New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible
independent.co.uk
independent.co.uk
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 instead of placing her hand on a Bible to take her oath of office as councilwoman for St. Louis County, Kelli Dunaway chose “Oh, The Places You’ll Go!” by Dr. Seuss."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/21/why-count...
That someone could just as much be sworn in with a Quran, a Dr. Suess book or the US Constitution itself is just something exceptionally American and profoundly inspiring. E Pluribus Unum.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
I think the free exercise clause is the greatest and most important freedom we have.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64167015
> Incoming US congressman Robert Garcia will be sworn in using the US Constitution - and a Superman comic.
>Although using the Superman comic may be a bit unorthodox when taking the oath of office, technically it's not illegal, per Article VI of the US Constitution. The Article states, in part, that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".
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 poster has used as an example, or some other relevant document that is there as physical representation of something abstract?
If I, not being religious, were being sworn in as the head of NASA, I'd find it much more poignant to swear over the US constitution, or on nothing at all.
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.
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?
> 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.
Does the person swearing on Sagans book think Sagan is going to hold them accountable to a broken promise?
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.
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.
It’s not hard to imagine those people finding more meaning in ceremonially swearing over a Constitution, science text, or other important document.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How does that follow? Ayn Rand did not create any ideology worth mentioning in this context.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
[Kung Fu Monkey -- Ephemera, blog post, March 19, 2009]”
To be clear, the comment denigrates Christians, by (among other things) saying that they pretend to worship.
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.
If you are unwilling to put in the effort to learn what Christianity is, then you should also be unwilling to make comments about whether people are practicing it correctly.
I don’t think people who are raised Christianity are taught what Christianity is, so it doesn’t surprise me that you’re born, raised, & confirmed. People who are born and raised Christian are generally taught how to practice Christianity, and that instruction is tailored to their specific sect. They are not (typically) taught what Christianity is, especially other sects, because it is not really relevant to the practice of Christianity (this is not a judgment, I think it’s fine). I would expect people to learn what Christianity is if they went to seminary (depending, some seminaries don’t) or if they studied religion in college.
It is only through a misconception of religion that the accusation of pretense really stands. “These people aren’t really Christians, they are just pretending” is an old chestnut that has started enough wars; it is long past time to disabuse people of the misunderstandings that lead to those accusations in the first place.
You can see Christians who are behaving the wrong way, by your judgment, without accusing them of acting unfaithfully.
If you sincerely do just want to communicate this to them, I recommend using "God" instead of "Skygod". It doesn't change the message and it makes it sound more like you're speaking in good faith.
>If you don't call out the hypocrites, how would they ever know they are wrong?
If you're not actually trying to convince them they're wrong, you can't use that to justify uncivility.
I get that being polite is less important than preventing someone from leveraging the government to restrict others' freedoms. But if everyone defects from social norms, we'll be in the exact same place on those issues while being collectively worse off.
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
that depends on what someone believes. for a believer in god, god may well judge that person for violating the goals or principles from carl sagan's book. or they may meet carl sagan in the afterlife and face his disappointment there.
again, the problem for me is not what the person swearing the oath believes, but what everyone else around believes about the gesture. and for them, if the document is not something that everyone is familiar with and supports, the gesture becomes meaningless.
If the only reason to do it is because the people around them will hold their oath in higher regard - shouldn't they swear on a stack of all religious texts, and on all gods?
> Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ 34But I tell you not to swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35or by the earth, for it is His footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King...
Implying that even in a religious context, one might swear on "one's mother's grave"in the metaphorical sense. So then I think there must be a natural and historical reverence to oaths in general, which sends my mind down more Neil Gaiman-ish paths. I would bet that the significance of an Oath is older than every extant religion.
Furthermore, you can’t prove what happens after you die. I mean you may very well be right, but it’s just your personal belief.
That is a belief in personal responsibility not motivated by fear of punishment by a supreme being.
This quote from Sagan convey's that meaning among others IMO:
It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.
Also see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_o...
Where fear of gods punishement would be at the lowest level.
The premise is flawed.
I don’t believe that there is any being who ‘will witness and judge me’.
That is, other than my peers. Who are not supernatural. My using a Sagan book is therefore nothing more than symbolism: here’s who I am. Here’s what I represent. If you see this and think, ‘hell yeah!’, then you are in the cohort whose approval I seek; you are one of those to whom I give my promise to do right.
But I know it’s only symbolism. Nothing actually happens. Whereas those who solemnly swear on the bible believe that they will literally be judged by god and sent to heaven or hell as a result.
Swearing an oath is similar. You're not more or less trustworthy simply for being religious; it's just that, it you're religious, you think you are (but actually it's just based on internal factors of who you actually are and how you behave).
It's like swearing something 'on your mother's grave'. That's not something done because zombie mothers will rise up to enforce anything. It's supposed to signify that you hold great reverence for your mother and that your conviction is as strong as that respect. Swearing on the grave of your mother and lying would be dishonoring her and betraying the reverence you supposedly held. Swearing on Carl Sagan's book is expressing that the new director has great respect for Sagan (or at least that particular work) and that she'll treat her oath with the same level of respect. I think it's pretty appropriate given the role.
