I think the article is a bit misguided there. The purest form of atheism ( = belief that there is no deity, as opposed to the rejection of belief in deities ) i

I think the article is a bit misguided there. The purest form of atheism ( = belief that there is no deity, as opposed to the rejection of belief in deities ) it is just another fundamentally unprovable belief system. If you wind the clock back far enough you always arrive at an undecided point where both assumptions - chaos vs. intelligent creation - become equally valid from our point of view. I don't see how worshipping is universally linked to the human experience - except if you define following the scientific process itself as 'worshipping'. The whole point of it is that previous knowledge can be overturned by evidence, so there should not be any dogma - and if you find any in your field, there is something deeply wrong with it. There does seem to exist an uncomfortable trend of going down deeply untestable rabbit holes in theoretical physics however - string theory is the best example currently. Now, when it comes to Computer Science, this field seems to be still full of dogma - for me a sign that it isn't really a scientific field (yet) to begin with. E.g. "X considered harmful" type statements by certain influential people become way too dogmatic way too quickly, without actually requiring evidence outside of a few usage examples.