I think what we have now is two nonsensical mythologies masking two more rational undercurrents. Conservative religiousity masks conservative nihilism, and liberal wokeness masks liberal secular humanism. In both cases, you have plenty of people who actually believe the myth. But you also have the true nihilists and secular humanists, who both have a somewhat fraught relationship with the true believers, albeit in different ways.
The conservative nihilists see the religious sheep as manipulable tools. Whereas the liberal humanists see the wokesters as desparate fools who just need to be talked back into reason.
I think what ultimately needs to happen is a merger between the nihilists and the humanists. And I think this is possible because I think they are both, in fact, largely correct in their worldviews.
The humanists are correct because human suffering, hopes and fears (and those of any sentient perspectives) are the only inherent source of value or meaning in the universe. They are the only way to recognize "good" and "bad" when we see it.
And the nihilists are correct because, since all sentient perspectives are ultimately and permanently "siloed" from each other (e.g. insofar as we can't read each other's minds, or feel each other's feelings telepathically), there can never be any truly universal morality. The closest thing to a universal morality we can ever find is some tyranny of a large majority of human preferences.
I explore this idea further in my article 'Morality is personal and tribal, always':
The secular humanists need to ultimately dispense with the myth of a truly universal morality, and the nihilists need to realize that their own selfishness ultimately has the most to gain by building systems that encourage (via game-theoretical checks and balances) positive sum collaboration, rather than endless zero sum competition.
