Apostolos Campus Ministry

Morality as a Clue to God
Gregory Koukl

When faced with the facts, most people would say there are moral absolutes. That established, a whole set of world views become untenable, like Hinduism or atheism or agnosticism.

I've been talking about the issue of moral relativism this weekend which we have discussed frequently here on this show. I was speaking at Hope Chapel in Hermosa Beach this morning, last evening and Friday evening about how relativists are like people who have both feet planted in mid-air -- those people who believe that morals are just the kind of thing that you make up yourself. After we were done with our analysis, I think it was pretty clear that relativism is a bankrupt moral point of view. It's self-refuting. It's self-defeating. It's afflicted by serious counter examples. It is just the kind of thing that can't be lived out, and if that's false then some form of absolutism must be true. It has given new meaning to me for that verse in the old hymn that when we stand on Christ we are standing on solid rock that can be relied upon. When you look closely at all the other points of view, the challengers as it were, and in this case moral relativism, the arguments just crumble into dust. What is left is the truth, and the truth stands alone. That is comforting and encouraging.

Sometimes I wish I had you all in my pocket during conversations I have with others. A couple of days ago I had one of those, in fact on Friday night just after the talk at Hope Chapel. I'd like to tell you about it, and you'll see how profound the implications of a simple observation about morality can be.

After I had been speaking on "Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air", I had a gentleman come up to me who had some questions about God. And he said this: "I'm genuinely searching for God. But God is not clear to me and I'm frustrated as to why He hasn't made Himself perfectly clear. If God is loving, if He's powerful, why doesn't He make Himself clear to someone like myself who's honestly seeking Him?"

Well, that was a fair question, and I can understand where it was coming from so I asked him ,"Listen, did you think this argument against relativism was compelling?" And he said, "Well, kind of."

Let me give you a thumbnail sketch of the issues I addressed and the way I argued my point in this talk, "Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air".

My point was that you really only have two options when it comes to morality. You have some form of moral relativism in which moral rules find their source in the individual that holds them. In other words, morality is relative to each individual person's opinion. Or, the other alternative -- and I might add it's the only other alternative -- moral absolutism is true, which says that there is a moral rule that stands outside of our opinion that judges us and it exists whether we agree with it or not. If there are absolutes, that leads us in another direction.

We can start by identifying some discernible moral absolutes -- truths that exist and apply to everyone. For example, the absolute that you ought not torture babies for fun on feast days seems to be a pretty self-evident moral rule, that it doesn't matter who you are or where you are or what time or culture you are in, that it's hard to imagine that such a thing could ever be morally justified or how something like that could ever be considered anything less than evil. So you have two competing points of view: relativism and absolutism. And when you look at the problems with relativism -- and they are many, and this is what the bulk of the talk was about -- it seems clear that relativism as a point of view simply cannot be true. It's victimized by too many serious counter examples. In practice it seems to be self-refuting and self-defeating. It just doesn't seem to work. In fact, if relativism were true, if everyone just made up their own morality, if everything was entirely individual, then we would all be consigned with regards to any moral issue because we could never even discuss morality.

As we worked through this it seemed to be very, very clear that relativism is a false way of looking at morality and it must be true, therefore some form of absolutism is true. If we can identify even one moral absolute -- not torturing babies for fun on feast days, for example -- this opens up a whole new world to us. This was the point that I was making with the gentleman I was talking to whose name was Michael.

I asked him, "Do you think that morals are relative or are they absolute?"

He said, "Well, you kind of put it in two different extremes. You've got relativism at one extreme and absolutism at the other extreme, and I'm somewhere in the middle."
I said, "Well, no, actually it's not extreme at all. They are just simply two options. There are no other options. If you believe that some things are personal and some things are absolute, that puts you in an absolutist world view. At least you hold to some absolute truths."

He said, "Yeah, I believe that some things are wrong. It would be wrong for me to pull a gun right here and kill my friend standing next to me. Anybody in the same situation would be wrong as well."

"Fine", I said, "we've got your admission that it seems sensible that certain moral rules exist outside our opinion. There are moral absolutes. Right?" Well, this kind of thing invites certain kinds of questions.

If you believe -- and you have good reason to believe it, I think -- that there are moral absolutes, this takes you a long way towards answering his question. He really believes much more than he thinks he does.

