I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s an accident that a modern, secular framework hasn&#x27;t arisen to replace traditional religion. For what resources could a framework draw upon? The founding principles of the Enlightenment have stricken notions of &quot;value,&quot; &quot;good,&quot; &quot;bad,&quot; and &quot;purpose&quot; from the realm of knowledge. Modern rationality is anti-teleological. It precludes any exploration of first causes. When constrained by the epistemological standards of empiricism, theorizing about such subjects is impossible. For before it produced modern standards of scientific proof, it was a rebuke against Aristotle and Aquinas, whose methods represented the most fruitful exploration of &quot;value,&quot; good,&quot; etc. Modernity&#x27;s absence of such a framework is a feature, not a bug.<p>Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre has written in far more depth about this change. Anyone who&#x27;s concerned with modernity&#x27;s apparent difficulty in handling &quot;meaning of life&quot; questions would be advised to discover how exactly we landed in this situation:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;After-Virtue-Study-Moral-Theory&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0268035040" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;After-Virtue-Study-Moral-Theory&#x2F;dp&#x2F;026...</a>