To clarify, a concept is a reductionist mental frame. As such, it is descriptive, not explanatory.

A chair is anything which fits in that particular category. It doesn't go into the whole process of why bipetal creatures evolved the use for them.

If we reduce the body down to its most stable frame, we have the skeleton, but that is not its source, which is the egg from which it developed.

The term god is a nebulous concept, yet it has one underlaying assumption; That this entity has conscious intent, like people.

Yet people's intent doesn't come from their knowledge and judgement, but from their desire. Not so much the objects of their desire.

We desire to be wise, because it enables us to understand the world around us, for better or worse.

So a spiritual absolute wouldn't be some ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell, but the essence of sentience, from which we rise. The fact we are aware, than the details of which we are aware. More the new born child, than the wise old man. The light shining through the film, than the images on it. The seed, not the skeleton.

When we conflate the ideal, which is aspirational, with the absolute, which is elemental, it does create this political mindset that our ideals should be universal, rather than unique. So we do fight over our various gods, frames, concepts, beliefs, identities, etc.

Though the reason nature is so diverse and dense, is that it is not a monoculture. Everything finds niches in the larger process and only takes what they need, like a predator only takes what it needs, not kill the whole herd of prey.

People assume they can control everything, so rather than riding the waves up and down, they march off the highest cliffs.