ABSTRACT

COEXISTENCE OF SOCIAL SYSTEMS and DOCTRINE OF GOD --
THE PERSPECTIVE OF SYSTEM PHILOSOPHY

LUKE GEORGE

This article starts with the premise that the objective of philosophy is to integrate reality, worldview, human mind and knowledge through a logical and reflective enquiry. Accordingly, here presents a philosophical classification of our knowledge into eight divisions on the basis of the three competing worldviews—organic, mechanistic and process—of hitherto philosophy. The inherent drawbacks of these worldviews can be overcome through a unifying philosophy named here as System Philosophy. The theory of Dualist Reality under System Philosophy is then developed on the fundamental concept of system as combination of body and mind. It can be represented by a ‘+’ model which shows the good and bad qualities of a system, there by solving the body-mind dualism and the problem of evil.
The Dualist Reality causes the 11 basic levels or faculties of human mind with the twin functions of knowing and doing. These faculties are responsible for our seven social systems. The knowing mind generates the different types of knowledge under the organic, mechanistic and process ( social ) worldviews. These different levels of knowledge are unified by a common theory of truth based on our goals. This article concludes mentioning the salient features of the Seven Life Systems, which coexist because human mind exists as a system with levels. So we can study religion in a new perspective which reconciles the notions of transcendent and immanent God.
This article finally presents the Systemic Doctrine of God, which postulates the religious existence of Dualist God and Dualist Evil in dialectical relation.
Key concepts : cognitive, noncognitive, phenomenal body, phenomenal mind, body, mind, system, relative infinity, absolute infinity, Dualist Reality, Seven Life Systems, coexistence, Dualist God and Dualist Evil, ‘+’ model.


