A simple distinction between the secular and the religious is that the secular believes in the fundamental facts of life - it holds that all emanates from an empirical base - while the religious by contrast believes in the supremacy of value. I think these are two quite distinct mind-sets from which two different world views emerge.

I’m conflicted. I can’t deny the enormous benefits that the secular view has brought. Its value-free, science-based attitude has allowed the material elements to be manipulated to an astonishing degree, much of it for the good. This has mitigated against the often cruel and indiscriminate forces of nature. And yet there is something rather objective and cold about the secular view. These astonishing material gains don’t seem to have made people any happier. It could be argued they have detracted from fulfilment.

I’ve always been drawn to the notion that an attitude which considers value to be at the heart of existence is a more reliable source of emancipation, certainly spiritually. This attitude goes beyond the mere constellation of facts as being what the world is made up of.

An ontology of value is a lateral notion but with the right values you can potentially change yourself. So can everyone else and with that the world is changed. The old religions with their archaic mythology don’t do it anymore. A new religion is required.

Of course, all this either/or stuff again. Simply, both are needed. Material accomplishment alleviates the suffering that comes from the sheer grind of subsistence. Spirituality is strengthened by adopting the right values. Knowing which is ‘truer’ or more basic to life is probably a suspect question. In Hegelian terms, it is a resolution which is in order between these two sometimes opposing views.