True Perfection Equates To Lifelessness

So much for the idea of perfection.....one of the fundamental reasons we exist at all is due to imperfection.

Imperfection in the way the early universe was able to coalesce non-uniform aka "imperfect" pockets of gases such that stars and planets and eventually LIFE could ensue. If perfection existed, the matter in the universe would have been "perfectly" uniform precluding any tendency for  matter to clump together at all. In this way, the universe would be lifeless. Hats off to imperfection! It is the unsung hero of reality!

The Dilemma Of God's Intervention In Our Affairs

Can God actually intervene in a divine or “absolutely perfect” manner when it seems much of our perceived reality is akin to a zero-sum game? More often than not somebody wins and somebody loses so how can God really intervene in our affairs perfectly?

If it is believed God providentially circumstanced a highly coveted job to Zach, this means Sally and many others did not get the job. So of course from Zach's point of view, God's will is perfect. But why would or perhaps should Sally and the others feel any obligation to share this assessment of God?

If they do believe that not getting the job is God's perfect will, then it is my opinion this belief stems from their inability to accept that they “lost” to Zach. And if they “need” to believe there is a divine reason they did not get the job, perhaps because God has something better for them, then so be it. But the idea of assuming everything that happens is God's “absolutely perfect” will doesn't account for the fact that there is no consensus as to what is “absolutely perfect” anyway. Certainly those on the losing side of a war are not likely to see their annihilation as being “absolutely perfect”.

Maybe the only way for God to “give” us a fulfilled life is not to intervene at all. As such we can be our true selves limited only by our own devices. In this case there can be no “favoritism” toward those more beloved which would better explain the apparent arbitrariness of who is “lucky” in tragedies, for instance. But the moral dilemma in God recusing Himself from our affairs is that His character appears suspicious at best when He fails to intervene in the abuse and torture of children, for instance.

I think the only way a “perfect” God fits into the context of reality is if everything was always perfect. But alas, this is clearly not the case. It is also interesting to question how “fate” is meted out by God. It seems common to believe that when good outcomes befall the faithful, this wonderful “gift” from God stems from faith and righteousness. But when tragedy strikes these same faithful, it is reluctantly pointed out that even they are not immune to tragedy. What gives? This is a situation where the idea of a wonderful God is not even in principle falsifiable because there is always a divine reason for any outcome, however awful. How about just accepting what is and not trying to find God where He very likely isn't?

Another primary reason I do not think God intervenes in our affairs is that it would likely influence our behavior such that we are not our true selves. At this point, I feel inclined to ask that if God “made” me to be a certain way, why would I want to encumber myself with dogma that can only ever be an impediment to who He “made” me to be?

Now I am not saying dogma will necessarily influence or manipulate one to be who he is not, but if belief has no influence on a person's behavior, what purpose does it serve? The only purpose belief seems to serve is to encourage a specified behavior in those that would otherwise not behave accordingly.

For example, take Christian dogma. One who practices the moral beliefs of Christianity may in fact benefit society but from a “Godly” perspective, I don't see any “meaning” in belief just as a means to “encourage” somebody to behave in a specified manner. Especially when so much of the time it seems we fail to act according to our supposed beliefs anyway! So why believe?

Ultimately, the person who should be most admirable in God's eyes is the person who has a heart of gold all the while believing “nothing”. Clearly his behavior stems from “who he is” as opposed to being rooted in the belief that his obedience will garner reward while his disobedience will lead to judgment and punishment.

The Mirage Of Moral Perfection

It seems to me an even trade-off concerning many peoples' desire to create a more moral society. As the system utilized to evaluate morality gets more stringent, it progressively exposes more of our individual and collective “flaws” so much so that it does little or nothing to change peoples' relative perceptions about morality. 

Figuratively speaking, suppose society “progressed” to a point where the word "fuck" was never, ever uttered again all because of the valiant efforts of the Banishment of Foul Language Society (BFLS). It seems we might be getting somewhere in creating a more moral society, eh?

But now as per my argument, the fact that "fuck" is never heard anymore is of no consequence in evaluating our “goodness”. What is today a fairly benign word, crap, becomes the new "fuck". Ideals change.

Remember, what should be never is because there is always another what should be lurking behind whatever is thought should be.

It seems the ego does not want to relinquish its feeling of moral superiority and does so by declaring things should always be something they are not and never will be!

A Reflection On Perfection

Descartes came to the conclusion that because he had a clear and distinct idea of perfection, it was thus self-evident that such an idea could not possibly have originated from self. For how could any idea of perfection have originated from one who is imperfect, he thought? Therefore, he assumed his idea of perfection could only have been “planted” by God.

This thinking begs for a consensus as to what perfection is. Is it necessarily an objective, one-size-fits-all answer? Not likely. Perfection seems to me a totality of many peoples' oftentimes opposing perspectives.

For Goldilocks was happy with porridge neither too hot nor too cold. Neither was she happy with a bed too soft nor too hard. But this was only Goldilocks' idea of perfection. Obviously the mother and father bear had different ideas as to what perfection entailed. Likewise, my idea of perfection will not necessarily correspond to Descartes'. Or yours for that matter.

Perhaps they are all "perfectly right", though replete with contradictions? If this is the case, does not perfection seem to lose its meaning?

On the other hand, is there one out there arrogant enough to claim his idea of "perfection" is the one, true face of it? Surely so, as there are MANY out there that claim this. But how are we to account for the fact that many of these claims conflict with one another?

To restate, must perfection be an absolute, one-size-fits-all idea? If it is, whose idea represents its "true" face? If it is not, nobody will be happy with perfection because it would in this case be a “mixture” of everybody's oftentimes conflicting ideas of it.

Perhaps one who has a seemingly imperfect picture of perfection might just have the “correct” picture of it. Oh the irony!

Playing God

As we figure ways to quell or at least moderate the debilitating effects of diseases and birth defects, might we be playing God? If so, how do we justify it? Is He happy about this? Or merely indifferent?

If we are not playing God through our intervention, what might this be construed as then? How is this any different from the idea of “custom designing” babies, a.k.a. Aldous Huxley's “Brave New World”? What if God has things just as they are because He wants things just as they are? If all outcomes, both good and bad, are God's will, then perhaps we should just let the chips fall as they “will”.

Now many will of course claim that “designing” a perfect baby is wrong but to “fix” a “broken” one is encouraged, perhaps even obligatory. However, what if at some point in the future, a “broken” baby is one who today would quite comfortably be considered perfectly acceptable? Is this speculation unreasonable ? I don't think it is in the least.

This once again points to the lack of any absolute standard in which to determine whether a baby is in an acceptable state or not. What is the minimum state of a baby such that in one situation we can engender changes by justifiably “playing God“ whereas in another we can not justifiably “play God” because this would most certainly entail vain pursuits sure to anger God?

I have discussed previously that as we progress technologically, socially, morally and perhaps in any and every other way, it seems we get farther and farther away from “perfection”. I do not think we are actually moving farther away from perfection, rather I think we just become evermore aware that we are much farther from perfection than previously thought.

Furthermore, as I have exhaustively argued in other writings, I think perfection is in principle impossible to achieve! Hence the reason we will never attain perfection. Kind of like the wisdom of one who knows he knows very little as opposed to one who thinks he knows much but actually knows very little. If there is no absolute way to determine whether any particular person's playing God is acceptable or not, perhaps we should let either everybody or nobody play God?