How so?
He believes that some moral absolutes exist. Though there may be some things that are individual moral calls, some things aren't. Right?

If a moral absolute exists, it's fair to ask the question, what kind of thing is it? It's not a physical thing. A moral thing is not physical. It doesn't extend into space, it doesn't weigh something, it has no physical qualities or characteristics. It is a non-physical thing that really exists. It's an immaterial thing, something that you know exists but you can't get at with any of your five senses.

This is a very big thing that he's admitting here. I don't think he realized how big, especially considering his question. He was saying that he's confident -- he has a reasonable certainty -- that something exists somewhere in a realm which he can't see, taste, touch, smell or hear. He believes something exists that he can't prove empirically.

That's true for a lot of people who object to the idea of God because they can't find Him with their senses. He doesn't jump up right in front of them, but in fact they believe in a lot of things they can't test in that way, that aren't evident to them in that fashion. But just because you can't sense it by the five senses doesn't mean that it's unreasonable for you to believe that such a thing exists. In other words, there are other ways to learn about things than just the five senses. And if you believe that it's wrong, for example, to torture babies for fun, and you believe that that rule applies to everyone, in other words, it is a moral absolute, then you have just affirmed a belief in something that is immaterial that you don't access by your five senses but you do access with some certainty by some other means. What that other means is, we won't go into right now. I think there is a sense of moral intuition that has a play here. But in any event, you can be considered rational in believing that such a rule actually exists. Once you do that, it does a lot of work for you.
Well, when you say that a thing like an absolute moral rule exists, you've made an admission that has profound implications for many other beliefs. In other words, a whole bunch of other beliefs are bound up in that statement.

For example, when you say that some absolute moral laws exist, you're saying that immaterial things -- like moral laws which aren't made out of moral stuff -- certainly do exist. Therefore, materialism as a world view is false. Instead, it is reasonable to believe in things you don't see and can't test with the five senses. Strict empiricism would be false, then.

Now this is a big step, because in the case of this gentleman, Michael, one of his big arguments against God is that He hasn't shown Himself to him. But by his own admission, it can be reasonable to believe in something you simply can't see. In other words, there are different ways to "show" things to people, ways that don't involve the senses.

Okay, now we have another question, and this is the way the conversation went. Given that this moral rule is out there somewhere, where did it come from? You may be tempted to say, "How should I know?", but really, the options are limited.

Pretend you wake up in the morning and there's a birthday cake sitting on your kitchen table, and it just happens to be your birthday. What do you think? You ask yourself, "Where did this cake come from?" There are only a couple of possibilities, theoretically. It could have just materialized out of nowhere on your kitchen table coincidentally on your birthday. It could have just "poofed" into existence. I guess that would be in the realm of theoretic possibilities. Or maybe a great, hot, wet wind blew through your neighbor's kitchen gathering up a bunch of ingredients and kind of accidentally baked a cake that landed on your table. The fact that it happened on your birthday is a coincidence. I guess that would be "possible" too. The cake could have come out of nowhere, or could have just assembled itself by chance. Or the other alternative would be that a person baked the cake for you and dropped it off in the middle of the night.
Now here's the trick. When faced with limited options you don't have the liberty not to believe something. If you reject the idea that somebody baked the cake for you, you must assert in its place that the cake either materialized out of nothing or formed itself by accident. When you reject one option you are asserting an alternate option when all the options are clear.

Do you see that? When you are faced with just a limited number of choices, if you reject one choice you've got to opt for one of those that remains. So the question is, which option makes most sense? Think for a moment about a moral absolute. Where did it come from? Just like the cake. Well, I guess it could have popped out of nowhere. It just popped into existence, though if it did then one could ask how is it that an arbitrary thing like a moral rule could have any moral force? If it is an accident, if it just comes from nowhere, why would it have any moral force on me? And part of our argument is that a moral rule does have moral force. Maybe it assembled itself by accident out of available immaterial stuff floating around in wherever that world is that morals float around in. Of course, if it happened by accident then you'd still have to answer the question, how does an accidental thing have moral force? Or, third option, it could be that the moral law was made by Someone Who lives in that immaterial realm. Now, those are your options. I don't know how many other options there are, but it seems to me you are stuck with these three.