This was done in cultures where people really believed their deceased ancestors were watching them and judging their every move, and that in the future they’d either see their ancestors in paradise, or they wouldn’t.
We just kept doing it long after those beliefs became uncool, like a lot of other vestiges of our religious past.
But they don’t swear people in over their mothers grave. If they did I hope everyone would agree that it’s meaningless, unless that person actually believed in some power of his dead mother.
Probably this doesn't work on everybody. Even if it only works on 5%, it's essentially free so why not?
The oath is a symbolic ritual that communicates something to other people around you.
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 remove them the oath makes less sense.
Synthesis: Oaths mean nothing to anyone but the oathtaker, and you can't magically wish someone into an unbreakable bond.
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.
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.
Swearing an oath was a religious ritual – a solemn promise made invoking the name of the deity, with the implication that any violation of the promise would be risking divine judgement, quite apart from whatever earthly consequences might follow (e.g. criminal prosecution for perjury)
Then along came the Quakers, who objected to oaths on religious grounds. Their objection was not the invocation of God as such – rather, they believed that God wanted them to tell the truth at all times, so making a special promise to God to tell the truth on a particular occasion was wrong, because it implied it was okay to not tell the truth on other occasions.
This caused a lot of problems in 17th century England – Quakers would refuse to swear oaths before courts as a matter of principle, and that refusal was a crime. In response, in 1695, the English Parliament enacted the Quakers Act, which allowed Quakers to make an affirmation instead – a solemn declaration that they were telling the truth on this occasion, but without making any special promise to the deity in doing so. And while the right to make an affirmation rather than swear an oath was initially limited only to Quakers, over time it became extended to apply to anyone who had an objection to swearing an oath, for whatever reason – and that legal provision for making an affirmation instead of swearing an oath was inherited by most of the English-speaking world.
But nowadays, many people appear ignorant of the oath-versus-affirmation distinction, and start talking about "non-religious oaths", which historically speaking doesn't make a lot of sense – swearing an oath was always seen as a religious act, and people who object to that religious act (whether for religious reasons or non-religious reasons) should really be making an affirmation instead – something most English-speaking legal systems let people do.
I don't know if she actually did swear an oath though. Possibly, she made an affirmation rather than an oath, but the journalist is calling it an "oath" because they don't know the difference (or assume their readers don't)
> If I, not being religious, were being sworn in as the head of NASA, I'd find it much more poignant to swear over the US constitution, or on nothing at all.
Confusing headline, she isn't head of NASA, just one of NASA's centres. Some federal agencies have a head called "Director" (e.g. the FBI); but for NASA, the head is called the "Administrator", and "Director" is a more junior position.
> I, Sean Hunter, do hereby swear by Almighty God/solemnly affirm that I wil bear faithful and true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the second, her heirs and successors according to the law.But it isn't just a British (or Commonwealth) thing, Americans have the exact same distinction, part of their British inheritance. Here's a quote from Article II, Section 1, of the US Constitution:
> Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
That sounds funny. Doesn't this give you more disadvantages than advantages? I'm surprised it's even possible; in other countries you have to have lived there for around 7 years or so until you get citizenship.
No real disadvantages. Being a British citizen means I can live and work in the UK if I want. As I said, I’ve never been there-but you never know what the future holds.
Pre-Brexit, it let me live and work anywhere in the EU-not that I ever did that either. But I thought about it. My brother actually did it for a bit.
Maybe one day Scotland will become independent, and I’ll trade my British citizenship for Scottish, and then Scotland will rejoin the EU and I’ll get my EU citizenship back. A man can dream.
One drawback, is as a dual Australian citizen, the Australian constitution says I’m not allowed to run for (federal) Parliament. I doubt I’m ever going into politics, but if I was, I’d legally have to renounce my UK citizenship before nominating as a (federal) candidate. By contrast, the UK doesn’t bar dual citizens from Parliament-in fact, it even lets Australians vote, and run for Parliament-and I mean sole Australian citizens, who aren’t UK dual citizens.
> I'm surprised it's even possible; in other countries you have to have lived there for around 7 years or so until you get citizenship.
Due to the UK’s colonial/imperial history, its citizenship laws are insanely complex-arguably more complicated than any other nation on earth’s-full of all kinds of obscure complex exceptions-I’m one of those. You see, my mother was born in Scotland. My younger siblings, they inherited UK citizenship from her at birth. However, I was born when the old (pre-1983) law was still in force, which said legitimate children could only inherit British citizenship from their father (whereas, illegitimate children could only inherit it from their mother.) Since I was legitimate, and it was my mother not my father who was the UK citizen - no UK citizenship for me. Until, in my 20s, they changed the law so people in my situation could apply for citizenship by registration. Registration is legally equivalent to naturalisation - the ceremony is the same, the legal consequences are almost identical - the difference is, no residency requirements. So that’s how I got to go to my UK citizenship ceremony without ever having stepped foot in the UK in my life
> By contrast, the UK doesn’t bar dual citizens from Parliament-in fact, it even lets Australians vote, and run for Parliament-and I mean sole Australian citizens, who aren’t UK dual citizens.
