWST, I recognize that the current director of NASA is a christian, I can separate these thing in my mind, and believe that the director of NASA acknowledging his own religion in public does not paint either NASA nor the JWST program as "christian" >>Christianity and the JWST have nothing to do with each other. and this is where I believe you are wrong to a limited extent, in that religion is a part of the people that worked on JWST, all religions. As such all religions are a part of JWST just as people that do not believe in religion are a part of JWST. Denying this is to deny reality >>Saying JWST is funded 63% by Christians is false anyway, the other contributors also have some amount of Christian affiliation. Now you have moved the goal posts, I suspect because you know the foundation of our argumentation is sand that is quickly disappearing out from under you The statement was limited to American's for which you took offense to what you believed was a statement implying all Americans where Christian, I then clarified the % of funding that could be attributed to American Christians, now you want to move the goal posts to talk about world wide christian contributions. I could do the math if you would like? not sure why that matters but... >> Further, why choose the religious angle? I did not choose it, I simply interjected facts into the conversation. I also interjected an opposing Agnostic position to that of Freedom From Religion Atheists that I have grown tired of over the years, something that has caused me to reject the label of "atheist" to describe myself because people that use this label themselves tend to be the most arrogant, toxic people proclaiming some level of moral and intellectual superiority over others. I would rather have a Jehovah Witness at my door telling me that I am going to Hell, than sit in a room with a Freedom From Religion Atheist complaining about some old guy saying "god Bless" >>This is why the directors messaging is problematic. Ohh Please, what is problematic is that fact that we have soo strayed away from the idea of Pluralism that people are sooo sensitive, that "political correctness" is soo run amok that we have to make a big deal about some one saying "God Bless" something... Jesus (and yes I did that intentionally) what a farce we have become. Hell that is not even Christian, the vast vast vast majority of people on this planet believe in a god... Saying "God Bless" should not be "problematic" or offensive. Come On Now
mabbo 5y ago
The reality is the Americans footed most of the bill. That gives them certain authority. Even as a member of a highly involved country (Canada) I can acknowledge that on this road trip, they're the driver of the vehicle and they get to decide what's on the radio. It would be nice if the Americans were more considerate, but that's a general problem and not specific to this. (I kid, I kid).

jdiez17 5y ago

No idea. It did seem extremely out of place though.

capableweb 5y ago
Yeah, not sure how I'd feel if I worked on the project for years and then someone starts ranting about "the glory of god", "handiwork of god", "god bless planet Earth" and similar stuff.
rahen 5y ago
Not only out of place but it even felt downright offensive for some of us European folks. No different than quoting the Quran and praising Allah for the JWST. How about praising NASA, CSA, ESA and CNES for this brilliant endeavor?

Symbiote 5y ago

It was Bill Nelson, head of NASA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson I assumed it was intended for the American audience.

mulmen 5y ago
As an American I find any religious expression by government officials in the course of their duties to be offensive and harmful to our nation.
- Symbiote 5y ago
  Understood, but it's still there, and is obvious to foreigners and visitors. We see "In God We Trust" printed prominently on the money, senior politicians emphasizing their religious credentials, and much more visible religion in daily life. See, for example, the chart at [1], for the number of people who pray daily. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/31/americans-are-far-more-religious-than-adults-in-other-wealthy-nations/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/31/americans-a...
  - el_nahual 5y ago
    "In God We Trust" was added to currency in the mid 1950s as part of the "Red Scare" and anticommunist sentiment. Before 1957 the national motto was E PLURIBUS UNUM - One From Many. Too commie! This was the same time that "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance, which before just read "... One nation, indivisible"
    - mulmen 5y ago
      It turns out Barry Goldwater was right about the preachers.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    Ok? So we agree? I have seen American money. I find it particularly distasteful that we also carved “In God we trust” into the halls of Congress. I’m missing your point though.

mulmen 5y ago

I believe that is Bill Nelson, the director of NASA. Definitely an embarrassing moment. I turned it off.

dalrympm 5y ago

That was NASA administrator Bill Nelson trying to recreate the awe of the Apollo 8 Genesis reading. A bit out of touch...