1. INTRODUCTION, KNOWLEDGE AND REALITY
It is expedient to start with a philosophical view about the comprehensive classification of our different types of knowledge about finite objects and infinite entities like God and metaphysical beings. The first basic division is into the two categories namely fact and value. Fact is the knowledge about the actual state of affaires of an object. On the other hand, value is the knowledge about a goal that people approve and desire. In ordinary speech we say that values are known through our intuition. Car has value, if I approve and desire a car; that is, if the possession of car is a goal of my life. However, a value is not merely a subjective feeling or opinion, but rather it is based on the ontology of world, that is, on the inherent order or goal underlying the worldly phenomena. So the most important feature of value is that it occurs as pair of opposites, such as love and hatred, courage and fear, white and black and so on. Both fact and value consist of two types of propositions—deductive propositions and inductive propositions.
There are two types of values—organic value and process value. The knowledge of fact can be divided into mechanistic fact and process fact. These classifications are based on the worldviews to be defined later. Fact and value can be further divided into two classes called cognitive and noncognitive, depending on the nature of objects experienced. Thus we get eight philosophical classes of human knowledge2 , which are briefly explained below.
1. Cognitive organic value: These are values of finite systems, which can be defined objectively and experienced directly using our sense organs. It may be added, only finite objects existing as cognitive facts have cognitive values. The truth of a cognitive value can be established through scientific method. Examples: this rose flower is beautiful; democracy is a good value. For ascertaining the truth of propositions about cognitive value, we can adopt scientific methods such as definitions, surveys and other statistical techniques.
2. Noncognitive organic value: The values conceived in the objects of art and religion belong to this category because it involves symbolism, imagination, mysticism and faith. Examples: This painting is beautiful; God is love. What is the difference between the propositions: this rose flower is beautiful and this piece of art is beautiful? In the case of rose flower, we directly experience its beauty using our sense organs, so it is a cognitive value. But the beauty of art is symbolic and imaginative. Similar comparison is possible between “This man has love” and “God has love”. However the difference between cognitive value and noncognitive value depends on the systems (cognitive and noncognitive respectively) to which the concerned objects belong.
3. Cognitive mechanistic fact: It includes all kinds of factual knowledge about finite systems obtained using our sense organs and logical thinking. Normally, a cognitive fact defines an object or expresses its properties and cause-effect relations that are known through sense experience. Mathematics, definition, direct perception, scientific laws and descriptions are the main forms of this category. It pertains to finite objects of natural world, economics, politics, family and ethics. The truth of a cognitive fact can be ascertained scientifically on the basis of external evidences and logic as dealt by Philosophy of Science. Examples: 2 + 4 = 6; Earth is round; Price depends on supply and demand.
4. Noncognitive mechanistic fact: A painting becomes a work of art only when we experience it through aesthetic sense. Similarly religious experience gives us knowledge about God and soul as infinite beings. Therefore the factual propositions pertaining to art and religion involve symbolism, imagination, mysticism and faith. Such knowledge—definitions, inferences and descriptions-- is called noncognitive fact. The truth of these propositions cannot be determined scientifically. Examples: God exists as an infinite being; this church is the house of God. The belief that God exists as an infinite being is a noncognitive fact because we cannot get any objective evidence about the existence of an infinite being. The truth of a noncognitive proposition pertaining to art or religion is judged on the basis of the goal of that activity.
5. Cognitive process fact. It describes the circumstances, which cause change in the finite phenomena historically. Examples: Marxism, the historical view of paradigms of science introduced by Kuhn , the sociology as a scientific study of social systems and the systems view about living organisms popularized by Fritjof Capra .
6. Noncognitive process fact. It consists of the mystical and symbolic facts about infinite entities called God, Reality, Being or souls, treating them as processes. There is a long tradition of thought in this category including the philosophies of the Sophists, Plotinus, Leibniz, Hegal and existentialism . The various forms of art, notably poetry and literature, deal with our life expressing it in the form of noncognitive process fact.
7. Cognitive process value. It describes the values pertaining to the processes, which cause change in the finite phenomena historically. Examples are: philosophies of Heraclitus, Hegel and Whitehead .
8. Noncognitive process value. The values conceived in the processes of art and religion belongs to this category. Examples: Philosophies of Buddhism, Taoism, Whitehead, and Teilhard de Chardin
The foregoing comprehensive classification of human knowledge aims to address the philosophical issues pertaining to the existence of reality, phenomena and human mind. However, we are more accustomed with the functional ( empirical or pragmatic ) classification of knowledge into the subjects like science, economics, politics, family, ethics, art, religion, sociology, philosophy, etc. The point stressed here is that one functional subject places more importance to one of the three philosophical classes—value, mechanistic fact and process fact. For example, science deals only with the cognitive mechanistic facts about natural phenomena; but we must take into account the values and process facts also in order to get comprehensive knowledge about the same phenomena. Similarly, economics ( especially the neo-classical economics ) and political theory mostly deal with facts , ignoring the values and contextual aspects. Religion is generally perceived as ideas of value, without due consideration on the mechanistic and process aspects. Such issues as well as the epistemology of various subjects of knowledge are not taken up in this article.
Now we will focus on the ontological question of existence of phenomena that are known through the various subjects mentioned above.
It is appropriate to define here the philosophical concepts called phenomenon, worldview and reality. Phenomenon is defined as a finite object that exists with the dimensions of space and time. A phenomenon, which can be perceived using quantifiable variables, is called a physical phenomenon. The other kind of phenomena, such as our ideas and feelings, cannot be expressed in physical variables; they are treated as mental phenomena. Worldview means a set of hypotheses about the existence of phenomenal universe as a whole. There are three competing worldviews —organic worldview, mechanistic worldview and process worldview-- in the hitherto history of philosophy, as will be explained later.
We intuitively know that every phenomenon in the universe has a cause. Nothing can exist finitely without a cause. The notion of cause-effect relation between phenomena is linked to the temporal connection as ‘before-after’ using the concept of time. Then reality is defined as the first cause or ultimate cause of all finite phenomena in the universe. Reality must be eternal and it is treated as the source of space and time, which we use to understand phenomena. This definition implies that reality is the cause of phenomenal universe as a whole. Hence reality is the substratum--the underlying substance--of all phenomena in the universe. The diverse types of our knowledge (propositions), such as science, economics, ethics, art and religious faith, are based on certain concepts or assumptions about the nature of human mind as well as worldview and reality.
2. THREE WORLDVIEWS
The distinguishing features of the three worldviews , which divide the philosophical field, may be given briefly now. Organic Worldview, developed by Plato, Aristotle and their followers, postulates that our phenomenal universe is like an organism, which tries to realize higher good values. It asserts the existence of mind as a metaphysical being with different levels as souls and God. Mind, as the source of good values, is the reality of all phenomena—this theory of reality is called Idealism. Obviously, the Organic Worldview and Idealism deal with the cognitive and noncognitive aspects of organic value defined earlier. Main drawback of this philosophy is that it does not focus on the facts about worldly phenomena and it fails to explain the problem of evil. There is no empirical study about the existence and evolution of phenomena.
The Mechanistic Worldview came into existence in 17th century in the wake of scientific revolution. It is a philosophy about the cognitive and noncognitive aspects of mechanistic fact, holding that phenomenal world and social systems exist as machines following physical laws. The Classical Physics based on the discoveries of Galileo and Newton promoted the Mechanistic Worldview. But due to the dispute between the rational and empirical aspects of science, there emerged two camps. The first camp adopted the epistemology of Rationalism and the theory of reality called Deism. Rationalism, developed mainly by Descartes and Kant, argues that the deductive principles of mathematical science only consist of true knowledge. Accordingly, Deism upholds the religious belief in Creator God who created the mechanistic world and provided with it the natural laws. But it fails in explaining the empirical aspects of phenomena, including the evolution of hierarchy of physical and mental organizations.
On the other hand, the second camp of Mechanistic Worldview, lead by John Locke and David Hume, insisted that true science must adopt empirical methods- this view is called empiricism as theory of knowledge. Science can study even mental phenomena by reducing it to the movements of physical body. Empiricists assumed naturalism as the theory of reality, which has the essential features like materialism, mechanism, positivism and atheism.
As a general criticism, we can say that the Mechanistic Worldview outlined above failed to take into account the values of world as well as our other experiences like art and religion. The conflict between rationalism and empiricism cannot be resolved, as they adhere to opposite views about reality. Further, with the decline of Classical Physics and the emergence of Quantum Physics in 20th century, the existence of matter as absolute particles was denied. Empirical theories are mere instruments for predicting and controlling worldly phenomena. So Mechanistic Worldview is still considered as the method for scientific knowledge, even though it fails in addressing the traditional issues of philosophy.
The revolutionary discoveries in Quantum Physics, in the early decades of 20th century, caused the revival of Process Thought. Reality is a constantly changing process, a history unfolding. So reality is immanent in the ever-changing phenomena. There is no fundamental essence like matter or mind. Human knowledge is a subjective process and hence it is determined by context or external factors. This Process Worldview, alternatively described as postmodernism , is the modern version of a long tradition of cognitive and noncognitive philosophies about process fact and process value. So it is in tune with the eastern mysticism of Buddhism and Taoism. The main drawback of this approach is that it does not deal with the static existence ( finite permanence ) of things and hence negates the methods of science. The definitions and cause-effect relations are beyond the scope of Process Worldview, as it describes only the contextual or historical aspects of phenomena.
There are two conflicting branches in Process Worldview. The first is the idealist view subscribing to the belief in the eternal process of Immanent God—Whitehead is the best representative of this approach. The second is the materialist view of process involving the formation of hierarchy of physical organizations or systems in phenomenal world. Fritjof Capra popularized this systems view , but it fails in accounting for the levels of consciousness ( the non-physical activity with creativity ) of the systems.
The foregoing discussion of the three worldviews of hitherto philosophy shows that none of them is capable of solving the fundamental problems of existence and evolution of worldly phenomena. The body-mind dualism and the problem of evil remain as intractable riddles. In this predicament, we need a unifying worldview and theory of reality, to be described in the following section.

