A religious interest would make goals good for rational beings, beyond their individual and spiritual interest, because there is something worthy of worship, such as God. But there would be something worthy of worship in a spatiomaterial world like ours, if rational beings pursued goals because they contribute to the natural perfection of the world, because that would make the world itself a perfect rational being. Thus, rational beings have a religious interest, and the God they bring into existence provides the basis for an ontological critique of Christian theology.
A perfect being is the outcome of evolution. When rational beings understand the wholeness of the world and their own nature and place in the world, they see the possibility of a being that has all the perfections of a traditional, transcendent God, and since it requires only that they pursue goals because they are good for the world as a whole, they acknowledge a religious interest, in addition to their individual and spiritual interests, and thereby bring a perfect rational being into existence.
The outcome of evolution could have all of the perfections traditionally attributed to a supernatural God as a person, except that it is immanent in a spatiomaterial world, rather than transcendent of it. Being immanent does not make a perfect being any less worthy of worship, but merely changes the standard of perfection.
The personal perfections are all perfections of a rational being, because each is one of the sub-functions of reason as a behavior guidance system. Knowing has to do with the input sub-function, and the evolution of ontological philosophy is the beginning of a phase of evolution in which reason becomes omniscient .
Power has to do with the output of a behavior guidance system, and nothing can be more powerful than ontological reason. It knows (or can discover) the best means to all its goals, and as a spiritual animal, it can act on the world by the coordinated behavior of as many individuals as are required to attain its goals.
Understanding of the nature of goodness leads ontological reason to do what is good because it is good. Since the prospective perfect being is worthy of worship, rational beings will pursue goals because they contribute to the natural perfection of the world, as well as because they are in their individual or spiritual self interest. Thus, they will become absolutely good.
Traditional, transcendent God is said to be perfect because of its unique ontological status as well as its personal perfections. But a perfect being that is the outcome of evolution would have the same kinds of ontological perfections, except that it is immanent, rather than transcendent.
A perfect being that is the outcome of evolution is a necessary being in a spatiomaterial world like ours, because as we have seen, evolution inevitably begins on suitable planets and it follows an inevitable course. Thus, its existence is necessary.
A perfect rational being that is the outcome of evolution would be ubiquitous in a spatiomaterial world like our, because the necessary of its existence implies that it would exist on suitable planets everywhere in the large scale structure of the universe. Furthermore, since it has the nature of a spiritual animal, it will exert its power everywhere on its planet or planetary system.
A perfect rational being that is the outcome of evolution would be eternal in a spatiomaterial world like ours, for it would evolve on every planet where evolution can take place. Moreover, once such a being came to exist , it could have enough control of conditions to exist as long as the world itself. Thus, this immanent kind of perfect being would be eternal.
The existence of a perfect rational being is inevitable, because when ontological reason recognizes that its pursuit of goals that contribute to the natural perfection of the world itself will result in something worthy of worship, it will acknowledge a religious interest. Since that means that rational beings will become God, those goals will be good because they contribute to their own natural perfection.
The existence of God is, therefore, a consequence of practical reason. Though the coming into being of God is inevitable and can be predicted, It cannot be reduced to theoretical reason, because the role of reason in guiding behavior to make the world perfect depends on reason understanding the nature of goodness and recognizing that the prospective perfect rational beings is worthy of its worship. God is the work of reason in the world.
Ontological philosophy implies that the transcendent God of traditional Christianity does not exist, for nothing exists but space and matter enduring through time. But on the assumption that the Christian God is worthy of worship, it can be shown that the immanent God entailed by ontological philosophy is worthy of worship, because it confirms all the main Christian doctrines except for the differences entailed by recognizing the nature of what exists in the actual world. This argument is directed at Christians, but a similar critique could be constructed for the other great religions.
Since ontological theology must deny the existence of a transcendent God, it must reject the Christian belief that God is the creator of the natural world. But an immanent God is no less worthy of worship. Though His ontological status is different, God is no less perfect. Moreover, God is still the cause of rational beings like us for whom there is a real difference between good and bad, because the basic nature of what exists is what makes progressive evolution inevitable.
Ontological theology can be seen as confirming the doctrine of original sin. Christians believe that evil befell human beings as punishment for Adam and Eve defying God's commands in the Garden of Eden. Something like that is true, if the original sin is interpreted as war. War is a uniquely human evil, and since war is the source of reason and the power to choose between good and evil. It was, in effect, to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Contemporary Christianity holds that faith is rewarded by eternal life after death in a heaven that transcends the natural world. That is also the reward of rational beings acknowledging a religious interest in a spatiomaterial world like ours, because their spiritual animal will be immortal in the natural world. But individuals cannot have immortal individual souls (and will choose not to have immortal bodies). That does not, however, show that God is any less worthy of worship, because the mortality of rational subjects does not detract from the perfection of God. It is another ontological correction.