mulmen 5y ago
Even Apollo 8 was inappropriate and NASA has very deliberately avoided those kinds of embarrassments since.
- robwwilliams 5y ago
  Agreed. It was pompously Abrahamic, evidently as much for political show as a heart-felt expression of wonder. We all do feel the wonder, but let’s avoid the Christmas kitsch and the tacit “God, the father” image he evoked.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

MarcScott 5y ago

Yeah, it was odd. Then again, people can believe what they want and make links that don't make sense to everyone. He seems like a fairly progressive guy and an actual astronaut - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson

tosser0001 5y ago
Buzz Aldrin took communion on the Moon. Not everything is Either/Or

Game_Ender 5y ago

It’s referring to the Christmas Eve broadcast of Apollo 8, the first manned mission in orbit around the moon, another large milestone in spaceflight and for humanity overall [0]. The American space program likes to refer to its past accomplishments and this is the biggest and most complex space telescope ever launched. It’s also tradition to use “big” and inspiring language, so calling back to that era makes for a more compelling message. 0 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8

capableweb 5y ago
That broadcast seems to even have it's own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8_Genesis_reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8_Genesis_reading > On Christmas Eve, December 24, 1968, the crew of Apollo 8 read from the Book of Genesis as they orbited the Moon Seems no one was happy with what they came up with, so they ended up going with Genesis part from the bible instead. Not everyone was happy with that though: > Madalyn Murray O'Hair, founder of American Atheists, responded by suing the United States government, alleging violations of the First Amendment Ended up being dismissed by all the courts though. But still, I cannot believe that people who are supposedly scientists start quoting the bible when they are themselves involved in maybe one of the greatest scientific achievements of our time. How does that resolve?
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  I'm an Atheist. At some point you will have to realize that religious people exist, and many astronauts are devout Catholic.
- kuschku 5y ago
  > But still, I cannot believe that people who are supposedly scientists start quoting the bible when they are themselves involved in maybe one of the greatest scientific achievements of our time. How does that resolve? As atheist: even if you don’t believe in christianity, the bible is still a book with some stories that have made a massive impact and which can evoke deep emotion in many readers/listeners. Especially in such an emotional context as venturing out into space.

gameswithgo 5y ago

Because we have a representative government and most of our population still thinks this is a reasonable way to view the universe

willis936 5y ago

He ended his speech with "God bless Planet Earth". I view this as quite progressive for a bureaucratic representative of the fed and an encouraging sign of the times.

davidwritesbugs 5y ago
"God bless Amer...er, the Earth"

1_player 5y ago

He's a 80 year old American politician. It's the demographic of people that see religion and God everywhere, even when talking about an international, deeply scientific endeavour. It's a cultural quirk I guess.

darknavi 5y ago
I don't agree with much Trump did as president but damn if I didn't respect Jim Bridenstine so much more than this guy.
- dreamcompiler 5y ago
  I liked Bridenstine too but Bill Nelson has been an ardent space supporter longer than Bridenstine has been alive. And Nelson has actually flown in space. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson
  - garaetjjte 5y ago
    Politician-turned-astronaut seems more like space tourism though.
  - Rebelgecko 5y ago
    I don't know if his stunt is something that should be applauded. The original payload specialist was an engineer who had worked on the actual payload at Hughes. After the second time being bumped from a mission to be replaced by a politician, he was reassigned to the Challenger where he died.

bell-cot 5y ago

It's a giga-budget space telescope, mostly paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Most of whom are not nearly so interested in science geekery than the average HN'er. If it can be sold (as worth funding) to a bunch of the more-religious taxpayers as "a pilgrimage to discover and admire the handwork of God", or something similar, that's a plus in my book. The country is already suffering far too much "science vs. religion" divisiveness.

cblconfederate 5y ago
I don't think tricking people into funding things they don't want is a good social contract.
- Grakel 5y ago
  They've already been tricked, and they donate every Sunday. They may as well also donate to what's really going on in the sky.
- yostrovs 5y ago
  It's not, especially when you're funding things that are fascinating, but are inherently not useful. I love astronomy and physics, but much of it is now being spent on pure knowledge. The discovery of the Higgs boson hasn't improved any lives or led to new technology, but it did eat untold amounts of money that could have been spent on other things in science.
  - drivebycomment 5y ago
    I recommend this book https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/3319155237?psc=1&ref=ppx_pop_mob_b_asin_title https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/3319155237?psc=1&ref=ppx_pop_... . It makes a clear case why trying to aim certain objective, when it comes to innovation, doesn't necessarily work and we still need "aimless wandering" and the pursuit of pure knowledge is a good guidance when it comes to that.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  It is not a trick, just a matter of perspective. Finding an atheist universe beautiful is not in conflict with finding beauty in a universe which is created by a deity.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

