Here is an interesting essay. Now, there is a lot here one could take issue with as this writer does. But, what interests me is that the writer clearly thinks it would be “better” if existence were not “accidental, purposeless, and doomed.” But why think such? If such is exactly what existence is, then why hope for something different? Or better, why would that “hope” or longing even exist? Clearly it does. This, in and of itself, should give any atheist pause. How is it we have longings, hopes, and desires, for something than doesn’t exist and, as such, can never be fulfilled? Even if one tried to explain these longings, desires, and hopes (the same with morality) as arising from evolutionary forces, it still doesn’t explain why we would be programmed to believe in or long for illusions. Even if one then proposes that we can “create” meaning and purpose and such—it only confirms they are illusionary. Santa Claus is a “creation” of the mind—meaning he does not exist—and the same would then go for meaning, purpose, and such things as morality. If we’ve created such out of thin air, then we would be, of all creatures and life, the most to be pitied. This is the problem the writer is missing. He doesn’t want the world to be accidental, purposeless, or doomed and he also doesn’t want to equate any such desire with God, which always means the most entertaining theories will then be proposed and none with any more evidence than proposing God. All this demonstrates is that, again, none of this has anything to do with the “evidence” but the way one is willing to “interpret” the evidence. All he knows is that he doesn’t want to go where naturalism will logically take someone, which is nihilism—that much he knows.
I find it very interesting that many atheists/humanists do not want the world (existence) to be what they claim it must be. How odd.