7 ms·

To follow your argument here, perhaps the person in question believes the Pale Blue Dot to be more meaningful than a legal document. I certainly do - it’s a w

To follow your argument here, perhaps the person in question believes the Pale Blue Dot to be more meaningful than a legal document. I certainly do - it’s a wonderful book that absolutely captures Carl Sagan’s sense of wonder for the universe, which to me seems like exactly what you should want from a NASA director. Most importantly, it also sends a strong message to the staff within NASA about how the new director views them and their work given how political appointments have become.

nonethewiser 4y ago
But what does meaning have to do with it? Your marriage certificate and car title have meaning. But if the people being sworn in don’t view their documents as having some authority over their promise then what is the point? It’s equivalent to no document in that regard. It really doesnt make much sense unless you’re using a Bible, Quran, etc. Edit: Here is the crux: God holds you accountable, or at least is believed to do so, by nature. Is the nature of the values symbolized in Dr. Seuss or Sagans book similar? Do those promising on them expect divine justice from the principles of science or fun word play with kids?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- yetihehe 4y ago
  People give meaning to things. Bible, Quran, etc have meaning only because people express that meaning. > But if the people being sworn in don’t view their documents as having some authority over their promise then what is the point? The point is that swearing on a "Pale blue dot" is exactly expression of submitting to authority of that book.
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    People believe different things about the Bible. She me people think swearing on it is making a promise to God. Does the person swearing on Sagans book think Sagan is going to hold them accountable to a broken promise?
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      I conclude that person thinks Sagan will hold them equally as accountable as God would if they’d chosen His book.
    - prawn 4y ago
      They might be doing it intending that they will remember and endeavour to hold true to some message of the book.
    - yetihehe 4y ago
      Yes, I think it's equivalent and Sagan will held them as accountable as your chosen god. For "the person", you can just ask directly.
  - mnw21cam 4y ago
    > People give meaning to things. Bible, Quran, etc have meaning only because people express that meaning. A fairly central part of the philosophy of quite a few religions is that there is a God who is quite capable of giving meaning to things independently of humans. Not everyone views these as "that's nice" documents. I mean, there's a bit in the Bible (1 Corinthians 15) that says that if the stuff in the Bible is actually true, then it's the most important thing in the world, but if it isn't, then there really isn't any point paying any attention to it at all.
    - yetihehe 4y ago
      > A fairly central part of the philosophy of quite a few religions is that there is a God who is quite capable of giving meaning to things independently of humans. I think it's like that with all religions. I'd like to speak a little with that god about some meanings. > Not everyone views these as "that's nice" documents. You say that those people give a meaning to those documents? Addendum: What I mean is that when there is no people who express some meaning, it ceases to exist. If there appeared a god before me to give me a new meaning for something, I would accept it as given from god. But none did so far, ALL meanings are currently expressed by people as far as I know.
      - mnw21cam 4y ago
        Consider the statement "2 + 2 = 4". If there were no people to express what that meant, it would still be true and have meaning.
        yetihehe 4y ago
        If no one existed, who would consider it true? It would have meaning to who? If you showed that statement to some old tribe which doesn't know numbers beyond 3 (Pirahã), they would not know what you mean. If you showed that without translating to some Romans, they would probably have to think about meaning of that sequence of characters. Some ideas (like mathematics or existence of a higher being) are pretty natural for humans, doesn't mean that those ideas mean anything to anyone besides humans, without people there is no meaning, just some clumps of atoms.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Many people view those religious texts no differently than they do a book of secular fairy tales. It’s not hard to imagine those people finding more meaning in ceremonially swearing over a Constitution, science text, or other important document.
