I would like to begin this presentation by recounting an incident that occurred some years ago. As young political science students, a friend and I cast our absentee ballots in an election. On the way back to campus, we discovered, to our dismay, that we had voted for different candidates. This fact clearly surprised my friend and later made me wonder why he had supported a politician who, after winning the election, enacted government policies that killed scores more babies than King Herod did in 5 B. C. Admittedly, the candidate I had supported was imperfect, but at least he hadn't promoted infanticide.

The profound differences between my friend and me were again highlighted some time later when we were discussing the merits of legalizing recreational drugs and gambling. He was for legalization, I was opposed. We had read the same books and heard the same statistics from the same professors in class. They generally stated that for every dollar the government received in taxes for those vices it cost the community around ten dollars. Why did my friend persist in supporting things that were clearly harmful to society?

That question haunted me. On another occasion, not long before college graduation, another friend and I observed on the television news a skirmish taking place between peasants and the military forces of their Middle Eastern country. Off the top of my head, I commented that the government leadership would be wise to leave quickly. "Why?" my friend asked. He reasoned that a few unarmed peasants were surely no match against armed and trained soldiers. I pointed out that each of those soldiers had either parents, brothers, sisters, wives, children, or friends who were being oppressed by the government. I proposed, "At some point in the immediate future, they will win the soldiers' loyalty."

Within a few weeks, my friend rushed into my dorm room and told me that my prediction had been correct. The soldiers had withdrawn support for the unpopular government, and its leaders had fled for their lives. He concluded that I must have learned a great deal from my political science classes. I had to reply that I hadn't learned my analytical technique from any course that I had taken. It was only common sense for me to think of governments as collections of individuals acting on their needs. That lack of connectivity in political science also haunted me.

I left the U. S. military after a few years to try to make sense of two questions. First, if individuals generally have the same knowledge and experience, why do they reach vastly different conclusions, political and otherwise? Second, how can specific individual behavior be tied to specific societal behavior? I will try to answer those questions and others in the next twenty- five minutes or so. If you find that you want to learn more, you can visit my Web site at www.SystematicPoliticalScience.org.

I had studied political systems and individual needs and realized that the something that affected behavior was rationality. Rationality explains why we choose what is good or evil. That epistemological pursuit, or study of knowledge, led me to theology, or the study of God.

After reading a book that my father had given me on systematic theology, I could finally connect the dots and see political science systematically. A short explanation of systematic political science can be understood by using the acronym TRICE T, R, I, C, E, TRICE. T is theology, which creates R which is rational epistemology, which creates I, or individual behavior, which creates C, or collective societal behavior, based on E, or eschatology, which is a view of the future based on chosen theology. That's TRICE T, R, I, C, E; theology T, rationality R, individual behavior I, collective behavior C, and eschatology E.

Before going further, I must cover three basic ideas. First, the Law of Noncontradiction says that something can't be both true and false at the same time. Second, our universe is entrophic, meaning that it is moving from a state of order and higher energy to a state of disorder and less energy. Third, the field of game theory seeks realistically to narrow one's options for rational behavior, when exposed to a stimuli, into predictable probabilities.

For example, a student is sitting in a classroom and the bell rings, signaling the end of the period. What will a rational student likely do under normal conditions? The options are either immediately to get out of the chair to leave the room or not immediately to get out of the chair to leave the room. The positive probability of getting out of the chair immediately is 80 percent, and the probability of getting up in moments is 10 percent. The negative probability of getting up in minutes is 9 percent, and the probability of getting up in hours is 1 percent. Unique differences depend on individual needs, such as the decision to remain seated to meet the need of studying for a test to be given in a nearby classroom the next period.

As we return to the acronym of systematic political science, TRICE, I recommend logging onto my Web site at www.SystematicPoliticalScience.org for clarification. Most people require hearing and reading this material a couple of times.

To review TRICE, T is theology or the study of God; R is rational epistemology, or the study of knowledge; I is individual behavior, or maslowvian psychology of needs; C is collective societal behavior, or sociology and political systems; and E is eschatology, or a belief about the future based on a chosen theology. To simplify it, we can logically state that T equals R equals I equals C equals E. In actuality, due to entrophic abilities, T equals minus R, which equals minus I, which equals minus C, which is less than E from an ideal of T.