If it doesn't make sense that the moral thing popped into existence, if it doesn't make sense that the moral thing assembled itself, if it seems that the moral thing exists and has moral force on our behavior, then it seems to me the most reasonable option is that Someone made that moral thing and so that moral rule is a rule of Somebody's, and it's not just a disembodied principle. When you break the moral rule, you offend the Person Who made the rule itself.

You see, you do not have the liberty of standing in a neutral place on this issue. You've got to believe something. If you refuse to believe God made moral laws, given that you admit that they are there, then you're opting for one of the other two alternatives. And if you say that they just popped into existence or that they assembled themselves by chance, you have new problems to solve. In other words, I don't think those are tenable alternatives.
"But this doesn't prove that the Christian God is the true God."

Right. That's another separate step we'll have to take at another time. But something like the Christian idea of God has got to be true to account for morality. Hinduism, for example, simply won't work, because in Hinduism there is no ultimate distinction between good and evil. The kind of morality that we've been talking about just doesn't fit in a Hindu world view, but it does fit into a theistic, Christian world view. So if absolute morality is true, then Hinduism can't be true. Atheism is false. Agnosticism is untenable.
Do you see how making a simple observation about the existence of a moral truth does a tremendous amount of philosophical work for us? It does. It takes us a long way, much farther than we may have thought in the first place.

There is a conclusion to this, and it's a direct answer to his question. My point is to look at what seems to be the obvious existence of moral absolutes and to then look and see where that observation leads us, and it seems to lead us to the existence of a God who makes those moral rules because moral rules are designed kinds of things that don't make themselves, it appears. And it seems that a very good explanation for their existence is that a God with moral character made a set of moral rules that express His character and those rules then become absolutes which are incumbent upon us. Now there is a lot more that we could talk about.

Let me make a distinction between two types of believing: you can believe that and you can believe in . "Michael," I said, "I can only help you believe that God exists and that Christianity is reasonable. I can't help you to believe in Jesus Christ, which means your personal effort of submission to Him. I want you to chew on what I've just said today because I think it has profound ramifications for your question and your concern about whether God has in fact shown Himself to you in a clear fashion.
"Let me leave you with this parting thought. Whether you choose to believe in God and Jesus Christ or not is up to you. But after tonight you can no longer say, 'I can't believe in God because He hasn't made Himself clear to me.' He has made Himself clear; He's made Himself crystal clear. The options are obvious. They are few and they are obvious. If relativism is not tenable, then some form of absolutism is true. If absolute rules exist, this argues powerfully for the existence of an absolute Creator Who made those rules which apply to us and to Whom we are accountable. It's that simple.
"It would be no clearer if God Himself appeared in front of you right now and tapped you on the shoulder. Because if that did happen you'd still have to ask yourself some questions. Is this really God? Am I hallucinating? Is it something I ate? Is a demon trying to trick me?"

Frankly, the options Michael is facing now because of our talk about morality are more clear than if something appeared in front of him and claimed to be God. It's much harder to decide between the real God or a hallucination or a demon is right there. It's much easier to decide if absolutes really exist and where they came from. It's much clearer and it's much easier to decide. And I encouraged Michael to think about it. It's worth thinking about as a powerful argument for the existence of God, and many other besides me have used it before me, including C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity .

Ethics: Pick or Choose?
Ray Cotton

How to Choose Right From Wrong

After four years at Harvard University as an undergraduate, one student proclaimed in his graduation oration that there was one central idea, one sentiment which they all acquired in their Harvard careers; and that is, in one word, confusion.

That same year, Harvard's graduate-student orator said, "They tell us that it is heresy to suggest the superiority of some value, fantasy to believe in moral argument, slavery to submit to a judgment sounder than your own. The freedom of our day is the freedom to devote ourselves to any values we please, on the mere condition that we do not believe them to be true."

Our universities are teaching students that there are no solid guidelines to life. Since everything is relative, they are totally free to create anything they want out of their lives. Students are told that no one has a right to tell them how they ought to live. Decisions about right and wrong are strictly up to them. It makes no difference what they choose to make of their lives. Students are not encouraged to ask the traditional questions about the usefulness of life or the value of an exemplary life. As the above graduate student pointed out, they don't even want you to take your own conclusions about life seriously. It is a philosophy of ambiguity. It is the philosophy of humanistic existentialism. Many today are striving to break away from traditional values and embrace a sense of futility. Today we see it in the lives of teenagers who have "tried everything" and found life to be wanting. We see it in the life style of the "survivalists" who have given up hope in God and the future, holing up in defense of a coming catastrophe.

