Particularism and Internationalism

The difference between the social philosophy of Evolutionary Christianity (EC) and Teilhard De Chardin is that EC affirms particularism and Teilhard affirms internationalism. I think the road to internationalism is through particularism. Teilhard opposes pluralism and wants humans to converge into one, world-wide, socialized synthesis. This is related to Teilhard's view of a convergent, spiritual, Omega Point, which is a subject for another reflection.

Divergence is not much mentioned by Teilhard who prefers convergence. The problem with centering on convergence is that it does not relate well to human nature. Any totalization of man is always pulled into divergence and particularism because man always prefers his own, and this needs to be affirmed and not denied. Evolution has taken place through variety and divergence as well as convergence, but positive mutations are protected with particularism.

What we need, and what we are capable of, is cooperative competition, as we rise in evolution toward Godhood. Small states protected by light federalism best affirm human nature, and best allow evolution to take place. Research centers in every nation, with a central intercommunication regarding upward evolution, perhaps as envisioned in the brilliant and volatile ideas of Raymond Cattell, is an example of how cooperative competition can be guided. Many of these questions are ethical and moral questions and Evolutionary Christianity would want to help lead this effort. 

Godhood is the goal of religion, the material world evolves to the supermaterial world and not to an immaterial, abstract, Omega Point, therefore, this great goal also vitally involves social philosophy informed by sociobiology.