Science often comes on like it has the monopoly on truth. I doubt it has. It works on the assumption that life, the universe, and the human experience within it, is fact-based when it may not be. It may be value-based. Science needs a starting point from which to then analyse and use inductive logic to arrive at certain generalisations about the world. The fundamental assumption of science, particularly physics, is the big bang. The big bang is fact number one. The term ‘big bang’ itself is an almost derisory expression coined by a physicist who didn’t actually accept the theory.

The alternative idea that our experience is rooted in value as opposed to fact is a strong one too. It can argue that all given facts emerge from value. Put another way: that there is something psychological or “spiritual” that stimulates reality rather than something purely factual. The idea of God is consistent with this view. Another more lateral idea is the notion that we are not merely objective recipients and observers of external events but active creators of reality. We might actually be constructing events through consciousness. This is the nub of the philosophical theory called ‘idealism’ which is by no means a crack-pot notion.

I don’t of course mean to put down the enormous benefits that science has delivered. They have been awesome and vast. Scientists have been able to do for us what God hasn’t, couldn’t or can’t. We can now potentially manipulate circumstances to our benefit better than ever. This is hardly up for argument. Science is definitely to our credit. The point I’m making here is not to undermine scientific discovery. It is only one of philosophy and ontology.