[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?

[pigsty]

A person who doesn’t believe in religion being sworn in on a religious book is probably just annoyed. They’re not going to feel loyal to it.

Sworn statements as a whole are just entirely symbolic and don’t really guarantee loyalty or honesty, but if someone who doesn’t believe rejects a religious text that they disbelieve and instead choose something that has meaning and value to them, it’s better in the symbolic sense. A scientist swearing in on a scientific text that’s meaningful to them and that also addresses human morality makes as much sense and symbolically reflects their devotion to their mission as a Bible to a devout Christian.

[seanhunter]

That's absurd.

If God exists then God holds you accountable for your actions whether you swear or not, whether you use a Bible, Carl Sagan, Dr Seuss or a copy of TCP/IP Illustrated by W Richard Stevens.

If God doesn't exist then it clearly doesn't matter what document you swear on at all, because the document is just a signal of values in that case.

Either way you are legally bound by the oath you have made and if you broke it the authorities would be able to enforce that against you to the extent enabled by law regardless of what document you use or indeed no document at all.

The document is (like the ceremony itself) just an artifact that is part of the ritual which is a public observance of a binding promise. In that context, choosing one that has personal meaning makes total sense, whether it is a religious text or something else.

[yetihehe]

People give meaning to things. Bible, Quran, etc have meaning only because people express that meaning.

> But if the people being sworn in don’t view their documents as having some authority over their promise then what is the point?

The point is that swearing on a "Pale blue dot" is exactly expression of submitting to authority of that book.

[mnw21cam]

> People give meaning to things. Bible, Quran, etc have meaning only because people express that meaning.

A fairly central part of the philosophy of quite a few religions is that there is a God who is quite capable of giving meaning to things independently of humans. Not everyone views these as "that's nice" documents. I mean, there's a bit in the Bible (1 Corinthians 15) that says that if the stuff in the Bible is actually true, then it's the most important thing in the world, but if it isn't, then there really isn't any point paying any attention to it at all.

[yetihehe]

> A fairly central part of the philosophy of quite a few religions is that there is a God who is quite capable of giving meaning to things independently of humans.

I think it's like that with all religions. I'd like to speak a little with that god about some meanings.

> Not everyone views these as "that's nice" documents.

You say that those people give a meaning to those documents?

Addendum:

What I mean is that when there is no people who express some meaning, it ceases to exist. If there appeared a god before me to give me a new meaning for something, I would accept it as given from god. But none did so far, ALL meanings are currently expressed by people as far as I know.

[mnw21cam]

Consider the statement "2 + 2 = 4". If there were no people to express what that meant, it would still be true and have meaning.

[yetihehe]

If no one existed, who would consider it true? It would have meaning to who? If you showed that statement to some old tribe which doesn't know numbers beyond 3 (Pirahã), they would not know what you mean. If you showed that without translating to some Romans, they would probably have to think about meaning of that sequence of characters. Some ideas (like mathematics or existence of a higher being) are pretty natural for humans, doesn't mean that those ideas mean anything to anyone besides humans, without people there is no meaning, just some clumps of atoms.

[nonethewiser]

People believe different things about the Bible. She me people think swearing on it is making a promise to God.

Does the person swearing on Sagans book think Sagan is going to hold them accountable to a broken promise?

[sokoloff]

I conclude that person thinks Sagan will hold them equally as accountable as God would if they’d chosen His book.

[yetihehe]

Yes, I think it's equivalent and Sagan will held them as accountable as your chosen god. For "the person", you can just ask directly.

[prawn]

They might be doing it intending that they will remember and endeavour to hold true to some message of the book.

[sokoloff]

Many people view those religious texts no differently than they do a book of secular fairy tales.

It’s not hard to imagine those people finding more meaning in ceremonially swearing over a Constitution, science text, or other important document.