3. REALITY UNDER SYSTEM PHILOSOPHY
For developing a new philosophy, named here as System Philosophy, the fundamental concepts are defined in the following paragraphs.
1. Phenomenal body. Every phenomenon exists with two parts, physical part and mental part. The physical part is alternatively called physical body, which is assumed to be made of matter in the form of atoms or subatomic particles. Mental part consists of the non-physical activities of life and mental states such as ideas, desires and willing. So mental part includes the property of consciousness or self-awareness or freedom. Though we admit that the physical body is composed of matter (atoms or subatomic particles), the ultimate stuff of matter is ambiguous on account of the particle-wave duality . Hence we must revise the meaning of matter (material stuff) to refer exclusively to the particle property of a subatomic particle or atom. In the case of phenomenal things, we may use the phrase phenomenal body to refer to the material stuff having the property of extension. The phenomenal body becomes physical body when the material stuff is described by physical variables like mass, weight and volume. The smallest phenomenal body is the particle property of a quantum, which is described in scientific literature as ‘quantisation of energy’. When the phenomenal bodies of proton, neutron and electron are organized to form an atom, its phenomenal body becomes the basic structure with the property of extension or volume in the three-dimensional space.
2. Phenomenal mind. There is evidently certain purpose, goal or intentionality in the historical progress of evolution as a process of developing higher order complexities. When quanta are combined at the micro level to form subatomic particles, which in their turn organize to constitute atoms and higher bodies, it is a manifestation of purpose. The concept of purpose implies freedom or uncertainty or creativity, as well as it has the opposite direction of good and bad. We realize that the universe is not teleological; it is a progress in opposite directions of good and bad. A set of atoms constitutes a poison while another set makes a food item. Certain natural processes cause earthquakes and destruction.
The four characteristics of purpose-- freedom, uncertainty, creativity and good/bad -- indicate that it is nonphysical. We adopt the term ‘mental’ as synonymous with ‘nonphysical’. On the contrary, ‘physical’ is defined as the property of cause-effect relations expressed in quantifiable variables like mass, weight, length and force. So we have a key observation that all phenomena of natural world exhibit nonphysical purpose. But, surely nonphysical activity cannot be observed empirically. We have to observe the movement or change of physical aspects of phenomena to realize the nonphysical aspect. The phrase ‘phenomenal mind’ is introduced here to refer to the nonphysical aspect belonging to a finite phenomenon. So we observe combination of phenomenal body and phenomenal mind in all levels of natural world.
3. System. Our immediate problem is to explain the formation of a hierarchy of phenomena with higher complexities of phenomenal body and phenomenal mind. For that purpose we can depend on Bohr’s Complementarity Principle . Bohr has showed that particle property and wave property of a subtonic phenomenon are complementary methods of knowledge. But, writing in the formalized language of Quantum Physics, Bohr was not concerned with the real existence of a subatomic particle. He used the notion of complementarity in accordance with the process view, similar to the Chinese notions of Yin and Yang. Here, the complementarity can be adopted in the static sense also as the fundamental principle of existence of two polar opposites. Phenomenal body and phenomenal mind are definitely polar opposites because the former is physical and the latter is nonphysical. They are mutually exclusive, but appear as dual parts of a whole, in all levels of phenomena. The term ‘system’ here means the complementary relation between phenomenal body and phenomenal mind
Hence every quantum is a system of phenomenal body and phenomenal mind. The higher-order systems (subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, substances, plants, animals and human beings) are formed through successive combinations of elementary systems.
Since a system is a combination of phenomenal body (physical) and phenomenal mind (nonphysical) we can experience it in diverse ways such as scientific, artistic, religious and mystic. Thus the concept of system serves as the basic premise for unifying the various types of human knowledge. Science studies a system by reducing it to physical ( quantifiable ) variables and finding the cause-effect relations between those variables. But it must be remembered that the system ( phenomenon ) is not physical really. The scientific study of system is just only one method of knowing it. In those ways other than science the distinction between physical and mental aspects of a system in rather blurred or absent. So we get the comprehensive classification, as given earlier, of our different types of knowledge about finite systems and infinite entities like God and metaphysical beings.
4. Relative infinity and absolute infinity. Here we may ask the question whether the totality of all finite phenomena in the universe is finite or infinite. Even though the known finite phenomena aggregate to a finite sum, there is a possibility of acquiring further information in future. The total expanse of known galaxies is amazingly large, but finite, and it is likely to increase due to advancement of astronomy. The knowledge about constituents and properties of things around us, as well as the creative ideas of humans may grow with the passage of time. In view of the expanding horizon of factual knowledge I am introducing here two notions about infinity, namely relative infinity and absolute infinity.
Relative infinity means an extremely large point that lies as a limit to our actual measurement. When we go on measuring (counting) the limit point advances. That is, relative infinity is the number that lies beyond our achieved counting. The point of relative infinity is never achieved, but is advancing as we progress in counting. The mathematical concepts of plus infinity and minus infinity, representing the extreme points of a straight line, are two alternative definitions of relative infinity. Obviously, relative infinity is a cognitive fact. The whole universe, which can be known cognitively by science, is now reasonably treated as a relative infinity.
On the other hand, absolute infinity refers to the metaphysical existence of infinity as an absolute being. Here we conceive infinity as an eternally and permanently existing entity. If we refer to our universe as an absolute infinity, it means that the whole universe exists as an absolutely infinite being, alternately called as God. No cognitive evidence can be obtained about absolute infinity and hence it is a noncognitive knowledge, understood symbolically, imaginatively and mystically.
5. Body and Mind. For developing a scientific model of reality as relative infinity, we have to consider the hierarchy of systems mentioned earlier. Quantum is the basic system and it has the dual parts called phenomenal body and phenomenal mind. These opposite properties of a quantum can be produced only by a reality, which has corresponding opposite parts. For convenience, I am using the terms ‘body’ and ‘mind’ to refer to the dual parts of reality. Hence we can define ‘body’ as the physical component of reality that is responsible for the physical aspect of quantum. Body exists at the reality level as the substratum of phenomenal body of quantum.
Similarly, ‘mind’ is defined as the mental component of reality that is responsible for the nonphysical activity or consciousness of quantum. Body (physical part) and mind (mental part) together produce the physical aspect and nonphysical aspect of quantum in the first stage. Then quanta are organized into subatomic particles, atoms, molecules and higher order things in subsequent stages of the production process. The physical body and mental activities of phenomenal things in the universe originate from the dual aspects of reality, which are body and mind. So reality is a dualist being. Quantum is the lowest limit of our physical experience. So the conceptual gulf between reality and quantum cannot be filled. Reality is always a metaphysical being, where as quantum is the first level of phenomena. In other words, science can never show how the Dualist Reality produces quanta.
Matter is the physical aspect (phenomenal body) of quantum or subatomic particle or atom. The matter exists at phenomenal level and it is produced by the dual properties (body and mind) of reality. Similarly Dualist Reality produces the phenomenal mind also. So we can say that matter and non-physical activity are two levels of a system.
Can body or mind alone exist as the reality? Consider the opposites like good and bad, day and night and man and woman. In our ordinary thinking, the opposites are treated as different objects, which are independent. But it is not hard to recognize that opposites are interdependent and they are like two sides of a coin. For day to exist, night also must exist. We cannot see good things if bad things are absent. Similarly man and woman exist as the two contrasting categories of human being. Thus we realize that opposites are the dual parts of a single whole. This leads us to a Fundamental Principle of Existence: only a whole with opposite dual classes has existence. So a single property, like day or man, cannot exist alone.
We cannot define one part of Dualist Reality without considering the other, because the opposite parts together constitute a whole. So we adopt a practical definition of mind as mental energy, which has the capacity to think and organize, but does not possess the capacity to become matter. On the other hand, we define body as the physical energy, which does not have the capacity to think, but possesses the capacity to become matter. Later we will see that mind and body are the underlying goals of cooperation and competition respectively, which can be observed in every phenomenon.
6. Systemic Dualism. Since mind and body are interdependent opposites, their relation is a dialectical process involving a dynamic interplay of competition and cooperation. This dialectical process is essentially a production process. Thus mind and body exist as the substrata (inputs) of phenomenal systems and are similar to the concepts of capital and labour in the model of production function under economics. The relation between mind and body, which results in the production of systems, is called as Systemic Dualism. It signifies the fact that though there is dualism between mind and body, they work in cooperation to produce systems. This concept is radically different from the idealist (or materialist) view that mind and body (matter) are opposite and independent entities with primary-secondary relation.
The natural world exists as a hierarchy of systems with three main levels called inanimate things, nonhuman living beings and human beings. Human being is a psychophysical organism, in which phenomenal mind and phenomenal body have structures with different levels of components. Human being exits as a system; phenomenal body and phenomenal mind do not have separate existence. This conception solves the issue of body-mind dualism introduced by Descartes. In Cartesian philosophy, body and mind are two independent parts of the phenomenal world; matter constitutes body while mind originates from God.
7. Model of Dualist Reality. Next step is to explain how good and bad systems occur in this natural world. With this objective, we observe that every system exhibits the opposite behaviours of cooperation and competition. The cooperative behaviour promotes the formation of higher order systems or societies. Let us call this tendency of cooperation as society-interest. On the other hand, every system wants to maintain its identity by a set of competitive behaviours that can be collectively called self-interest. So a system exists with the dual goals of society-interest and self-interest. A quantum or atom has the inherent tendency to join with other quanta or atoms respectively in order to form higher order systems. At the same time the individuality is also maintained. In every system we can observe good and bad aspects of behaviour. The good and bad values found in a system are definitely the positive and negative sides of its dualist goals. So we must hold the view that these opposite values come only from the dualist reality. Then we can equate mind with society-interest and body with self-interest. By applying the fundamental principle of existence, it can be postulated that both society-interest and self-interest have positive and negative parts. This leads to the concept of good and bad subsystems on the basis of the actions or behaviours of a system at a given point of time. A system has history as a sequence of subsystems, which can be either good or bad on the basis of the intentions.
The following Table of Dualist Reality explains the formation of good and bad subsystems in the history of a system.