[1] https://money.cnn.com/2017/02/09/news/boris-johnson-us-citiz...
She was then required to follow the provided text. It's clear she didn't mean it.
Off-screen comment "None of us like it."
Since swearing in on a document has no official requirement, the idea is to telegraph your values.
Fun fact about swearing on things: There is a widely-held but probably untrue belief that the origin of the words "testify", "testimony" etc was that in ancient Rome you swore an oath with one hand on your testicles, I guess the implication being "If I don't tell the truth you can cut these off". Women weren't allowed to give legal testimony so the fact they wouldn't be able to do this isn't a drawback to this theory. This is probably a myth because there's no written evidence of this particular form of oath being taken in Rome and the word for "witness" is "testis". "Testicle" actually derives from the diminutive of this word (rather than the other way around).[1]
The origin of this myth seems to be a biblical passage in which such an oath was taken.
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 - at least for oaths that matter to them), but then again the religious dimension becomes awkward, because public servants are mere mortals like you.
Bret Devereaux has a useful blog article on this topic:
https://acoup.blog/2019/06/28/collections-oaths-how-do-they-...
As with many other rituals inherited from a distant past, there is a discrepancy between what we do and what we believe. In the times when oaths were first introduced, open atheism would be extremely rare. Nowadays, it isn't, so the original construction starts to come apart at the seams.
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.
They made 10 people swear on the ten commandments before making a test intended to check for their honesty, they made another group of people take the same test while taking an oath on a general document stating they'd be truthful, and finally they did the same test with a control group who wasn't asked to swear on anything.
All participants were checked to be atheists (so not caring much for the words of any God) beforehand as well.
The outcome was that generally speaking, just being asked to swear on something tended to remind people of their own convictions, which in turn tended to result in them answering the subsequent test questions more honestly.
That's all swearing over a document really does - it reminds someone of their morals (usually with the intent of guilt tripping them into not lying afterwards). I don't know about any other social reasons why we do it, but that's the psychological effect it has. (This is presumably why you can do it on any document that you have a sufficient conviction of being important to you as well.)
The Kipling oath isn't phrased that way so it probably wasn't a Canadian school, but it does have a similar intent.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_of_the_Calling_of_an_En...
I'm not Canadian, but I took some engineering classes and these oaths and rings were brought up when discussing ethics. Funnily enough we were told they were forged from the material of a collapsed bridge as a reminder to not build shitty bridges, but according to the article that's a myth.
https://www.nspe.org/resources/pe-magazine/july-2009/called-....
There's also a code of ethics:
https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics/engineers-...
Sadly, most software engineers aren't licensed professional engineers.
I’ve been told plenty of times that such a future is implausible. And I grant that our future may look a lot more like The Orville than Star Trek. But from an engineering, public health, and social perspective it seems that both of those visions have more similarities than differences. I accept that the individual work most of us do don’t directly build that future alone, but someone up-thread was quoting “E Pluribus Unum” and that’s how we get there.
(Auto-correct wished that to be “E Pluribus Ubuntu,” but I’ve always suspected LCARS is a lot more like BSD, Arch or Gentoo.)
Our present is equally implausible.
What happens when you start crossing religious, educational, economic, and cultural boundaries? There's absolutely no way to cover those things with fewer than a few thousand people.
It's much like reciting wedding vows. You are making a very public promise, with a real threat of social ostracization if you break it.
I also read a 20th century book which made the interpretation that "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" of the Ten Commandments is an instruction not to swear oaths on the Bible, since everyone is fallible and so can't guarantee them anyway. I can't remember off-hand which book it was though.
I think you can also "affirm" instead of "swearing an oath," and that avoids any need for an object.
the point is a childish rebellion against traditions the nation was founded on as a social signal to their in-group for validation. Might as well tip a fedora while giving the oath
As a protestant myself, give me an atheist pledging the oath over something they believe in (not in a religious sense here, but a personal philosophy sense) over an atheist making a mockery of religion by pledging the oath over something they don't believe in (and may detest).
People naturally have different interpretations of the ceremony where you swear an oath. Some people believe that the ceremony is symbolic—there is no actual entity whose wrath they are invoking if they break the oath. It is natural to want to make the ceremony conform somewhat to your actual, personal beliefs, rather than participating inauthentically. That’s all that’s needed here to understand the decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible?wprov=sfla1
Theodore Roosevelt was sworn in without a Bible:
https://guides.loc.gov/presidential-inaugurations/1897-1925#...
Also, I'm sure there are even many Christians that would specifically not want you to swear on a Bible if you are not a believer, because that would be dishonest.
Remind me which of those they were, considering much of the founding fathers directly based much of the nation on the French system of government and after Enlightenment ideals, which famously rejected the role of God in Government
Which is why it's not done in lots of places. Here it's only a sentence which is either translated "So help me God almighty" or "That I declare and promise" (pinky swear basically)
The legal meaning is that you can be held accountable to the preceding promise. Apparently God is only there to help you since you are unable to do it yourself but has no game in the promise.
The point is that what you swear is important to you and something you wouldn't want to let down.
I'm not sure why you are so upset about this.
* 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 are endorsing this false idea here!