To see why this is so, we must begin by looking at T, or theology. We know that there are many beliefs in deities. However, as we saw in the game theory example of a student in a classroom hearing the bell, our options to choose a god are limited. Belief in a deity can be narrowed to three entrophic categories or tracks of possibilities. Track 1 theology leads to Track 1 rationality, Track 1 individual behavior, Track 1 collective behavior, and Track 1 eschatology. Track 2 theology leads to Track 2 rationality, etc., and Track 3 theology leads to Track 3 rationality, and so on.

Now, Track 1 theology is an active, individual choice of faith to believe in a balanced God of love and justice--to whom one can relate only by God's extended grace. Whereas Track 2 theology, on the other hand, is an active or de facto individual choice to reject the infinite God for a faith to believe in an unbalanced god of love, or justice, or a force--to which one can relate only by human effort. Finally, Track 3 theology is an active or de facto choice to reject the infinite God for a faith to believe in an unbalanced god of objects, animals, other humans/societal institutions, or oneself, or beings of evil--to which one can relate only by human effort.

Track 1 theology leads to Track 1 rational epistemology, which is a rational individual's seeking and complying with natural laws in submission to his or her immutable and inerrant designer for mankind's good--the infinite God. There are three subcategories of possibilities of compliance. The rational plus possibility is perfect compliance with natural laws, which requires infinite understanding. A rational medium possibility is finite compliance with natural laws, which requires extrahuman understanding. Last, rational minus possibility is the highest consistently achievable human category of compliance because of finite understanding and the option to choose to disobey known natural laws.

Track 2 theology leads to Track 2 irrational epistemology, which is an irrational rejection of some natural laws to comply with an errant designer of good--a finite god. The three subcategories begin with irrational plus possibilities or compliance with most known natural laws. The irrational medium category is compliance with many known natural laws. Irrational minus is less compliance with many known natural laws.

Track 3 theology leads to Track 3 irrational epistemology. This is an individual rejection of natural laws to comply with a situational perception of the source of good--finite gods. The first of the three subcategories of possibilities is the irrational plus possibility of rejecting many known natural laws. Second is the irrational medium possibility of rejecting most known natural laws. The last possibility of irrational minus is the lowest humanly survivable rejection of natural laws.

Track 1 rational epistemology leads to Track 1 individual behavior as the person pursues the five basic human needs. In ascending order, those needs are survival, economic security, love and affection, status and self-esteem, and self-actualization. Based on the T one standard and authority for behavior, the first need level, survival, is met by serving others and trusting God for provisions. The need of economic security is satisfied by helping others achieve their needs and resting in the security of God. The next level of love and affection is met by loving others as God loves. Status and self-esteem are achieved by seeking to reflect godly attributes to glorify God. Finally, self-actualization is reached by experiencing the overflowing joy in knowing and obeying God.

Track 2 irrational epistemology leads to Track 2 individual behavior based on the T two standard and authority for the first need level, survival. It is met by using deceit and violence if necessary. The need of economic security is satisfied by hoarding assets greedily. The next level of love and affection is met by lusting. Status and self-esteem are achieved by using power to control others. And self-actualization is reached by suffering self-destruction.

Track 3 irrational epistemology leads to track 3 individual behavior based on a T three standard and authority for the first level of needs, survival. It is met by deceit and murder if necessary. The need of economic security is satisfied by stealing assets. The next level of love and affection is met by raping. Status and self-esteem are achieved by enslaving others. And self-actualization is reached by suffering death.

Track 1 individual behavior leads to Track 1 collective societal behavior as the same five hierarchical levels of human needs are pursued within the four human institutions: family, church, business, and government. Based on a T one standard and authority for domestic and foreign relations behavior, the first level of survival is characterized by building families and churches. The next level of economic security is accomplished by building education facilities, businesses, and infrastructure. Love and affection witness a paradigm shift from a T one standard to a T two majority, which uses the government to tax the earnings of others. The level of status and self-esteem is achieved by using the government to force T two beliefs onto others. Finally, for the self-actualization level, society reacts based on a T three standard for the majority, where they suffer death from homicide, suicide, infanticide, disease, and addictions, ending this First World cycle.