Mind (Society-interest) Body (Self-interest) System
Positive
society-interest
Positive
self-interest
Good subsystems
(Quadrant-I)
Negative
society-interest
Negative
self-interest
Bad subsystems
(Quadrant -III)

A technical model now summarizes the foregoing discussion about good and bad systems in natural universe. Mind and body are in a dialectical relation that can be represented by vertical straight line (y-axis) and horizontal straight line (x-axis) respectively as in analytical geometry. Then the production function method (indifference curves) of economics is applied here to postulate the production of good subsystems in first quadrant and bad subsystems in third quadrant. This construction is termed as the Model of Dualist Reality.
8. Interpretation. The representation of good and bad systems in the Model of Dualist Reality shows that goodness and evil have fundamental existence, and they occur in a dialectical process. This point will lead us to the solution of the problem of evil. Good will be reversed by the subsequent production of evil. Conversely, the good arises from evil.
Space and time are physical concepts in science. Einstein focused on the particle property of subatomic objects and showed through his Theory of Relativity that space and time are related . It can be reasoned that space (permanence) is related to body, while time (change) is related to mind. That is, space-time is the concept employed to represent empirically the connection between body and mind at the reality level. It is interesting to note that our Model of Dualist Reality represents the event of Big Bang, the origin of our universe .
Here we have to tackle the ontological problem of transcendence- immanence or one-many . The dualist reality represented by the coordinates (+) is a structure of intentionality, and hence can be treated as a transcendental being. Surely, the phenomenal systems occur with in the first and third quadrants, implying that the coordinates are transcendent to the phenomena. From a different point of view, the coordinates are immanent in the phenomenal systems as inputs in the analogy of an industrial product made of the inputs, capital and labor. So the same ‘+’ model can show transcendence and immanence of reality. Accordingly it unifies Mechanistic Worldview and Process Worldview. Further, the Dualist Reality acts as the ultimate source of evolution of systems, thereby explaining One and Many.
4. SEVEN LIFE SYSTEMS
Based on the foregoing System Philosophy of reality, we can deduce a proper philosophy of human mind. In the evolutionary progress of living world, the human species emerged as a new stratum of phenomenal body and phenomenal mind. Human being exists as a psychophysical organism, which is a system of four levels--mechanical organs, mental organs, life and human mind. Human mind is primarily divided into two sub-levels in terms of functions – knowing mind and organizing (doing) mind.
There are four primary faculties in knowing mind--cognitive value, cognitive fact, noncognitive value and noncognitive fact--which correspondingly produce the different types of knowledge mentioned earlier. The distinction between cognitive and noncognitive can be represented in terms of the dual aspects of ‘objectivity’ and ‘subjectivity’ also. Here ‘objectivity’ means ‘reduction to physical aspects.’ The objective knowledge about this pen pertains to its physical aspects like weight, length, color, etc. In economics, I study a market objectively in terms of its physical aspects such as qualities, price and time. On the other hand, subjectivity is defined here as ‘without reduction to physical aspects.’ We perceive an object subjectively treating it either as purely mental or as a combination of body and mind. But when I see a painting, religiously or artistically, I do not consider its physical features but imagine certain other attributes related to religion or art as the case may be. So the perception of painting has subjectivity. But, it can be clarified that objectivity and subjectivity are relative aspects giving a spectrum of degrees of reduction to physical features. We can write for getting a two-fold classification as under:

Cognitive = (more objectivity, less subjectivity)
Noncognitive = (less objectivity, more subjectivity)

When we consider knowing as a relation between subject (self or knowing faculty of mind) and object (externally existing entity), there is another interpretation frequently adopted in traditional epistemology. That is, cognitive knowledge involve the distinction between subject and object, where as noncognitive means the absence of subject- object distinction. However, the theory of knowledge under System Philosophy will show that noncognitive facts of art and religion also involve subject-object distinction, just like cognitive facts. Hence the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity, and consequently the definitions of ‘cognitive’ and ‘noncognitive’, must be made in terms of reduction to physical aspects .
The twin sublevels of human mind, knowing mind and organizing mind, function in an interdependent manner so that human mind has a unity of purpose. In the System Philosophy of Mind, the existence of eleven faculties of human mind (four faculties of knowing mind and seven faculties of organizing mind) can be unified as a hierarchy of levels according to a ‘+’ model depicting the dualist goals of society–interest and self-interest. So each faculty has complementary parts of reality— society-interest represents mind and self-interest represents body. This Model of Dualist Human Mind explains the contrasting aspects like permanence-change, unity-plurality and rational-empirical which are arguably the most puzzling issues in hitherto existing psychology and philosophy of mind. It suffices to state here that knowing mind and organizing mind act in perfect unison, so that human mind as a whole is a system. We organize economic system cognitively and we know its features cognitively. But we organize the institutions and activities of religious worship in a noncognitive manner, and we know its concepts and beliefs similarly. In the case of art also the organizing faculty and knowing faculty are noncognitive in character. The integrative existence of 11 faculties of human mind can be shown in the following Table.