* An understanding of symbolism and its nuances is also lacking. Perhaps this isn't a surprise, as Enlightenment thinking and literalist Protestant thought have largely erased cultural understanding of symbolism. Thus we have confusion in two ways: many folks swear on the Bible out of convention or lack of critical thought, rather than belief, but will rationalize if pressed, and then folks who are very thoughtful may choose the Bible (looking "normal") or something else (looking "different"). The document chosen, if there is a conscious choice made, symbolizes something about their approach to the ceremony and the position. It is not necessarily a magical choice. (A magical approach takes symbolism a step further and imbues the symbolic object with supernatural power. Contrary to popular belief, this is not a universal approach vis a vis the Bible. Remember that the Christian church and Christian faith and practice existed before the Bible was written, easy to forget in a "sola scriptura" cultural milieu!)
* 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.
Human rituals cannot be usefully be interpreted as legal acts or as declarations of intellectual belief in a set of propositions. They are symbols. The intellectual incoherency of commonly swearing on a book that says not to swear alone ought to tip you off. I sympathize, folks! I grew up quite literal-minded and so have had quite a struggle coming to terms with the Protestantism I grew up with. Learning the intellectual history of thought and religion and understanding the ways different cultures engage with the divine/supernatural/morality has been very helpful -- and some of that learning must be experiential. Taking part in physical rituals taps into a very different part of the human experience than reading philosophy.
There is a difference between what we consider to be the sacred and the profane. Rituals fall into either of these categories as well.
lol, categorically, no
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?
Most Christian theology holds that God is the present age is not going smite people for breaking such oaths. I think you are right to frame this ritually not theologically.
I would argue that purpose of swearing on an object is that it demonstrates that the oath is being made seriously, as an oath. Lying and breaking minor promises is socially acceptable in almost all human societies, and in some circumstances it is more socially acceptable to lie than be truthful. An oath is a different sort of object. An oath is something which is not socially acceptable to break, and thus swearing on an object which is deeply important to the oath taker ritually emphasizes this fact both to the oath taker themselves and to society at large.
A modernist view of rituals is that they create Schelling fences[0]. You agree to X, everyone knows you agreed to X, you know that you agreed to X, and you know that everyone knows that you agreed to X. Thus, if you do !X, you know that you have broken an important oath and everyone knows that you have broken an important oath. There is a clear line and there are mutually reenforcing internal and external pressures not to cross that line. Furthermore, if someone tells you to d !X, you have an ironclad reason to tell them no and it is much harder for them to take the rejection personally since it is personal. You can point to a public pre-commited attestation to never do !X.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory)
Or to put it another way. Since it is very obvious that people routinely break oaths, Modern Christians have come up with the rationalization that God chooses not to smite them, rather than accept the more likely explanation that God can't smite them for the same reason Superman couldn't prevent the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack.
If the phrasing of 'antisinning' wasn't enough of a tell, you might notice this fits Progressive antiracist rhetoric literally perfectly. And it's not a coincidence. The man who wrote "How to Be an Antiracist" (which is undoubtedly the most influential modern text on such topics) not only spent most of his early education in Christian schools, but is also the son of two Christian ministers. Antiracist rhetoric is literally Christian original sin repackaged with racism replacing sinning. Design patterns show up across all "industries."
> Design patterns show up across all "industries."
Strong agree, and I would argue that even if antiracism philosophy did not come from christianity it would likely arrive at a similar point due to the nature of the problem. Any sort of hill climbing algorithm that does not assume original sin is very unlikely to be effective.
I do think it is worth focusing on what one is doing right as well as what one is doing wrong. Turning a bad behavior (-1) into a good behavior (+1) is a 2 point improvement, whereas just improving a good behavior (+1) is only an increase of 1. However it is often easier psychologically to improve what you do well then to face your weaknesses and biases.
That is too cynical for my taste. People observe the world around them. They see that sometimes people prosper when they do evil. A lot of theology is an attempt to understand why this is the case. Perhaps the Gods fickle? Perhaps there are no Gods? Perhaps the Gods want to preserve human agency?
Any religion that makes it a core tenant of the faith that God will prevent or punish X, and a human being is capable of doing X, will have dilemma when a human being do X and not be punished. So we have a survivorship bias in favor of religions that can bend without breaking. That religion, and human culture in general, is not falsifiable does not mean it is necessarily wrong anymore than ethics not being a science.
Because he had traveled to deep space and was busy facing off with Imperiex-Prime, an entity capable of destroying not just the Earth (though that was part of his plan) but large portions of the universe itself?
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.
Anecdata, I found that religious or otherwise superstitious people have a more flexible morality that allows them to justify objectively bad behaviour, such as cheating.
Frankly, if all it takes is to ask for forgiveness from an eternal being is enough to guarantee eternal reward, justifying bad behaviour in the present is trivial.
Keeping Christianity around as some hollow ritual handed down by our ancestors seems to me much more insulting to true believers.
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.
> 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 <insert bible joke here> 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.
