[tescocles]

Is there any actual strict requirement that you have to swear over a document of some kind?

I'd have thought swearing over the bible is a stand-in for swearing "before God", and that God would ultimately be your reckoner should you break your oath.

If you don't have that meaning behind the oath, what is the point in using a book at all unless it's something meaningful like the constitution of your country, as another 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.

[noirscape]

The ultimate usefulness of swearing before a God (if you believe in one) isn't that relevant. The psychological reason we tend to request it is because of something far simpler: it reminds us of our convictions. There was a study about a decade ago about this by some social scientists.

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.)

[rbanffy]

When I graduated as an Engineer, I swore an oath. I still remember one value that gets tested from time to time is to remember my work is for the betterment of the human condition, not only the perfection of machines. This has guided me through some difficult choices.

[masfuerte]

I think there's another reason. It's a public line in the sand. If you're a doctor or a chartered engineer and management is pushing you to do something unethical you can point to the oath and say we don't do that. Other people will take it more seriously than an ethical stance that appears to be a mere personal preference. It's not just about the oath taker.

[Wowfunhappy]

As an atheist, I think it would be interesting to see the experiment repeated with a group of (self-described) religious people.

[MarkPNeyer]

I can believe that being reminded of your convictions helps you abide by them, but this is only true if you really have convictions! If you think your being in power is more important than being honest, for example, then the oath your swear might just be one more example of saying the right thing to get into power.

[mensetmanusman]

Sounds like a study that wouldn’t replicate.

[hajile]

That's a huge conclusion about personalities from a selection of just 30 people.

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.

[JohnFen]

Is it really being reminded, or is it the public declaration of the oath and your acceptance of it that makes it effective?

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.

[highwaylights]

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.

[tescocles]

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.

[nonethewiser]

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?

[skissane]

Traditionally there is a distinction between an oath and an affirmation

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.

[seanhunter]

This oath vs affirmation distinction is made clear in the UK for sure. For example when I became a British citizen I was given the option of swearing allegiance to the queen or making a "solemn affirmation" of the same. The only difference being a slight difference of wording. Weirdly I still remember the wording even though it was more than 30 years ago and I only heard it once just before I said it.

   > 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.

[xupybd]

As someone who does believe in God, it seems odd to get someone to swear on a book that tells you not to swear an oath at all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_5#Verse_12

[seabass-labrax]

Matthew 5:37 records that Jesus said something similar during his 'Sermon on the Mount' (which predates the Epistle of James): "All you need to say is simply “Yes,” or “No”; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."

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.

[angelbar]

mmm... has I remember you can... only not in vain...

[quitit]

This article by the New Yorker gets to the meat of your question within the first few paragraphs: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-brief-history-...

Since swearing in on a document has no official requirement, the idea is to telegraph your values.

[seanhunter]

Yes.

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.

[1] https://worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-swe1.htm

[Tams80]

Or, you know, it's just all symbolism.

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.

[inglor_cz]

Oaths tend to be sworn to people with a deity as a guarantor and with the understanding that the invoked deity will punish you accordingly if you break your oath.

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.

[mindslight]

It only "comes apart at the seams" for people that believe there is some ambient authority, which then becomes less powerful or disinterested due to not being involved with the oath.

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.

[azernik]

Though there is, as I commented there, in which the "on penalty of perjury" construction very closely mirrors the original religious structure, with punishment by the state taking the place of punishment by God or the gods. Interestingly, lots of states require the "on penalty of perjury" only in cases where a religious oath is not being made.

[throwboatyface]

You don't even have to swear at all, the Constitution allows officials to swear or affirm. This is because some religious groups at the time of the drafting of the constitution were morally opposed to swearing oaths: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation_(law)

[consp]

> If you don't have that meaning behind the oath, what is the point in using a book at all unless?

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.

[pclmulqdq]

It doesn't have to be a document, but I think it does need to be a thing. For example, most courthouses have an eagle feather you can swear oaths on if you want (several native American tribes do this).

I think you can also "affirm" instead of "swearing an oath," and that avoids any need for an object.

[JohnFen]

Why does there need to be a thing?

[giantg2]

Another point to this is that if you're not religious you no longer have to swear. You can affirm instead.

[shadowgovt]

I suppose this obligates Ann Druyan to hunt her down should she violate her trust.

[ren_engineer]

>If you don't have that meaning behind the oath, what is the point in using a book at all unless?

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

[roywiggins]

Thomas Jefferson literally sliced up a bible to produce a version of the Jesus narrative without all the miracles! The founders were busily questioning their own traditions at the time.

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#...

[Robotbeat]

But I find it very Protestant and American, in a way, to challenge conventional rituals done for ritual sake regardless of belief.

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).

[tekla]

> traditions the nation was founded on

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

[jackothy]

Religion can be rebelled against for reasons that are not childish.

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.

[klodolph]

Please try to keep the discussion civil. That comment is not civil.

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.