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.

  • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    which could be characterized as a preference for hypothesization over experimentation.

    This is an oversimplification of religion. There is a difference between someone’s religious beliefs, and how they approach logic in a real world situation. A religious person does not just always make a hypothesis and assume it to be true no matter what. They are capable of being normal functioning human beings and differentiating from fact and fiction outside of their religion. If they aren’t capable of this, then I agree its a problem. But its not a problem with religion, its a problem with the person.

    So your problem is that people are believing things you disagree with because it gives them a sense of fulfillment and community without harming anyone else. It could not possibly be more clear that you are the problem.

    And no, it is not gaslighting to point out why you are wrong about something. That’s a ridiculous tactic to avoid the tiniest bit of self reflection.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So your problem is that people are believing things you disagree with because it gives them a sense of fulfillment and community without harming anyone else. It could not possibly be more clear that you are the problem.

      None of that arises from any part of my argument. Your stated conclusions are a product of your own mind and have nothing to do with anything I have said. Your argument is, thus, a strawman fallacy.

      This is an oversimplification of religion.

      It is the fundamental basis of religion. The common denominator. The sine qua non: the component without which the philosophical model in question could not be reasonably described as religious.

      A religious person does not just always make a hypothesis and assume it to be true no matter what

      Conceded.

      They are capable of being normal functioning human beings and differentiating from fact and fiction outside of their religion.

      The capability of distinguishing fact from fiction is meaningless in the circumstances where the individual deliberately intends to reject fact. In declaring themselves religious, they indicate that there are certain circumstances where they intend to do just that.

      • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        None of that arises from any part of my argument. Your stated conclusions are a product of your own mind and have nothing to do with anything I have said. Your argument is, thus, a strawman fallacy.

        From what I can gather, it effectively is your argument. You dislike that people believe things that are not supported with evidence. I do not personally think it matters because they gain value from it and do not harm others in the process. What am I missing?

        The capability of distinguishing fact from fiction is meaningless in the circumstances where the individual deliberately intends to reject fact.

        I can’t disagree with that, but I just don’t see why it matters so much. If they seriously gain that much value from believing something, then let them.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          and do not harm others in the process.

          I have presented no arguments suggesting they are harmless. I have not accepted your premise that they cause no harm. Indeed, I have provided a few examples of common, relatively minor harms, as well as references to the 9/11 attacks as non-exhaustive examples.

          You acknowledged these harms when you strawmanned my position. You can’t rationally claim that no such harms exist, when you have directly acknowledged they do.

          We can disagree on the prevalence of such harms: you have indicated a belief they are rare, and I have refused to waste my time producing an exhaustive list.

          • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You say your problem is that they believe things that are unsupported. Is that all, or do you dislike that because you think it leads to practices you don’t like?

            Such things do of course exist, but they don’t constitute the dislike for all religion. Religious beliefs differ wildly and it makes little sense to denounce all of them because some cause problems.

            Earlier you said that it wasn’t any specific practices that caused you to dislike religion. So, I focused on your problem just with the unsupported beliefs. Now you again bring up specific practices you don’t like.

            I don’t understand what you are even trying to say at this point.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Faith is a disease. In the faithful who aren’t currently hurting anyone, the disease is dormant. They are still infected, and given the right set of circumstances, they will cause harm. A particular variety of the faithful were not putting people at risk, until COVID came around and their faithful infections came to be known as “antivax” and “antimask”.

              Trying to stop the “specific practices” without inoculating against faith is like trying to stop the spread of typhoid without innoculating Mary Mallon against the disease. The faithful are the cause and carriers, regardless of whether they are currently showing symptoms.

              • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                This makes slightly more sense to me although it is painfully overdramatic.

                I could make an argument that any person under the right set of circumstances will cause harm. As far as I am aware, a religious person is not any more of a ticking time bomb than anyone else.

                Blaming religion for these problems without tackling the underlying psychological issues is not going to help in any meaningful way. You just spread more hate and make the world a worse place, instead of approaching the situation with the slightest bit of empathy.

                I see secular groups acting exactly the same way religious groups youve mentioned do. Its not a characteristic of religion or the lack thereof, its a characteristic of mentally unhealthy people.

                If you care so much about these problems, then recognize that the world is not so black and white that you can always find an idea to make your enemy no matter the circumstances. The way to fix these problems is not to alienate massive groups of people because you think they might become bad one day. That’s a childish close-minded world view that only perpetuates the things you claim to hate so much.

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I could make an argument that any person under the right set of circumstances will cause harm.

                  Indeed. However, for a faithless person, those circumstances must exist in objective reality. The faithful merely need to imagine the existence of their own triggers.

                  It’s a characteristic of mentally unhealthy people.

                  I do not concede that this is a symptom of mental illness. What I am talking about is an error in judgment, not a defect in the ability to reason.

                  I see secular groups acting exactly the same way religious groups youve mentioned do.

                  I’m not sure what groups you are referring to. Do these groups “conflate personal belief with objective reality”? If so, I would likely have the same criticism.

                  That’s a childish close-minded world view that only perpetuates the things you claim to hate so much.

                  Where did I claim to “hate” anything at all? I believe the strongest criticism I made was “distrust”. I did once use the word “anger” in a description of my position, but I was directly quoting you at the time. You have inserted quite a lot of emotive concepts on my behalf that I have not actually expressed. I will renew my claims of “strawmen” and “gaslighting”.

                  • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Indeed. However, for a faithless person, those circumstances must exist in objective reality.

                    No, they do not. Anyone can justify any belief regardless of faith. I will admit faith is an easy target to justify horrible things, but its not at all the only way to justify things like that.

                    That’s just how people work. Instead of admitting their beliefs are wrong, they will do mental gymnastics to justify them. It is very possible to have incorrect reasoning without being religious.

                    The underlying problem is absolutely bad mental health. Not necessarily a mental illness, but bad mental health in general. Everyone has justified a belief with bad logic because its too difficult to admit you are wrong. I’ve done it and still occasionally catch myself doing it. I believe you’re doing it right now, although I’ll admit I don’t know you well enough to know for sure. I’m guessing you had some negative experience with religion and now justify your distaste for it by claiming religious people are more prone to doing horrible things.

                    I’m not sure what groups you are referring to. Do these groups “conflate personal belief with objective reality”?

                    Yes, the only difference is that their bad reasoning is not religious in nature. That’s why your problem should be people that do that, not religious people. They are not related.

                    Where did I claim to “hate” anything at all? I believe the strongest criticism I made was “distrust”.

                    Here I was using hate to refer to the examples you gave like anti vaccine and anti mask people. I’m assuming you do hate that, as you should.