If Jesus says 'do not swear an oath at all' (Matthew 5:34), and some president or official has been swearing on the Bible since 1789 – as in the case of The United States – what does that have to do with Jesus being inconsistent? The contradictions come when people read His word and decide not to follow it! (And I have done this many times myself in many other ways, sadly, and therefore grateful to Jesus for saving 'a wretch like me').
The reality that The Bible is logically inconsistent provides opportunity for biblical followers to be themselves logically inconsistent.
If The Bible were logically consistent, then that opportunity would not be present; and biblical followers would share a homogenous set of moral ideology.
Christianity is well known for having many different denominations, each with their own take on biblical morality and dogma.
(Matthew 5:33-37)
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.
KJV:
Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
You = plural second person
It uses them because there is an actual difference. In modern English, you cannot tell if "you" is referring to one individual or a group without examining the surrounding context and adding your own judgement (a translator looking at the original text will have much better judgement).
When the KJV uses thou or you (it uses both depending on plural vs singular pronoun references), that is because the underlying text is implying something different. Translations without this distinction are losing some of their meaning.
It totally possible to post the same quote as some kind of proto-Anarchist slogan. “Never let any earthly power control what you should do”, and so on. Whoosh, and Bible becomes hip. Of course, it would be incorrect, but who cares?
The paradox is that most actual is most often most transitory, and most ignored and overlooked is most often the most solid. “Philosophy is untimely”, etc.
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 become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.
[1769] 1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."
[2016] 1. If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.Am I misinterpreting the passage?
Was raised Christian (no longer one) and even attended a Christian college where we took an oath to be diligent, hard-working students...somebody better not check my transcript because I did the exact opposite.
He is simply saying that your outward promises must be a simple reflection of your internal resolve. "simple yes or no". And dressing it up either as being based on divine attribures or your given nature is a form of deception, self-deception or otherwise.
"anything more than this comes from evil"
Which is basically true. You know your internal position. It is either yes or no on 'promise x'. Why dress it up?
> No Christian can obey all the statutes of the Bible
Love God with all your heart and all your mind, and love your neighbor even as yourself. All the law and prophets hang on this.
That's the meta "statue". It's basically the foundation of a subset of human religions, certainly the Abrahamic ones.
Most struggle with loving ourselves, our fellow bipeds, or our God, or some combo but the clue is the implication that they are all one and the same. ["even"]
It is really core to the entire matter. Love in the fullness of its meaning.
That's how it's spread all over the globe at rapid pace.
Swearing by the Bible is a contradiction. But swearing by the Old Testament alone is not a contradiction.
when we want you to
It is utterly forbidden to kill in the bible.
200 years after Christ, the Roman army was "Christian".
Hmm.
Or a pretty good message if you are legally required to swear on a book.
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.
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 would be disappoined if this were just a marketing move as that would further erode the value of oaths, honesty and ultimately honor.
That means nothing to some people. In which case I’d argue an oath means strictly less than if you have some higher power you feel accountable to. I don’t think anyone thinks - least of all Carl Sagan - that Carl Sagan can hold themselves accountable for broken promises.
In this case it’s being used as a demonstration of values which people don’t necessarily see as having any eternal or cosmic weight. Do they believe the nature of not following these values begets some sort of divine justice? The very fact that they are choosing them seems to imply no - others may choose different values and not fulfill those ones. Do they think such oaths should be rejected?
So for example like oath of fealty vs vow of poverty. The difference is inherently religious and kind of subtle and not explicit in most contexts, plus vows aren't very common anymore. But if you read for example a christian marriage vow next to an oath of office you can clearly see the different intent.
And again the meanings are usually the same in general modern use and the religious rite aspect is probably not very important to many people. But when talking about a specific formal oath or vow you can definitely tell that it's two separate rites.
Maybe I’ll swear on the biography of Steve Jobs if I’m appointed.
This is a good test of the meaning of making a solemn promise of service.
My reaction to a pledge invoking the career and achievements of Steve Jobs might be to keep my investment in the operation while seeking employment elsewhere. But if you were to make your pledge of service while invoking Ayn Rand, I might not keep my investment in the operation either. ^_^
Though, while the fear of punishment might trump your inclination to do evil, it does not really make you a fundamentally better person. So, while this old ritual might soothe someone's need to feel trust in the person sworn in, it's really not such a great guarantee.
The ritual does several things:
- It's an attempt at manipulating the person being sworn in to uphold his oath, whether he's actually good or not, or whether he's planning on upholding his oaths or not
- It's a way to soothe the population's trust in the person, again a form of manipulation
- It's a way for higher officials too soothe their own trust in the person, and perhaps it thus serves as a form of self-delusion
- It's a nice ceremony to make people come together to witness some institution of power, though, and as such it is indeed a nice and good tradition, which I think is worthwhile to uphold in one way or another
While I have conflicting thoughts about how people are sworn in today, I can understand that the Bible does not hold as much power over most modern human beings as it used to, and especially those who simply aren't Christian at all. So, what should they swear upon? I, for one, would rather make it a book on moral philosophy that you can stand by, which you have read, and that you agree with.