TABLE OF DUALIST HUMAN MIND
Functions
Faculties
Knowing Mind
(Body , Mind)
Organising Mind
(Body , Mind)
Cognitive 2. Cognitive Fact
3. Cognitive Value
1.Natural faculty
2.Economic faculty
3.Political faculty
4.Family faculty
5.Ethics faculty
Non cognitive 4. Non cognitive fact
5. Noncognitive value
6. Artistic faculty
7. Religious faculty


The Table of Dualist Reality explains the formation of seven manmade social systems by the respective operations of the seven faculties of organizing mind. These seven social systems are called Natural Life System (NLS), Economic Life System (ELS), Political Life System (PLS), Family Life System (FLS), Ethical Life System (ETLS), Artistic Life System (ALS), and Religious Life System (RLS). Here the term ‘Life’ denotes the fact that every component system has the properties of life such as birth, growth, ageing and death. Note that Natural Life System is the natural world itself because human beings live together with inanimate things and nonhuman living beings. Every phenomenon in the Seven Life Systems exists with dual aspects of phenomenal body and phenomenal mind. Thus the new worldview proposed in the System Philosophy is phrased as Seven Life Systems Worldview.
System Philosophy then develops its theory of knowledge, on the basis of the postulates about human mind, seven life systems and dualist reality. We get three types knowledge, named here as value knowledge, mechanistic knowledge and social knowledge, about every system or phenomenon. Note that the systems are classified into cognitive and noncognitive groups as per the corresponding nature of mental faculties. Here ‘social knowledge’ is the same as process fact and process value. The concerned propositions involve definitions and cause-effect relations. So there are various types of logic in theology and art as well as in science. We know three types of truths – value truth, mechanistic truth and social truth--from the study of a phenomenon, which occurs in any one of the seven life systems, if the phenomenon is produced by positive self-interest and positive society-interest. On the contrary, if the phenomenon is produced by negative self-interest and negative society-interest, we know its falsehood in terms of value, mechanistic and social aspects.

Salient features of seven Life Systems
The seven Life Systems have separate existence globally by virtue of the differences between the dualist goals of the respective faculties of organizing mind. For example, the main goal of Economic Life System (ELS) is the production of useful material goods for consumption. This goal of production is actually a dualist goal with the twin components of society-interest and self-interest, each of which has positive and negative aspects. The aggregate of all such dualist goals related to economic activities defines the ELS. For space constraints, the details about the goals and existence of the six Life Systems – NLS, ELS, PLS, FLS, ETLS, ALS – are not attempted here. However, a brief description of Religious Life System is given in the concluding paragraphs, for clarifying the notion of God .
The above table of Dualist Human Mind helps us to focus on the existence of Religious Life System formed by the dialectical behaviors of Body-part and Mind-part of religious faculty (spirituality) of organizing mind. We observe the phenomenal world and intuitively find certain order in the events. This prompts us to think of a deity (a Being or many beings) as the ultimate cause of the events in our life and world, through our noncognitive faculties involving imagination, symbolism and mysticism. We organize institutions of worship and get inspiration to write poems and prayers about the deity. All these phenomena--institutions, holy books, prayers and other forms of worship--constitute a social system called religion. Certain saints had the highest levels of religious faculty so that they created holy books, which formed the basis for organized religions. Jesus Christ, Buddha and Muhammad are main examples as founders of religions, which belonged to the noblest stratum of spirituality. There are numerous religions (including cults) with less organized structure. The totality of all religions is called the Religious Life System.
God is the most important concept adopted in religions to represent the reality of world in a noncognitive manner. Depending on the worldviews adopted by different groups of worshippers, there are various descriptions of God, which can be essentially divided into the two opposite properties called Transcendent God and Immanent God. So under monistic philosophy, the God-talk has two wings as under.
1. Transcendent God. This view of God as a monistic being with exclusively mental nature is adopted by monotheist religions like Christianity and Islam, and polytheist doctrine of Vedanta Hinduism. It correspondents to the reality of world considered under both Organic Worldview and Mechanistic Worldview. The Vedanta Tradition of Hinduism conceives a pantheon of gods to represent the reality, and it is the best example of polytheism.
2. Immanent God. Buddhism and Chinese religions (Confucianism, Taoism, etc) subscribe to the view of God as eternal process, in tune with the Process Worldview.
The contrasting notions of Transcendent God and Immanent God are based on the alternative visions of reality as transcendent and immanent respectively. Since religious beliefs are noncognitive, the description and attributes of God vary due to the socio-cultural factors and teachings of religious leaders.
The ‘+’ model of Dualist Reality can be used for depicting the existence of Dualist God and Dualist Evil, adopting the notion of absolute infinity defined earlier. Thus we get a new method to do Philosophy of Religion.

The problem of science and religion is to unify the concerned propositions for common man at the level of lived experiences and knowledge . How can we link the religious faith in God, soul and other metaphysical beings to the scientific knowledge about the laws of nature and physical properties of phenomena ? According to the foregoing System Philosophy, science is the study of Natural Life System by reducing the component systems to physical variables. That is, science is Natural Life System itself in terms of cognitive mechanistic facts. On the other hand, religions as a whole constitute the Religious Life System consisting of the noncognitive knowledge about God, souls, holy books and theology. So science and religion are two social systems, which coexist as the products of the natural faculty and religious faculty respectively of our doing (organizing) mind. The cognitive knowledge of science and the noncognitive knowledge of religion are unified by a common theory of truth based on our goals of society-interest and self-interest. This understanding serves as the key to solve the issues in the relation between science and religion.

