The meaning of life outside the religious world

I read in your book ‘The First Founding’ a short paragraph that you dedicated to Viktor Frankl’s theory of logotherapy. From what I understood (and that’s how you explain it there too, if I’m not mistaken), the very fact that man’s longing for meaning and the human need for meaning in his actions in the world (including the fact that it gives life, which is even expressed in helping a person recover from serious illnesses, etc.) is enough to prove the significance of meaning in our lives… This is after we have deduced the validity of morality according to the same principle of revealing argument, which reveals that the principles by which we live are enough to reveal our position on the world and on life. (I would add that after we have assumed the validity of morality, we obviously assume that God is good and has good intentions, and it is unlikely that He would create in us a desperate longing to search for meaning, without an answer.)

But here you disagreed with Frankl and claimed that there is no such thing as subjective meaning. Without a binding external religious system, this concept of ‘meaning’ has no validity, since there is no parameter by which we can judge whether our actions are indeed significant, and if so, then such a perception has no way of surviving without a binding religious Torah – which in your opinion is, of course, the Jewish Torah.

And I wonder, then, why did God “abuse” 99.8 percent of the world’s population and not provide them with a solution to this longing? Is the only way for the average Gentile to receive meaning in life through conversion, (which the Torah does not encourage at all)? Or does the fact that the Torah was given to such a small and limited people contradict the notion that there is really any validity behind the human need to search for meaning?