- pigsty 4y ago
  A person who doesn’t believe in religion being sworn in on a religious book is probably just annoyed. They’re not going to feel loyal to it. Sworn statements as a whole are just entirely symbolic and don’t really guarantee loyalty or honesty, but if someone who doesn’t believe rejects a religious text that they disbelieve and instead choose something that has meaning and value to them, it’s better in the symbolic sense. A scientist swearing in on a scientific text that’s meaningful to them and that also addresses human morality makes as much sense and symbolically reflects their devotion to their mission as a Bible to a devout Christian.
- seanhunter 4y ago
  That's absurd. If God exists then God holds you accountable for your actions whether you swear or not, whether you use a Bible, Carl Sagan, Dr Seuss or a copy of TCP/IP Illustrated by W Richard Stevens. If God doesn't exist then it clearly doesn't matter what document you swear on at all, because the document is just a signal of values in that case. Either way you are legally bound by the oath you have made and if you broke it the authorities would be able to enforce that against you to the extent enabled by law regardless of what document you use or indeed no document at all. The document is (like the ceremony itself) just an artifact that is part of the ritual which is a public observance of a binding promise. In that context, choosing one that has personal meaning makes total sense, whether it is a religious text or something else.
  - 988747 4y ago
    [dead]
tescocles 4y ago
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 point), rather that an important element of what it means to swear over a religious text is lost. The whole point of rationalism is that the universe isn't sentient and won't and cannot judge your actions. An oath is a promise to someone that you will act for the greater good, and you do so with your hand over a representation of who will witness and judge you for that. I don't really know if I'm trying to say anything in particular. It's just some thoughts I had when reading.
- CydeWeys 4y ago
  > 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. Oh come on, god doesn't smite people anymore. He doesn't smite anyone except in the text of an old book. Religious people now swearing on the Bible are not seriously fearful of God personally smiting them should they break their oath.
- williamtrask 4y ago
  What you're referring to is society's attempt to re-build itself based on rationality and individualism as a replacement to political and religious institutions. A canonical response to your point would be that we're seeking to build a society where the rational action would be for the head of NASA further the aims of NASA. This follows from an ideology set out by Ayn Rand. There are a collection of documentaries by Adam Curtis covering the arc of this philosophy: "All watched over by machines of loving grace." is probably the main one here, but "Century of the Self", and "Can't get you out of my head" are also very good. Naturally, the problem with society's attempt to do this is that rationality is not sufficient for the head of NASA to not go against her duty as NASA's head. A utopia of radical individuals free from any ideology or institution hasn't (yet?) been realized. It's probably not a good idea, but it's the central dogma of silicon valley, the blockchain movement, the AGI movement (especially the sentience-heavy ones), much of the modern scientific community, and (as it happens) hacker news. So here we are. Also, your logic holds that swearing on a Bible is — in the limit — more likely to lead to moral behavior than swearing on Carl Sagan's work. Nobody believes that Carl will punish wrongdoers (he might even reward them for being rational, or face questions on why he's pushing morality on others). However, people do believe that God punishes. So regardless of whether a deity exists, swearing on religious texts is more likely to alter behavior than on Sagan's.