With that said, I think if you really meditate on the moral philosophy of Jesus, then I'm sure that even if you're an atheist, you'll still come to the conclusion that it's not so bad after all. He was of course a complicated human being, but I think his fundamental ideas about The Golden Rule (i.e. that you should treat others as you would like to be treated yourself), and his ideas about how all people are created equal (see the rituals surrounding Maundy Thursday where he washed the feet of his disciples and told them that they should do the same to their underlings as a symbol for how everyone are created equal), as universally good principles that you don't strictly need to be religious to get behind.
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.
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.
As for "self-evident social policy" I respectfully disagree. With so much corruption, evil and suffering going on in the world, I think both we and our leaders need some specific reminders from time to time, so we can learn about higher moral ideals, whether that is from Jesus, The Buddha or from Immanuel Kant.
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."
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.
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.
Awesome news though; I love it.
I'm curious how that may break "Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you." ?
The trouble is, there are two possibilities for this commandment: do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, or remember the sabbath day by keeping it holy. Pretty clear which is meant here, but the numbering of the Ten Commandments is controversial.
Exodus has a couple of sets, but that one I cited is the third one from 34.
If you're constrained to the OT then it's tricky, as the NT suggests JC only mentioned 5 or 6 and they were also poorly enumerated and conflicting.
Worse, those were of course third- (or more) hand accounts of what JC may have actually claimed.
I'm not sure if the whole 'mixed fabric, shellfish are okay, etc' covenants that were undone in the NT included week-long unleavened bread obligations, or how else they may have adjusted the intent around interpreting the several conflicting sets of commandments from the OT.
So I can definitely understand why Makenzie chose a Sagan book -- much more clarity, much less ambiguity.
The Ten Commandments were written with the finger of God on stone and stored IN the Ark of the Covenant.
> Deuteronomy 10:2 KJV > And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark.
The ceremonial laws were written by Moses on parchment and stored BESIDE the Ark of the Covenant.
> Deuteronomy 31:26 KJV > Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
There is a clear distinction between the two.
> Mark 12:30-31 KJV > And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
There isn't any question about the two great commandments as they are identical in all the gospels where they are mentioned. There also isn't any question because Jesus was just quoting the first law from Deuteronomy and the second law follows rather strictly as a subset of the first law (love people as much as God loves people).
> Deuteronomy 6:5 KJV > And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
This is also enshrined in the Ten Commandments themselves. The first 4 talk about how God wants to be worshipped. The last 6 talk about how God wants us to treat each other. Interestingly, when you compare text size the split seems about even and would indicate the first 4 commandments were on one stone tablet and the other 6 were on the other tablet.
Here's where we see Jesus mention 5 of the 6 commandments about people.
> Matthew 19:18-19 KJV > He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
He didn't mention coveting OR the commandments about God for a reason. This man was covetous. Because of this, he also wasn't honoring God. Jesus tells the man what he lacks by telling him to sell all his things and thus eliminate his covetous problem to which the man goes away unwilling to part with his riches.
This doesn't mean Jesus didn't believe coveting was ok. He calls it out by name in at least two other gospels.
> Luke 12:15 KJV > And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.
> Mark 7:22 KJV > Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
What is the point, other than ceremonial, I guess.
One can raise their right hand and swear on the bible or swear on "Pale Blue Dot" and still not do what they swore to do. And someone might not swear at all and keep faithful and do what he or she is supposed to do.
How does swearing in make a bit of difference? It's nuts. Just hire me and let me get on with the job.
More importantly, the New Testament portion of the Bible teaches not to swear at all, so the whole practice is misguided.
"The oath-swearing practice varied significantly, sometimes involving ritualised drinking or placing hands on a holy pig (referred to as a sónargöltr) that could later be sacrificed"
But I still don’t think making a promise to some set of values that is not believed to have the capacity to enforce them makes much sense. Christians aren’t swearing an oath to Christian values - they are swearing to God. Obviously not everyone is religious, but that’s exactly why it doesn’t make sense to sub in some non religious belief in its place.
Fairies don't have tails.
The universe is eternal xD
We really have no idea…
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
When I was a child the creation myth from the Bible reminded me of aliens.
On the one hand, you have ALL major religions agree that powerful beings who came to earth (or created Earth) and populated it with humans.
On the other hand, you have the "scientific" alternative. This is where you have several different asteroids all exactly the right size to have proto-atmospheres. Each atmosphere is different because the fundamental building blocks of life can't all form in the same atmosphere. They all develop their specific part of the equation. Now, they all happen to crash together in the exact same place at the exact same time. Their material is thrown together onto yet another asteroid with a different atmosphere sufficient to sustain life. Those materials happen to collide just right so they form a primitive lifeform. Finally, this meteor happens to crash on Earth (instead of any other planet) without generating enough heat or impact force to destroy the fledgling lifeforms and it happens to land on a part of Earth where the lifeforms won't be killed off by the surroundings.
What are the odds all those asteroids form? That every one has different atmospheres? That the all hit the exact location at the same time? That the constituent parts aren't destroyed in this crash? That the parts randomly come together to form life? that this happens close to a solar system? That the solar system has the right star and planets to support that life? That the life isn't destroyed?
Now put that up against a powerful alien (which could have formed under different universal rules without such astronomical odds) implanting life on a planet?