5. SYSTEMIC DOCTRINE OF GOD
The aim of this section is to develop the concept of God that will foster the unification of science and religion in a commonsense manner. The doctrine of God is a set of coherent ideas which answers the three questions
1. Does God exist as a metaphysical being?
2. What are the attributes of God?
3. What is the nature of our knowledge about God?
As such, the doctrine of God is the central theme in the philosophy of religion which is a systematic and critical study of the common features of all religions. A brief resume of the issues regarding the beliefs about God adopted in organic, mechanistic and process worldviews may be given here as a statement of the problem.
The Organic Worldview famously developed by Plato and Aristotle, treated ‘God’ and ‘reality’ as synonymous words. God, the prime mover of universe, exists as a metaphysical being responsible for all good values observable in finite things. This Transcendent God is the creator of the variety of phenomena, which are unified so that the world is like an organism. The deliberation about God is metaphysics, but it is based on the revelations of spiritual leaders. Accordingly, the scrutiny of God-concept in the light of empirical science is ruled out emphatically. This theory of God under idealism fails on the following grounds.
a) The metaphysics about Transcendent God does not agree with science. Organic worldview deals with the knowledge of values only. It does not enquire the existence of God as fact.
b) The notion of God as an omnipotent and perfect being fails due to the challenge of problem of evil.
c) There is no satisfactory explanation about the origin of physical world, which is supposed to be made of matter.
Mechanistic worldview under deism adopts the factual existence of transcendent God as an axiom and hence runs into irremediable difficulties. How can we rationally establish that the physical world was created by a nonphysical divine agency? This issue is popularly called Mind-Body Dualism. When science studies the physical world through logic and sensible date, the belief in God is a matter of religious faith: and there is no way of reconciling these two distinct types of knowledge. The facts about the evils of world aggravate the situation. Similarly, as demonstrated in the earlier sections on Process Worldview, the notion of Immanent God has a baggage of puzzles and controversies.
So in a nutshell, an appropriate Doctrine of God must reconcile the ideas about Transcendent God and Immanent God on the basis of a unification of the three worldviews. As a matter pf fact, reality is a cognitive or scientific concept, while God belongs to the field of religious faith. But our intuition tells that the two concepts, reality and God, are translations in a curious manner. Can we establish this correspondence through cognitive methods, going beyond the symbolic and mystical language of theology?
Let me begin with the distinction between the two terms ‘reality’ and ‘God’ that is appropriate for the present purpose. In the first chapter, ‘reality’ has been defined as the first cause or ultimate cause of all finite phenomena in the universe. Then chapter 5 developed a theory of reality, characterized as System Philosophy, on the basis of such important notions like relative infinity, systemic dualism of Body and Mind, hierarchy of systems and the contrast between cognitive and noncognitive classes of knowledge. It resulted in the cognitive model of Dualist Reality, with the ‘+’ structure, for ultimately explaining the formation of the hierarchy of phenomena with good and bad qualities.
The Dualist Reality can be viewed in alternative ways – as a transcendent being and as an immanent process. When we see the plane paper and x-y coordinate system, without considering the phenomenal systems, it is the transcendent nature of Dualist Reality. Here the term ‘transcendent’ means ‘that is beyond the range of finite phenomena knowable by empirical methods.’ Transcendent being is external to phenomenal world; it is the Creator who is intuitively (through our abstract reasoning) known to exist independent of created objects. On the other hand, the historical view of finite systems will reveal the immanent nature of Dualist Reality, as per input-output relation. The two components of Dualist Reality, body and mind, serve as the inputs for producing a finite system having the two levels of phenomenal body and phenomenal mind. This cognitive knowledge about Dualist Reality, with twin natures of transcendence and immanence, is essential for developing a Systemic Doctrine of God in the following paragraphs.
In this context we can distinguish between three levels of knowledge pertaining to religions as under.

a) Religious knowledge (first order knowledge)
These are the prepositions expressing the religious experience of devotees of a religion. Such propositions, both fact and value, include beliefs, testimonies, prayers and religious books. They express lived experiences involving commitment and devotion; hence religious knowledge is evidently noncognitive. The term religion usually refers to this first order knowledge of religious experience.
In religion, we engage in a personal communication with the object of worship, the deity. A devotee prays, as a personal talk, to God and expresses his feelings of friendship and gratitude. The belief in the existence of God is a prerequisite for the personal relation with God. The question whether God exists occurs in a person only in the moments of non-religious life such as natural life, and economic activities.

b) Theology (second order knowledge)
Theology consists of the concepts and logical interpretations pertaining to a particular religion. The task of theology is to present an abstract narrative of all aspects of religious belief and worship so as to protect and foster the interests of the religious organization. Obviously different religions will have separate theologies and the truth of a particular theology of problematic. There are definitions, concepts and cause–effect relations employed in theology. But, it may be emphasized here, such ideas belong to the realm of noncognitive fact and value.
Theology, literally meaning ‘talk about God’, is an intellectual activity expressing the commitment to the religion to which the theologian belongs. It aims to construct a theoretical framework, involving reason and cause-effect relations, for interpreting the beliefs and practices of the concerned religion. We can treat each theology as a separate paradigm of noncognitive, religious thought.

e) Religious philosophy / Philosophy of Religion (third order knowledge)

This subject is a purely objective and disinterested enquiry in to the common features of different religions as well as the theory of truth of various theological statements. Particularly, religious philosophy deals with such questions as: How do different religions evolve historically under concerned social contexts? Do religious entities like metaphysical beings, heaven, hell and life-after-death exist as matters of fact? Does God exist? What is the justification for various attributes of God assumed in religions?

A doctrine of God is to be regarded as the most important part of philosophy of religion because different religions and concerned theologies propose divergent descriptions about God. The three worldviews of monistic philosophy has produced a virtual division of religious philosophy into the camps of transcendent God and Immanent God.
The existence of transcendent God as fact, which is the basic belief of a theist religion, belongs to realm of deism under mechanistic worldview. It may be reiterated here that existence is a mechanistic knowledge involving definitions, reduction to parts, cause-effect relations and empirical observations. As explained in the earlier section 6.2, deism with its allied theory of knowledge called rationalism has failed to prove the existence of God as omnipotent and perfect being. On the other hand, the Process Worldview advocates the belief in Immanent God as a historical process, and thereby avoids the question of existence of God.
The failure of rationalism to prove the factual existence of God is well known, thanks to Kant’s illustrious treatment of the topic. Later empiricist philosophers approached God problem by distinguishing between religious experience and scientific experience. They recognized that religious experience is noncognitive and hence the propositions about God are not testable through experimental data. In this empirical approach, only the epistemological issues are addressed, ignoring the ontological questions. In the last century, Logical Positivism and Linguistic Philosophy focused on the analysis of the meaning of concepts about God and other religious beliefs. Such epistemological discussion does not fruitfully address the issue whether God exists as a matter of fact.
Theological concepts like God, evil, soul, heaven and hell are noncognitive ideas which do not mean existence as cognitive (scientific) fact. Theist beliefs about metaphysical beings are part of theology and hence are not factual statements like ‘this pen exists’ and ‘earth is round.’ Theist God is the supreme form of mind and this conception cannot explain the existence of body (material substratum) and the occurrence of evil.
The basic reason for the failure of hitherto religious philosophy in demonstrating the existence of God is that it deliberated within the framework of theology, which presumes the existence of God as an axiom. Hence, a systematic articulation of the doctrine of God is beyond the scope of idealism, deism and process theology. Theology starts with the foundational belief that God exists as an infinite being with the attributes of omnipotence and perfection. Since the entire theology and the allied religious philosophy are built upon this axiom, a critical examination of God-concept is not possible. In other words, the traditions of monistic philosophy, which adopts the metaphysical notion of God as the reality are incapable of addressing the issue of existence of God. In this situation mind-body dualism and problem of evil can never be solved. The state of philosophy of religion is in utter confusion and verbiage so far. A detailed study of the debates with in the existing philosophy of religion, which includes the epistemology of theological statements as the main part, is postponed to a later occasion.