nonethewiser 4y ago

But what does meaning have to do with it? Your marriage certificate and car title have meaning. But if the people being sworn in don’t view their documents as having some authority over their promise then what is the point? It’s equivalent to no document in that regard. It really doesnt make much sense unless you’re using a Bible, Quran, etc. Edit: Here is the crux: God holds you accountable, or at least is believed to do so, by nature. Is the nature of the values symbolized in Dr. Seuss or Sagans book similar? Do those promising on them expect divine justice from the principles of science or fun word play with kids?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yetihehe 4y ago
People give meaning to things. Bible, Quran, etc have meaning only because people express that meaning. > But if the people being sworn in don’t view their documents as having some authority over their promise then what is the point? The point is that swearing on a "Pale blue dot" is exactly expression of submitting to authority of that book.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  People believe different things about the Bible. She me people think swearing on it is making a promise to God. Does the person swearing on Sagans book think Sagan is going to hold them accountable to a broken promise?
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I conclude that person thinks Sagan will hold them equally as accountable as God would if they’d chosen His book.
  - prawn 4y ago
    They might be doing it intending that they will remember and endeavour to hold true to some message of the book.
  - yetihehe 4y ago
    Yes, I think it's equivalent and Sagan will held them as accountable as your chosen god. For "the person", you can just ask directly.
- mnw21cam 4y ago
  > People give meaning to things. Bible, Quran, etc have meaning only because people express that meaning. A fairly central part of the philosophy of quite a few religions is that there is a God who is quite capable of giving meaning to things independently of humans. Not everyone views these as "that's nice" documents. I mean, there's a bit in the Bible (1 Corinthians 15) that says that if the stuff in the Bible is actually true, then it's the most important thing in the world, but if it isn't, then there really isn't any point paying any attention to it at all.
  - yetihehe 4y ago
    > A fairly central part of the philosophy of quite a few religions is that there is a God who is quite capable of giving meaning to things independently of humans. I think it's like that with all religions. I'd like to speak a little with that god about some meanings. > Not everyone views these as "that's nice" documents. You say that those people give a meaning to those documents? Addendum: What I mean is that when there is no people who express some meaning, it ceases to exist. If there appeared a god before me to give me a new meaning for something, I would accept it as given from god. But none did so far, ALL meanings are currently expressed by people as far as I know.
    - mnw21cam 4y ago
      Consider the statement "2 + 2 = 4". If there were no people to express what that meant, it would still be true and have meaning.
      - yetihehe 4y ago
        If no one existed, who would consider it true? It would have meaning to who? If you showed that statement to some old tribe which doesn't know numbers beyond 3 (Pirahã), they would not know what you mean. If you showed that without translating to some Romans, they would probably have to think about meaning of that sequence of characters. Some ideas (like mathematics or existence of a higher being) are pretty natural for humans, doesn't mean that those ideas mean anything to anyone besides humans, without people there is no meaning, just some clumps of atoms.
sokoloff 4y ago
Many people view those religious texts no differently than they do a book of secular fairy tales. It’s not hard to imagine those people finding more meaning in ceremonially swearing over a Constitution, science text, or other important document.
pigsty 4y ago
A person who doesn’t believe in religion being sworn in on a religious book is probably just annoyed. They’re not going to feel loyal to it. Sworn statements as a whole are just entirely symbolic and don’t really guarantee loyalty or honesty, but if someone who doesn’t believe rejects a religious text that they disbelieve and instead choose something that has meaning and value to them, it’s better in the symbolic sense. A scientist swearing in on a scientific text that’s meaningful to them and that also addresses human morality makes as much sense and symbolically reflects their devotion to their mission as a Bible to a devout Christian.
seanhunter 4y ago
That's absurd. If God exists then God holds you accountable for your actions whether you swear or not, whether you use a Bible, Carl Sagan, Dr Seuss or a copy of TCP/IP Illustrated by W Richard Stevens. If God doesn't exist then it clearly doesn't matter what document you swear on at all, because the document is just a signal of values in that case. Either way you are legally bound by the oath you have made and if you broke it the authorities would be able to enforce that against you to the extent enabled by law regardless of what document you use or indeed no document at all. The document is (like the ceremony itself) just an artifact that is part of the ritual which is a public observance of a binding promise. In that context, choosing one that has personal meaning makes total sense, whether it is a religious text or something else.
- 988747 4y ago
  [dead]

tescocles 4y ago

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 point), rather that an important element of what it means to swear over a religious text is lost. The whole point of rationalism is that the universe isn't sentient and won't and cannot judge your actions. An oath is a promise to someone that you will act for the greater good, and you do so with your hand over a representation of who will witness and judge you for that. I don't really know if I'm trying to say anything in particular. It's just some thoughts I had when reading.

CydeWeys 4y ago
> 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. Oh come on, god doesn't smite people anymore. He doesn't smite anyone except in the text of an old book. Religious people now swearing on the Bible are not seriously fearful of God personally smiting them should they break their oath.
williamtrask 4y ago
What you're referring to is society's attempt to re-build itself based on rationality and individualism as a replacement to political and religious institutions. A canonical response to your point would be that we're seeking to build a society where the rational action would be for the head of NASA further the aims of NASA. This follows from an ideology set out by Ayn Rand. There are a collection of documentaries by Adam Curtis covering the arc of this philosophy: "All watched over by machines of loving grace." is probably the main one here, but "Century of the Self", and "Can't get you out of my head" are also very good. Naturally, the problem with society's attempt to do this is that rationality is not sufficient for the head of NASA to not go against her duty as NASA's head. A utopia of radical individuals free from any ideology or institution hasn't (yet?) been realized. It's probably not a good idea, but it's the central dogma of silicon valley, the blockchain movement, the AGI movement (especially the sentience-heavy ones), much of the modern scientific community, and (as it happens) hacker news. So here we are. Also, your logic holds that swearing on a Bible is — in the limit — more likely to lead to moral behavior than swearing on Carl Sagan's work. Nobody believes that Carl will punish wrongdoers (he might even reward them for being rational, or face questions on why he's pushing morality on others). However, people do believe that God punishes. So regardless of whether a deity exists, swearing on religious texts is more likely to alter behavior than on Sagan's.