There are certain ideas in my religion that intrigue me: for example, the notion that there can be “a perfect unity of faith”.
In other words, members are strongly encouraged to come into a perfect agreement on the doctrines, policies, and teachings of the church. It’s also called perfect obedience.
Is this even possible?
I’ve worked this one over in my mind for decades, and have come to the conclusion that humans are not made to have perfect agreement on anything.
No two people are able to agree perfectly on the same issue all the time.
Why?
Humans aren’t constructed to agree. We’ve evolved to have opposite views on the same issue. Not necessarily to be disagreeable, but to have an opposite take. Hence, the idea of complete unity on any subject is aspirational.
Why?
There is nothing in the universe that is completely perfect.
For example, in physics the laws of gravity work, the laws of quantum physics also work, but they don’t work when put together to form a perfect view of the universe.
There are several possibilities why this would be the case. One, we haven’t explored all the possibilities on how they form a perfect unity. Or, the universe is not perfect.
Answer: until proven otherwise, the universe must remain imperfect.
How then do we get to a point where two people can agree?
Evidently, humans have learned to approximate an agreement on a topic, but only approximate:
For example, in math there is no such thing as perfect zero. We can approximate a number but never touch that number perfectly. In calculus you continue getting closer to zero, but there’s always space left between your calculations and zero.
At the moment there is no perfect solution that satisfies two conflicting ideologies perfectly. There never is.
We’re crafted to get data points, and then close in on a truth, but when we get too close, wobbling begins to set in, and contradictions begin to form.
Whenever we come too close to agreeing with someone, little things cause a slight difference of opinion. Husbands and wives take heart, you were never meant to agree on everything to the same degree, at the same time. It’s not how the universe was created to operate.
For example, my mother dated this navy chief petty officer after WW2. He lived with us for a while, I think. One day this guy spanks me. The next day, he no longer is living with us. My mother and this guy didn’t see eye to eye on how to discipline me. That’s why mothers and near fathers, or at least boyfriends, shouldn’t see eye to eye on everything. There should always be a certain creative tension between two human beings. Lucky for me, right? (By the way, I do not believe in spanking a child.)
Having different takes on the same subject is good. It keeps us in balance. From there we can work at accommodating each other, but if one expects a perfect unity, it eventually will break down. There are inherent contradictions that act like two magnets with the same poles trying to come together.
Be happy with approximate agreement on any issue. That way balance is maintained. Don’t keep laboring at forcing a complete agreement on an issue, it doesn’t and shouldn’t exist.