In Christianity and many other religions it’s a very real thing to promise God you will do something, it’s not superstition.
Supernatural is a term attributed to non-physical entities, such as angels, demons, gods, and spirits. It also includes claimed abilities embodied in or provided by such beings, including magic, telekinesis, levitation, precognition, and extrasensory perception.
One persons superstition is frequently anothers religion.
And sure, you might derogatorily refer to someone’s religion as a superstition, just like I might call someone a “pagan” even if he’s strictly speaking just a heretic.
But in reality these are all precise terms with different meanings.
To be a bit more precise, superstitions deal with more or less automatic things like receiving luck by touching some rock. If you swear to God, that is not some automatic process that will bring you luck, its a divine being with a will that presumably would be angry if you break your oath. Do you see the difference?
Both are superstitions. The rock example is actually less superstitious because rocks actually exist. There is zero evidence gods exist.
It really has nothing to do with what you personally believe or not.
In your example the difference is that the rock effect is automatic, like gravity, but the god is a sentient being that has a will.
Why is it so hard to accept that people call these different things? You can still despise people who believe in both.
There is no difference. This is the fallacy of special pleading. You're saying that the example with god is different because you defined god to be different from the thing you don't want it to be the same as. You are presupposing gods existence. There is no evidence such an entity exists and is therefore superstition.
I didn’t say anything about the god having to exist, that is not part of it. The point is that the person believes he is talking to a being, rather than relying on a law of (super)nature.
The rock has no will, it is not the rock that decides you grant you luck, it’s an inevitable consequence of your action.
The god, real or not, is a being with a will, he presumably hears you and may decide to help or harm you.
Similarly, praying is different from casting spells. Not because they have different effects but how they are thought to work. It doesn’t matter if you or I believe praying works, the point is that prayer is talking to a sentient god. Magic spells is not. Both may be delusional, but surely you must be able to tell them apart? You learn this stuff in middle school.
When the ad hominems start I know I'm on the right track
> The rock has no will / The god, real or not, is a being with a will.
How do you know god is a being with a will? This is the fallacy of special pleading. You are defining god and giving it characteristics that precisely allows you to say it is different than something with no will.
> It doesn’t matter if you or I believe praying works, the point is that prayer is talking to a sentient god. Magic spells is not.
And both are superstition.
> You learn this stuff in middle school.
I went to a school that taught math & science.
And btw I also studied math, in a special mathematics high school, and then theoretical physics at university. But that doesn’t mean I didn’t also learn rudimentary concepts from anthropology and religious studies.
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.
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 then act as though it must be true.
Even if you accept that as incidental, 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 making scientists superstitious in practice as well.
Finally, it is of no little interest to me that so many theoretical physicists are "simulationists" where they believe the universe is a simulation where the creators can exert complete control, but they still hold the belief that these creators are not actually gods (even though that is unprovable and for us would amount to a distinction without a difference).
Perhaps humans are simply hardwired for religion.
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.
WHY does a person say something superstitions? What makes it superstitious if not the beliefs behind the statement? You didn't answer this fundamental question.
> Whether or not they actually do doesn't matter, it is rational to not believe in them until someone presents evidence for their existence.
This is an assertion without any proof. Your only proof for this is the burden of proof. The burden of proof itself demands that it be proven. A religious person might assert that it is true because it was made so, but you have no such fallback, so you MUST prove the burden of proof in order to assert it as a meaningful argument.
> 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.
He most definitely does. His point was to expressly disprove the "theory of everything" that mathematics attempted to achieve at the time.
If you come up with a mathematical framework of the universe, either it cannot be proven or it is NOT the correct framework.
Trusting in a model that MIGHT be correct, but is not provable shares your definition of superstition. Just because your superstition changes over time doesn't make it any less superstitious (in fact, most superstitions change over time).
Your appeal to science is just a no true Scotsman fallacy where you attempt to redefine superstition to be "everything except what I believe".
> 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.
This was the original claim of astrology and many other superstitions.
> I don't care what "so many theoretical physicists" believe. I care what they publish in peer-reviewed literature.
You should care because it will be reflected in what they publish and why they publish it. Likewise, it will reflect what they do not publish or decide not to research in the first place.
> 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.
This is a non-sequitur. Humans are hardwired to breath. Should we stop that in 2023? Your statement is completely orthogonal to the current value of religion or the ability to "overcome" its influence.
But if you want to use the word in its scientific meaning, then Christianity, or Islam or whatever religion, is not a superstition.
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.
> I’m not dictating what the word means
That is precisely what you are doing by trying to insinuate that I am using a "slur". You do not have the authority to conjure a belief system out of thin air, assert that it is true without evidence, and start dictating to people the manner in which they are allowed to speak about it.
A prayer is a prayer, even if someone is praying to a god that you are sure doesn’t exist. It’s still not “magic spells”, for example.
After all Harry died so we could live https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-Z9MV3nwjQ
I wonder what this director will come up with.
This is just silly / virtue signaling.
Many would say, this is silly too. If people need this 'ode' to not do evil, I think something is wrong with them.
Your founding fathers actually wanted a government without religion. Nobody is telling you to not hold your beliefs, just don't impose them on others.
