Tuesday, June 06, 2017
How words like "universal," "perfection," and "God" have been definitions only
Words like "universal" and "perfection" are only aids to understanding larger connections between real things. God has been defined in that "universal" way. God has not been defined as a particular, supreme, living, material/supermaterial object, or objects. But this metaphysical mistake does not point toward atheism, it points toward a material or supermaterial Godhood. The mistake of religion and philosophy has been to focus on the universal as spiritual.
This is where idealistic thinkers begin to go wrong and say such things as, our true loyalties are with all humanity (and not our own groups or nations), or that our real citizenship is beyond this material world. We need to include science in religion and in the humanities, especially the sciences of human nature, such as sociobiology, which give us a better view of the biological origin of much of our social behavior.
The idea that we are "fallen" or full of "original sin" derives from those definitions of universal perfection, which are definitions telling us that we cannot ever be perfect as long as we are material. This conception has blocked us from evolving toward real Godhood in the material, not spiritual, world. Defining perfection does not derive from comparing ourselves to a non-existent, spiritual, universal idea. We are imperfect not because we are full of original sin but because we are unevolved creatures.
The activation toward real Godhood is within nature and within human nature, probably within every cell of the body, and works within the structures and strictures of natural evolution and selection---two steps up, one back, or sometimes two steps back, one up. This is how we move toward perfection, although we may not ever get there---but not because getting there is spiritual and beyond material evolution, but because getting there is probably endless material and supermaterial evolution.