Swearing is not pointless, but serves a ritualistic role. It has been used as a psychological mechanism that shaped societies and history. And it still does so, as evident in this article. Swearing an oath is a contractual ritual and is the basis for all lawgiving in the English language. It was used as a binding contract between kings and their subjects (you can look up the Salisbury Oath for just the tip of the iceberg on this topic.)

The ultimate source of consequence is your own conscience, though sadly some people don't have one. But some people who otherwise lack a conscience might still be fearful of God, and so that's why the Bible was seen as a great document to make people swear upon, once upon a time.

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.

> ... his fundamental ideas about The Golden Rule (i.e. that you should treat others as you would like to be treated yourself),

Would you clarify the fundamental phrasing please?

The Golden Rule existed long before the Jesus mythology was created - I gather Buddha and Confucius (ostensibly original attribution lands to him) were describing this fairly self-evident social policy several centuries BCE.

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

As for "self-evident social policy" I respectfully disagree. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have an old sampler religious text and inside the cover is The Golden Rule in every major religion--I want to say there are ten or a dozen of them, from Zoroaster to the Bhagavad Gita.

I think the main point is that the Bible can have some good messages. Whether or not the Christians were the inventors of those messages does not change that fact.

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

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

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

> 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. ^_^