Track 2 individual behavior leads to Track 2 collective societal behavior. Based on the T two standard and authority for domestic and foreign relations behavior, the first level of survival is characterized by using government deceit and violence to achieve. The next level of economic security experiences a paradigm shift to a T three majority in which the government is used to enslave others. Neither this level nor the remaining three levels of individual needs is met collectively because of inefficiency, thereby ending this Second World cycle.

Track 3 individual behavior leads to Track 3 collective societal behavior. Based on the T three standard and authority for domestic and foreign relations behavior, the level of survival is characterized by deceit, murder, and slavery. Neither this level nor the other four levels of individual needs is collectively possible, thereby ending this Third World cycle.

The First World cycle of collective societal behavior was based on a Track 1 eschatology of the future from a T one balanced God of love and justice with an eternal future of life in heaven with God for those who have been forgiven for violating God's laws and eternal separation in hell for those who rejected God's extended grace.

The Second World cycle of collective societal behavior was based on a Track 2 eschatology of the future from a T two unbalanced god of either love, whereby an eternal future eventually awaits everyone in heaven regardless of violating God's laws, or justice with an eternal future in heaven for the few who have complied with God's laws and eternal separation in hell for all others, or of force, where eternal existence is in a higher or lower form, depending on one's compliance with God's laws now.

The Third World cycle of collective societal behavior was based on a Track 3 eschatology of the future from a T three worship of either objects, animals, or other humans/societal institutions, where an eternal future is uncertain and requires little compliance with God's laws; worship of oneself, where an eternal future is not a concern and laws are what one desires them to be; or worship beings of evil, where an eternal future does not necessarily exist and present existence is made more heavenly by complying with the impulses of evil spirits or more hellish by resisting the control of evil spirits.

Now that we have seen that our theology is used to set the standard of rationality for individual behavior and subsequent collective societal behavior based on our theological eschatology-- or T, R, I, C, E, TRICE--I hope that I have answered many questions. For example, the college friend whom I mentioned at the beginning, the one who supported legalizing recreational drugs, gambling, and infanticide, can be induced to have had a Track 3 theology. Conversely, if someone claims to have a Track 3 theology, one can deduce that such a person would also support the same destructive Third World behavior that my friend supported. Furthermore, systematic political science directly correlates the five individual human needs to the potential five collective societal levels of behavior and their three possible systems.

The revolution in the Middle Eastern nation-state to which I alluded earlier and in which another college friend and I had observed the collapsing government after it lost the support of its soldiers can also be understood. The survival needs of the soldiers' families and friends were threatened by the leaders of the inefficient Third World government that had a Track 3 theology and was predictably ended.

Those initial questions were answered, but others arise. For example, what does an expanded model of First, Second, and Third World systems look like? How do variables such as immigration, productivity, intelligence, crises, history, and geography affect these political cycles? I address all of these concerns on my Web site at www.SystematicPoliticalScience.org. You can e-mail your comments or suggestions to me from my Web site.

In conclusion, I would be remiss if I failed to call attention to the obvious reality of systematic political science, only one individual ever lived and was witnessed to have had a perfect rational plus epistemology and Track 1 individual behavior reflecting a perfect Track 1 theology--Jesus the Christ chronicled in the Bible. He was surely both God and man as He claimed. As prophesied, He gave His life as a ransom for many. He said that if we repent and believe in Him alone, we will join Him in heaven for eternity.

Such a belief also leads to the creation and support of efficient First World political systems here on earth. As the American General and first U. S. President, George Washington, wisely observed in the late 1700s, America's system of government can exist only with a citizenry that is Christian.

Thank you for your time, and I encourage you to seek truth humbly, embrace truth tenaciously, and proclaim truth solitarily with the restful confidence that history will ultimately vindicate you.

The TRICE Lecture on Systematic Political Science

by Dallas F. Bell, Jr.

For Further Reference: