When we think of God as the creator of human beings we assume that she had our essence in mind first, and then created us in accord with that human nature. Sartre’s atheistic existentialism implies the reverse: Our existence precedes our essence, since there is no God to give us an essence, we can freely choose who we are and will become. We have to make ourselves, and in so doing we alone are responsible for the essence we create.
Compared to that, Canadian Mohawk lawyer, activist, educator and author Patricia Monture-Angus for example ones said
“Elders taught me that I have only one (right). Do you know what that one right is? It is the right to live as a Mohawk woman because that is the way Creator made me. That is the only right I have. After that I have a series of responsibilities, as a Mohawk woman, because that is how I was made.”
So there are no a priori rules to guide us in living moral lives. This also implies, that there are no a priori rules that we “must” follow for the future. There is nothing inherently good about living in harmony with the more than human world, just as there is nothing inherently bad to live in a bunker, spending all day in the meta verse and eating artificial food.
If, without god, we are merely existing, does that imply that for the Ecocene, we need to bring god back to make this day and the ones that come a go(o)d day?