Professor Albert Schweitzer[21] ascribes the moral superiority of prophetic Judaism and Christianity over other world religions to the naïve dualism of the prophets and Jesus, who emphasized the moral rather than the metaphysical attributes of God in such a way as to develop a practical and morally potent distinction between God and the universe, between the ideal of religious devotion and the disappointing realities of life. The distinction between Oriental monism and the practical dualism of Christianity in its unspoiled form is succinctly stated by Professor Alfred Whitehead: “Christianity has always been a religion seeking a metaphysics in contrast to Buddhism which is a metaphysics generating a religion.... The defect of a metaphysical system is the very fact that it is a neat little system which thereby oversimplifies its expression of the world.... In respect to its treatment of evil, Christianity is therefore less clear in its metaphysical idea but more inclusive of the facts.”[22] In the early Christian church the naïve dualism of Jesus was given dramatic and dynamic force through his deification, so that he became, in a sense, the God of the ideal, the symbol of the redemptive force in life which is in conflict with evil. Since no clear distinction was made between the spirit of the living Christ and the indwelling Holy Ghost, the doctrine of the trinity was, in effect, a symbol of an essential dualism. Orthodox Christianity did indeed renounce the gnostic heresy which tried to give this implicit dualism explicit character by its distinction between the God who was revealed in Jesus and the God of creation. And history has justified the wisdom of its course. The scientific precision necessary to save such theology from essential polytheism was lacking and Christianity was intent upon guarding its monotheism. Yet it preserved enough metaphysical inconsistency to retain dualistic tendencies in its monistic orthodoxy. Its symbols lacked philosophical precision but they did give vivid and dramatic force to the idea of a conflict between evil and the redemptive and creative force in life. Thus it could fulfill the two great functions of religion in prompting men to repent of their sins, and in encouraging them to hope for redemption from them. No mechanical or magical explanations of the significance of the crucifixion have ever permanently obscured the helpful spiritual symbolism of the cross in which the conflict between good and evil is portrayed and the possibility as well as the difficulty of the triumph of the good over evil is dramatized. An absolute dualism either between God and the universe or between man and nature, or spirit and matter, or good and evil, is neither possible nor necessary. What is important is that justice be done to the fact that creative purpose meets resistance in the world and that the ideal which is implicit in every reality is also in conflict with it. The reason why naïve religions are “more inclusive