Model of Dualist God and Dualist Evil

In view of the foregoing, I propose that the philosophical study about the existence of God must satisfy the following premises, so as to agree with the tenets of System Philosophy.

a) We must recognize that the concept of God and the allied notions of souls, evil spirits, heaven, hell, etc. are noncognitive religious beliefs involving emotion, imagination and commitment. Such concepts do not mean actual existence as fact in the sense pertaining to a statement like ‘this table exists.’
b) The notion of existence belongs to philosophy, rather than theology. Existence is not a property, but is a fact contingent on empirical data and logical deduction. Hence, there must be cognitive evidences, which can be tested, verified and falsified, about the existence of God. But Transcendent God and Immanent God, adopted in theologies, are noncognitive ideas, which are not supported by cognitive evidence, in the wake of problem of evil.
c) Existence of God must be recast in a new manner so as to explain the problem of evil and the creative evolution of a hierarchy of living organisms as well as the factual knowledge about natural laws and the other aspects of physical world.
d) Further, the notions of Transcendent God and Immanent God need unification in an innovative manner. Though existence of God is a static concept, it is to be recognized that the cognitive evidence about God can be found only in the ever-changing phenomenal world. That is, God’s transcendence cannot be verified by empirical methods. Once we establish the existence of Immanent God in a cognitive manner, the question of transcendence will be proved by deduction.
e) Our experience of the world implies certainly that evil has fundamental existence, just as an opposite to goodness. No quality exists without its opposite quality. The opposites are complementary parts of a whole.
The thesis of this chapter is that a proper doctrine of God must be based on the Model of Dualist Reality, which is the foundation of System Philosophy. Since God and Evil are non-cognitive concepts employed in religion, it must be formerly supported by a cognitive theory of reality as developed in last chapter. Here the distinction between relative infinity and absolute infinity may be recalled. The religious belief that God is a being with infinite goodness and perfection corresponds to the notion of absolute infinity, which is a noncognitive concepts. We do not have any scientific evidence about absolute infinity. But the Dualist Reality with ‘+’ model is a cognitive knowledge based on the concept of relative infinity. It shows that the Dualist Reality has two complementary parts, Good and Bad. The good part of Dualist Reality consists of the positive mind (positive society-interest) and positive body (positive self-interest) in a dialectical relation. On the contrary, bad part of Dualist Reality consists of negative mind and negative body as complementary attributes.
It is reasonable to think that the good part of Dualist Reality represented by the co-ordinates (+ body, + mind) is the same as Dualist God when conceived in the non-cognitive manner of religious experience. In contrast, Dualist Evil is the same as the religious version of the bad part with co-ordinates (-body, -mind). If we adopt the notion of relative infinity, then the ‘+’ model represents Good and Bad cognitively. Further, if the idea of absolute infinity is employed, then the same model represents the dialectical relation between Dualist God and Dualist Evil as metaphysical beings of religion. Thus the stubborn problem of evil is solved under System Philosophy.
The Dualist God and Dualist Evil are opposite parts of the ‘+’ model under non-cognitive (or religious) version. In this manner, we explain that the Dualist God, with positive body and positive mind as complementary attributes, produces the good events of world. On the contrary, the bad events of world are the products of the Dualist Evil, with ( -body, -mind ) attributes. The ‘+’ model of Dualist God and Dualist Evil show existence as cognitive knowledge, even though the concepts of Dualist God and Dualist Evil themselves are noncognitive. Why? Two opposite concepts make a whole, and it has existence as per System Philosophy. For example, the opposite feelings ‘love’ and ‘hate’ are to be treated as the complementary parts of a whole mental state, which exists really. In a similar way, Dualist God and Dualist Evil can be conceived as two opposite feelings, or ideas, of our religious mind: So the whole consisting of the complementary parts, Dualist God and Dualist Evil, has real existence.
The underlying principle of existence of the whole of opposite entities is an innovation of System Philosophy. It radically negates the idealism of Plato who treated the opposite ideas as absolute and independent existences. For example, Plato considered ‘love’ and ‘hate’ as two independent ideas without any relation. Treating them as opposite qualities is the epistemological function of our reasoning mind rather than an ontological fact, Plato asserted. However, the process philosophy of Heraclitus, Hegel, eastern mysticism and allied doctrines treat the opposites as ontological parts of the ever-changing world.

