After abandoning a god hypothesis, is there a need for a new improved hypothesis to answer the questions? I personally thing there are some need that must be filled. Which are the most pressing at this time? We certainly do not abandon everything associated with religion when we abandon religion. Most (all?) religions describe a method of life, rules of life that they consider acceptable. When we filter for the common values, they are surprisingly similar. But most "holy books" are compilations, and have conflicting statements, and are more about building the religion then how to live a good life. When we abandon the religion, and all that is use for building the religion, and keeping it pure, there is little left. Perhaps six out of ten commandments. One could go either way. Of Islam's five pillars, perhaps two pertain to life, or to test loyalty to the belief system, I am just not sure.
The Stoics, Confucianism and Buddhists tell us far more about how to live a good life, but even those need to be thinned by there obviously false hypothesis, and replaced with the current hypothesis. That is relatively easy to do, and soon we have a personal belief system built up that has been vetted by our own life. Adler, Maslow, fix up the past deficiencies, Frankl points the way forward, PP define the process, and we are off to the races in this rat driven world. There is much to be learned, and what is up to us. There is much that should be done, people to be convinced of what is right and what is wrong, but also some will never accept what is right and true for they depend on it not being true to make a living or to fulfill there greed. Oh well.
CFC are destroying the environment, and all the governments have banned there production, yet these are still available. Governments do not have control in the poorer countries; wrong--- all countries. People are governed... manipulated... influenced by taxes and regulation, but follow laws out of respect for the purpose of the law and possibly the government.
No respect for the law or the government, no motivation to follow the laws. Fear only as a motivation is not good. Most people who follow laws do so out of respect for the laws, and reasonable laws. Slow speed limits just create resentments, not increased safety. They satisfy the control freak, not the safety concerns. Having said that, there are areas that need tight control, schools, and perhaps safety arms, similar to rail crossings or stock control gates. We follow laws out of respect for a reasonable law, not the government. That must be understood by the law makers. So we need respect for the correct solutions.
We need police that are not placed in conflict with the ordinary citizens. Traffic should be a totally separate group of revenuers from the criminal enforcement group, separate enough that there is no confusion.
Respect must be earned, and is not given. We each are free humans, we start out wild and must be trained to society. There will always be those who will not voluntarily follow the good life, and as the economic spread widens, there will be more that take the easy way for money. Oh well. We, in a society need to be seen as all near equal is essential to prevent jealousy and/or resentment. When the rich flaunt there wealth, it will be taken. There is no point robbing a empty bank. Reality takes over from what rich people would like to see.