A sense of purpose and worth wouldn't be enough because there would be the potential for a clash with existential standards, such as the standard of intellectual integrity. We must live with ourselves, not just with nature. Nature doesn't care what we do, but we care, so we try to be our best.

Perhaps we can be happier with religion than with atheism, but happiness can conflict with honour. The existential perspective that best explains how worldviews arise arrives at atheistic naturalism, as I say in the article, and this discounts theism. An existentialist could play at being religious for certain purposes, but a core conviction would be atheistic naturalism. That's what would be grounded in the understanding of how the variety of worldviews arises.

I think you're saying, though, that if life is absurd, we might as well do whatever we want. But existentialism, too, discriminates. We can't do whatever we want and still succeed according to existential standards, such as the standards of personal authenticity, honour, integrity, and creativity.