Next question is whether Dualist God and Dualist Evil, the opposite noncognitive concepts of religions, have existence as matters of fact. It is in accordance with the popular concern: Does God exist? The answer is yes, with a qualification. A noncognitive object cannot be said to exist in the sense of a cognitive statement like ‘this pen exists.’ But in the case of God and evil, which are now recognized as the fundamentally opposite aspects of universe conceived noncognitively, we are not satisfied with the mere existence of noncognitive and opposite concepts. So I hold the view that the existence in the case of Dualist God and Dualist Evil is derived existence. The good and bad parts of Dualist Reality have real existence in a cognitive sense. Then Dualist God and Dualist Evil have derived existence because they are the same as the opposite parts of Dualist Reality, conceived in noncognitive experience of religion. To clarify this point, the statue of Gandhi has real existence as a statue primarily on account of the shape and other physical features. The same statue assumes the derived existence as the statue of Gandhi, when we aesthetically perceive it. The point here is that the statue of Gandhi is not a mere mental concept--it has both ontological and epistemological aspects. Does statue of Gandhi exist? We can answer affirmatively, on the basis of the above arguments.
Now it is not difficult to demonstrate that the Model of Dualist God and Dualist Evil synthesizes the contrasting aspects of Transcendence and Immanence. The plane paper and the ‘+’ structure can be postulated as the property of transcendence, since it shows the state of Dualist God and Dualist Evil independently of phenomenal world. When we depict phenomenal systems in the first quadrant and third quadrant of the coordinate structure, the figure represents the aspect of Immanence. Every good system is made of the inputs (+body, +mind) pertaining to Dualist God. That is, the Dualist God acts immanently in the good systems of phenomenal world. The opposite manifestation of immanence of Dualist Evil can be visualized in bad systems of world. In the case of industrial production, if we analyze the product we can know the measure of inputs. Similarly, we can estimate cognitively the extent of Dualist God present in a good system, using the technical model of isoquants borrowed from economics. Same method is to be applied for estimating the quantity of Dualist Evil contained in a bad system.
The ‘+’ model applies equivalently to the Dualist Reality of Natural Life System and the dialectical existence of Dualist God and Dualist Evil under Religious Life System. These are respectively the cognitive and noncognitive ways of comprehending the reality of world. But both the versions of ‘+’ model are cognitive schemes, just like the production model of economics. To reiterate, the model is cognitive, and it can be applied equivalently to both cognitive and noncognitive versions of knowledge of reality. Thus we get a new scientific method to do philosophy of religion through the perspective of System Philosophy.
With the aim of clarification, the innovative concepts of Dualist God and Dualist Evil may be compared with the popular notion of God and Evil respectively. In theist religions, God and Evil represent metaphysical beings, which are assumed to exist under noncognitive knowledge. In the philosophical interpretation of theology, God and Evil are mental beings with attributes of positive mind and negative mind respectively. Due to the underlying philosophy of idealism, God is believed to be the supreme mind with the attributes of omnipotence, perfection and rationality. Evil is accorded only a subordinate and ambiguous position and it resulted in the intractable problem of evil. Though philosophical deliberation of theology speaks exclusively about the metaphysics of mental beings, the major part of religious beliefs (lived religion) and the allied theology take into account the complementary relation of mental part and body part of deities.
The Theology of Catholic Church upholds monotheism, following the idealist philosophical tradition of Plato, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. But the mundane aspects of theology and worship involve the dualist notion of God, especially in the beliefs about Mother Mary, Veneration of saints as well as the concept of Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). The polytheism of Hinduism abounds with examples of deities (gods and goddesses) who are divine persons with body and mind. The characterization of Brahman as the Godhead (with the attribute of pure consciousness) is the attempt of Advaita Philosophy to unify the pantheon of deities in the line of Idealism.
The idea of God, as adopted in theist philosophy of religion, pertains to positive-mind part of the dualist being. That is, the positive–body aspect of God is neglected in the traditional philosophy of religion through idealist perspectives. The belief in supernatural forces and the view of dualism between mental and physical aspects of world might have contributed to the monistic concept of God as mental being. However, the noncognitive belief in God with mental aspect only is justified within the theory of knowledge about religion. That is, the belief about God as a mental being only or as a dualist being can be shown to be true, if it satisfied the good goals pertaining to Religious Life System.
So we have to differentiate between ‘belief about God’ and ‘existence of God’. The Model of Dualist Reality shows the existence of God and Evil as dualist beings, both having mental part and bodily part. This conception of existence satisfies the essential requirements of a Systemic Doctrine of God;
The final point to be discussed in this brief essay about God is the Problem of Evil. David Griffin has formalized this issue as per the following syllogism using three premises;
(i) If God is omnipotent, God could prevent all evil.
(ii) If God is perfectly good, God could want to prevent all evil.
(iii) There is evil.
(iv) There fore (an omnipotent, perfectly good) God does not exist.
So, the Problem of Evil refers to the contradiction between the facts of evil in the phenomenal world on the one hand, and the religious belief in the power and goodness of God on the other. There is a long tradition of theodicies (arguments to defend God in face of the fact of evil) with respect to the Transcendent God such as the responses of St. Irenaeus (130-202 AD), St. Augustine (354-430 AD), and St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Unfortunately all these arguments have failed due to the monistic conception of God as a mental being with the attributes of omnipotence and perfection. Process theology, advocated by Whitehead, Hartshorne and David Griffin, made a fresh attempt on the basis of the notion of Immanent God who aims to provide good values and direction to the material world. As per this process view of Architect God, evils occur due to the inherent power of physical world possessing the natural laws. It implies dualism between the metaphysical God-process and the physical laws of world and at the same time holds that God is not omnipotent. This concept of ‘limited God’ takes us no nearer to the solution of Problem of Evil, nor it becomes the object of religious worship. In this context, there exists voluminous interpretations about the nature of God’s action in the wake of evils in the world, but it cannot go beyond the confines of theology and religious faith.
It is a matter of great relief and joy that the present Model of Dualist God and Dualist Evil provides us a convincing solution. Dualist God is in eternal and dialectical conflict with the Dualist Evil, according to the ‘+’ model. The existence of Evil is a fundamental aspect of Dualist Reality. But this fact does not lessen the attributes of Dualist God because it is still an infinite being. Any finite number cannot divide infinity: Infinity divided by two is still infinity. So the two parts of Dualist Reality, named here, as Dualist God and Dualist Evil, are infinite in their own right. It is understandable that two infinite forces, good and bad, exist as polar opposites on the basis of the theory of reality of System Philosophy.
Dualist God, as an infinite Being with positive Body ad positive Mind, is omnipotent and perfect, engaged in the production of good systems of phenomenal world. Negatively, Dualist Evil is responsible for bad systems. Thus we arrive at the solution to the problem of evil on the strength of the following points.

 Both Dualist God and Dualist Evil are diametrically opposite qualities of Omnipotence and Perfection. Even though we conceive these opposite powers both as infinite beings, they do not have separate existence. There is non-dualism between two infinite Beings. Hence the facts about Dualist Evil do not effect any limitation to the infinite virtues of Dualist God.


 The existence of Dualist God and Dualist Evil are proved, as a derivation form the Model of Dualist Reality. Since it is cognitively shown, using the concept of relative infinity, that Evil has fundamental existence, the problem of evil is no longer sustainable.

 The theist vision of God as the object of worship; with Omnipotence and perfection is justified because the transcendent nature of Dualist God can be demonstrated in the ‘+’ model.

Thus we reach the conclusion : God really exists as a Dualist Being, though religious philosophy traditionally holds that God is a monistic being with mental aspect only. And, Evil also exists as a Dualist Being, which is in a dialectical relation to God. Adopting a religious view, the complementary aspects of God and Evil explains the good and bad events in the phenomenal world. There are three types of knowledge about Dualist God. The value knowledge pertains to the attributes such as omnipotence, benevolence and perfection. The mechanical knowledge deals with the facts about the derived existence of Transcendent God, including definitions and cause-effect relations. Thirdly, social knowledge speaks the facts about the Immanent God in tune with process theology. Thus we can unify the noncognitive facts of religion and theology with the facts of science, through a suitable theory of knowledge to be developed in a later chapter. This is the essence of the Systemic Doctrine of God under System Philosophy.
The forgoing Systemic Doctrine of God will be linked to the scientific postulates of space, time, Big Bang cosmology and Evolution in the following section. It may be anticipated, the event of Big Bang explosion is the same as the Model of Dualist God and Dualist Evil with the ‘+’ structure. This idea will help us to solve the Science-Religion conflict.


P.G.LUKE ,  M.Sc., M.Phil,
Puthankulam House,
Cherukarakunnu,
Changanacherry,
Kerala-686101 .
( Phone:0481 - 2411830 )

  E-mail :
 pgluke@hotmail.com
  / 
 pgluke@rediffmail.com

 



Go to Top | Back to Home

Site best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 in 800 x 600 resolution