> The point on swearing on the bible is that God (karma, the universe, a higher power) will judge/punish you if you act evil
Humans can swear and have morals and ethics without fear of punishment.
The premise all men are created equal relies on religion to be true. Inalienable rights is a judao Christian idea. Try arriving there with reason. Otherwise the will to power is exploitation of man by man.
The French revolution was based on reason and had a Reign of Terror with a bloody guillotine.
In the system of government they created women were not able to participate in the body politic and slavery was legal. The suppression of women in society and slavery are both endorsed in the bible. Being superstitious has nothing to do with morality or ethics.
> The premise all men are created equal relies on religion to be true. Inalienable rights is a judao Christian idea.
This is demonstrably false. Christianity had 17 centuries before the French Revolution to setup a system of government based on these ideas but instead was aligned with Monarchy and Feudalism. Equality and inalienable rights are Enlightenment ideas.
They wanted a government where the government did not interfere with the religious beliefs of people.
I think it's better if someone calls out that they don't believe in the thing they are swearing on and substitutes it with something they do believe in? otherwise one is making a promise on top of a lie that they also believe in the contents of that book, so the whole stack is forfeit.
Or am I missing something?
I was taken aback to watch some Cosmos with my kids last week though, the Neil deGrasse Tyson edition. It came across as overt quasi-religious indoctrination to me. Makes me wonder if science has become a religion in the US.
Tear down the Catholic church, build up the universe as a new drop-in replacement God with infallible science as his doctrine, anoint and celebrate faith-driven martyrs to the cause from history. Yikes. Sounds straight out of The Book of Mormon to me.
(Admittedly it was less extreme than the Bill Nye special on Netflix that I tried to watch with them the year before.)
Here's a tiny excerpt from Pale Blue Dot. This excerpt elevates the book to high art,
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.
Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.
It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.
— Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, 1994
We're starstuff on a tiny speck dreaming self-important dreams and — occasionally — pondering the stars.
That's not what I found in _Cosmos_ though. The tale of Giordano Bruno seemed more like a celebration of blind faith and trust in posthumous vindication and martyrdom. And an Indiana Jones style switcheroo from Catholicism to Sciencism in one swift motion. Jarring.
A persistent theme in Dr Sagan's work was the frailty of knowledge, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vMPtpC4wGk and the danger enlightenment faces from fanatics. He also talked, at length, about the shortcomings of religion (and the possibility of partnering with religions against pseudoscience),
This is one of the reasons that the organized religions do not inspire me with confidence. Which leaders of the major faiths acknowledge that their beliefs might be incomplete or erroneous and establish institutes to uncover possible doctrinal deficiencies? Beyond the test of everyday living, who is systematically testing the circumstances in which traditional religious teachings may no longer apply? (It is certainly conceivable that doctrines and ethics that may have worked fairly well in patriarchal or patristic or medieval times might be thoroughly invalid in the very different world we inhabit today.) What sermons even-handedly examine the God hypothesis? What rewards are religious skeptics given by the established religions or, for that matter, social and economic skeptics by the society in which they swim?
Science, Ann Druyan notes, is forever whispering in our ears, "Remember, you're very new at this. You might be mistaken. You've been wrong before." Despite all the talk of humility, show me something comparable in religion. Scripture is said to be divinely inspired--a phrase with many meanings. But what if it's simply made up by fallible humans? Miracles are attested, but what if they're instead some mix of charlatanry, unfamiliar states of consciousness, misapprehensions of natural phenomena, and mental illness? No contemporary religion and no New Age belief seems to me to take sufficient account of the grandeur, magnificence, subtlety and intricacy of the Universe revealed by science. The fact that so little of the findings of modern science is prefigured in Scripture to my mind casts further doubt on its divine inspiration.
But of course I might be wrong.Seems it's not just me who reacted this way: https://ncse.ngo/burning-obsession-cosmos-and-its-metaphysic...
I'm also watching from an almost completely secular society (Sweden) where there is no great need to counter the political influence (etc) of religious organizations. Maybe that is why this comes across as foreign "culture wars" fodder. (I'm also conscious that for this reason I might be naively linking to some partisan organization above... I will just stop typing now.)
The transition from awe at the scale of the universe, to the futility of human selfishness, to the need to treat people kindly, may seem obvious to us but is actually a culturally-dependent response.
This is not a criticism, just an acknowledgment that Sagan belonged to a particular culture and this influenced him far more that he himself would probably have admitted.
Cultures are funny like that: give it a couple millennia and a theological point could eventually become just plain old common sense.
I am not a very religious person but I’ve done a fair bit of reading, and it seems clear to me that in this passage Sagan is drawing from a very old and very deep well. This was something embedded in his cultural background and he might not have been aware of it himself.
Specifically, the sequence that goes from a profound aesthetic experience, to awe at the scale of the Universe, to the futility of human selfishness, and finally to the conclusion that we ought to treat each other kindly, is very much not obvious. It just seems obvious to us (and to him) because that’s the culture where we have been raised.
Now, I’m not saying that the experience described in this passage is exactly the same as the Buddha achieving enlightenment or a Christian saint receiving the beatific vision. But they are not completely different either.