Well, for one thing, we are mobile creatures, so we think as a sequence of perceptions and project linearly and thus tend to be goal oriented.

Nature, on the other hand, is cyclical, reciprocal and feedback generated.

Consider the example of efficiency, as a goal; As efficiency is to do more with less, the ideal of efficiency will be to do everything with nothing.

Do you suppose the feedback will blow that up, before the goal is reached?

How about morality? In order for society to function, it needs some general sense of right and wrong, which we frame culturally, as religion, or civically, as laws.

The reality though, is that good and bad are not some cosmic duel between the forces of righteousness and evil, but the basic biological binary of beneficial and detrimental. What's good for the fox, is bad for the chicken. So while we are constantly trying to erect some set of rules and laws to frame every action, the fact remains these are just tools to support, not replace our decision making. Reality evolves bottom up, until it gets too conflicted, then resets. There is no perfect method. It's more like a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. More cyclical, than linear.

Consider the premise of monotheism, as a spiritual absolute; Logically a spiritual absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell.

More the light shining through the film, than the images and storyline on it.

While it makes a fairly useful, but primitive system for social control, as this father figure lawgiver, consider the deeper philosophical implications of conflating the ideal with the absolute. Wouldn't that tend eventually to empower our more destructive insincts, if we are to believe our ideals were absolute, rather than projections of our own desires and beliefs? Once the cultural influence of the original theism faded. What if our ideal is making gobs of money, or winning every argument? Might that tend to corrupt broader civil debate and make everything about winning, not just understanding the larger reality?

I could go on, but the point I'm trying to make is that if we make it about philosophy, we need to understand how all these questions might be resting on assumptions that themselves need questioning.

The problem is that people don't want truths, they want answers, so we have lots priests and politicians, while philosophy is neutered and confined to the back alleys of academia and can only endlessly debate the same dried out arguments.