JaimeThompson 5y ago

Until China starts launching large scale space telescopes perhaps such readings are required to keep the more conservative politicians voting for science funding.

tosser0001 5y ago

> seemingly the bible (or similar religious textbook) You seem to be going out of your way to demonstrate your atheistic bonafides by expressing an affected ignorance of some of the most important texts in human history. Understand that these can be read as metaphors and many people find pleasure in the words and sentiments even if they don’t accept their literal truth.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
croes 5y ago
Important doesn't mean good.
Rebelgecko 5y ago
Because the books within the ketuvim/Hagiographa are basically a mishmash of stuff that doesn't fit within the Torah or Prophets, I think a bit of confusion is understandable and not inherently dismissive. I've read a good chunk of the bible (as a kid my parents made me skip some parts that they felt espoused immoral sexual behaviors) and still needed to look up the taxonomy of the 5 books within the Book of Psalms

no_identd 5y ago

For further reference, here's the only part in the entire New Testament referencing the old testament's Psalms 19 (which NASA's Bill Nelson referenced here), more specifically Psalms 19:4. And that part is Roman's 10 (more specifically 10:16 to 10:21), given here in the Modern Literal Translation, which (mostly, not always) avoids fucking up the Ancient Greek: http://www.modernliteralversion.org/bibles/MLV/Romans10.htm http://www.modernliteralversion.org/bibles/MLV/Romans10.htm

parsimo2010 5y ago

The NASA administrator is a political appointee, so they will be as religious as the president wants (or allows) them to be. Positions like these are sometimes given as reward for loyal party members who supported the president’s election campaign rather than the most qualified candidate. However, Bill Nelson is an astronaut so he probably is the most qualified (politician) for the job. I’m sure he works hard to get NASA the funding it needs regardless of his personal beliefs (and it would be illegal to make atheism a job requirement). Aside from awkward speech giving I think most people are optimistic about how he’ll do as administrator.

reportingsjr 5y ago
Calling Bill Nelson qualified since he is an astronaut is hilarious to read. Consider that the other, legitimately qualified people on that mission gave him the nickname "ballast" and it is widely regarded that the only reason he went up is by strong arming his way in since he had a powerful congressional position. He is not considered a great NASA admin and it was pretty disappointing when he was chosen.

Mesisio 5y ago

I was weirded out by this as well.

chernevik 5y ago

Ask Isaac Newton whether a religious person can do science

yamrzou 5y ago
Thanks. For the curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newto...
- belter 5y ago
  I wonder what he would say about the missing of any mention to Dinosaurs in the Bible...
  - yamrzou 5y ago
    Using Set terminology, religious knowledge and scientific knowledge are just intersecting sets. It's not necessary that one of them contains the other. As such, it's not surprising that there is no mention to Dinosauirs in religious textbooks.
    - belter 5y ago
      Not really. If the Deity dictated a book, telling how the world come to be, and to guide all aspects of the life of their disciples...So much the participants of the religious group believe it comes directly from their creator...Would have been nice to mention this major change of mind, after letting these creatures roam free for 200 million years..And some mention of the real earth position and structure of the solar system would have been nice.
      - ALittleLight 5y ago
        To my knowledge only the ten commandments are considered divinely dictated. The rest are written versions of oral histories, letters, and such by human authors.

jorgesborges 5y ago

Science doesn’t need to be scared to acknowledge religion. It’s a humble, enduring relic of our past, a part of our shared history, and it helps to punctuate the magnitude of our growth and accomplishments as a species.

Maursault 5y ago

> The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. This is what is confounding you, or is offensive to you as an atheist? This one line from Psalm 19, which is just a consideration or an awe of creation? I would expect any competent and honest scientist to admit that they just don't know. This is the fundamental problem and fatal flaw of atheism, claiming knowledge that is unknowable. Not very scientific, is it?