Contra Woo-woo
Atheism is not the belief in nothing; it is the acceptance of nothing. The acceptance of the conclusion that we are alone in the universe. Acceptance of nothing must be one of the most genuine expressions of human humility. If an omniscient being exists out of nature, then it’s unknowable to every human conscience constrained by nature. So even if that’s the case (I doubt it is), it would still feel to me that we’re alone, and that’s ok.
Some refer to the connectedness of everything in nature as a kind of fabric, whose state at any moment in time represents the collective experience of all its members, animate and not. The nucleus of an atom is not one thing. A molecule is many atoms connected. A cell is millions of interconnected molecules. And so on, up the hierarchy of order, just so. An individual human being, her conscience constrained by nature, may nevertheless close her eyes and imagine what her existence on the fabric means. But an answer will never come. No entity may come to understand the true nature, or meaning, of the larger natural order it’s part of. And when left unchallenged, human imagination can morph into a malignant belief in the supernatural. The alternative is simply to acquiesce to one’s role in the order and acknowledge the absurdity of our existence within it. That’s how it feels to me.
The wisdom here is not to curb your imagination – it’s part of what makes existence on the fabric fun! – but to try and avoid having it metastasize into an irreversible belief in the supernatural.
And before you call me woo-woo, go ahead, try to provide a definition of meaning that doesn’t make you, too, sound woo-woo. And while you’re at it, try the same for good and evil.
All moral judgement is sort of funny, really, when you accept the absurdity of existence. It’s an axiom of existence that, tabula rasa, no one is better or worse than any other human being on the fabric. I think our desire to judge others may be driven by another kind of supernatural belief, Free Will. Ever had someone tell you that you under-performed, that you could have done better? Next time, smile and reply: No, really, I could not have performed differently, I could not have performed otherwise. Then maybe go a step further, get Socratic on your judger: Can the rock do other than roll (or not). Can the seed do other than grow. Can the heart do other than pump. Might the liver do other than metabolize, or a lung do other than respire. No? Well then, do tell, how could the brain (me) have done otherwise? There are no satisfying answers to that question.
And if you think I’m straying into the woo-woo again, go ahead, provide an explanation in science, or even a convincing thought experiment, starting with the atom and the immutable law of cause and effect, working your way up the hierarchy of material organization, that will show how the outcome of any human action could have been otherwise. (A caution for experts: Quantum indeterminacy doesn’t get around the problem).