Mike Dulak grew up Catholic in Southern California, but by his teen years, he began skipping Mass and driving straight to the shore to play guitar, watch the waves and enjoy the beauty of the morning. “And it felt more spiritual than any time I set foot in a church,” he recalled.

Nothing has changed that view in the ensuing decades.

“Most religions are there to control people and get money from them,” said Dulak, now 76, of Rocheport, Missouri. He also cited sex abuse scandals in Catholic and Southern Baptist churches. “I can’t buy into that,” he said.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Atheism? Sure some New Atheist branches practice it like a faith

    Science? It’s a tool for measuring things… it is about as much of a religion as a ruler

    • nBodyProblem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Science? It’s a tool for measuring things… it is about as much of a religion as a ruler

      It’s not, it’s a system that seeks to understand our world at a deeper level and predict future events.

      It’s funny you mention that, though, because it brings up one of the difficulties in science. Measurements we base our scientific theories on rely on instruments, most of which themselves rely on other theories for reliable operation and interpretation of data.

      One philosopher of science famously brought up the analogy of a surveyor who doesn’t understand magnetism. He attempts to use a compass as a surveying tool near some hidden source of magnetic field. Without understanding of the underlying principles of magnetism and local magnetic field, he would assume the compass unfailingly points north and the resulting measurements of the local geography would be wrong. Those flawed measurements might then be used by geologists, leading to the development of theories supported by flawed data.

      There is always a degree of uncertainty in the instruments we use to develop and test our hypotheses because there is no such thing as certain knowledge in science. However, at some point we simply put faith in the scientific method and presume that our underlying theories are sufficiently accurate for our purposes and proceed accordingly.

      • lingh0e@lemmy.film
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your surveyor story sounds like something a christian apologist would say, or someone who doesn’t know the difference between science and religion.

        Even stone age people knew the difference between East and West. If a surveyor incorrectly used a compass his work could still be verified by looking at a goddamn sunrise. If the surveyor ignored the conflicting data and, as you say “put his faith in his instruments”, it ceases to be the scientific method and becomes dogmatic fanaticism.

        • nBodyProblem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you not understand what a thought experiment is? It’s an exaggerated example to better illustrate a concept, in this case the concept that reliable calibration and use of instruments is itself based on some underlying theory of operation.

          Even stone age people knew the difference between East and West. If a surveyor incorrectly used a compass his work could still be verified by looking at a goddamn sunrise. If the surveyor ignored the conflicting data and, as you say “put his faith in his instruments”, it ceases to be the scientific method and becomes dogmatic fanaticism.

          If it helps you understand the concept, imagine that the source of error is very weak, only disturbing the compass by a few degrees at any given location.