According to Jean-Paul Sartre, one of the fathers of humanistic existentialism, the world is absurd, lacking any concept of ultimate justification. Sartre declares we have no ultimate purpose or plan to our lives. We are nothing and are therefore free to make ourselves into anything we want to be. It doesn't even matter if you believe in your own proclamations because there is no more reason for you to exist there for you to not exist. Both are the same. The existentialist says you can just pick and choose your values. It makes no difference. There is no transcendent truth or power beyond man himself. Sartre doesn't believe in any God, nor does he believe that there is any preconceived design. There is no principle of authority to determine action. He says one must invent an original solution for each situation. Therefore, in the sovereignty of his freedom, man creates his own values. Morality is rooted in human choice. Man alone gives his life its importance. Mankind must somehow transcend a life of absurdity and despair.

Is this humanly created reality true or are those who believe it trying to live in a dream world? Is the existentialist trying desperately to deflect the true absurdity and despair of his position? Is this the view of life that we expect our college students to be learning?

The Foundation of Existentialism

Prior to World Wars I & II, modern man believed that through science and human engineering an ever better world was evolving. They believed that mankind was getting better, that peace and prosperity would rein. They were convinced that we had finally figured out how to live together in harmony and to build a better world.

Then came the rude awakening of two world wars and the hideous crimes against human beings perpetuated by Hitler's Third Reich. Out of the continuing frustration and destruction of World War II came a new philosophy of life. It was a philosophy conceived by those who had lost hope, who could only see the chaos. They lost their hope in any ultimate meaning for life. They were unable to see beyond the carnage of war-torn Europe. Their view of life was called humanistic existentialism.

Men like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus sought to establish a new view of life, a "new humanism" with a whole new set of values. Prior to these men, the need for a transcendent force, a higher authority beyond man himself, helped set limits and gave guidance to our lives. An example of this transcendence would be the Ten Commandments, given to man by God. These new philosophers defined transcendence in an entirely different way. They saw transcendence only in their own aims and goals. For the existentialists, transcendence was a way to escape what they saw as the meaninglessness of life by establishing aims and goals to make whatever they wanted out of themselves, to create their own reality. For them there were no norms or standards, other than what they might choose to agree upon among themselves.

You have to realize that for these existentialist thinkers, all human activities were equivalent in value. Human activity amounted to the same thing "whether one gets drunk alone or is a leader of nations." However, without God, there can be no transcendent view of human nature because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man is merely an evolved animal. Today we see many young people caught up in this attitude of cynicism and despair. They just don't care anymore. Life has become jaded. Many young people pass their time in a fantasy world of drugs, music and sex.

Man's nothingness forms the foundation of existential thinking. Man is an empty bubble floating on a sea of nothingness.

Trying to build an ethic for life based on the philosophy of existentialism is quite a challenge. Not only do the existentialists have to create a set of values to live by, but first of all, they have to create optimism out of a view of absurdity and despair. It is called an ethic of ambiguity because each person has no one to answer to but himself. There is no one else to blame, each individual is without excuse. Life is merely a game to be won or lost, to seek to become one's own hero.

The existentialist wills himself to be free and in so doing wills himself to be moral.

Existentialism Collides with a Biblical World View

We live in a world that has been characterized as "plastic", without value and sterile. Many have forgotten what it means to live, to be fully human. Hours are spent in front of the TV, in a world of fantasy and escapism. Many people are becoming devoid of human warmth and significant human interaction.

In this essay I have examined the ethics of humanistic existentialism.To fully understand ethics one must have considerable clarity about what it is to be human. Is man an evolved animal required to create his own essence, as the existentialist would say? Though there is freedom to choose our own actions, there is no significance in our actions. Choices are made in the face of meaninglessness. The values of existentialism are anchored in the world of ordinary experiences. Their values come from what is. And for the existentialist what is, is man's absurd condition.

How does existentialism compare to a God-centered, theistic view of ethics? For the Christian, ethical values are revealed to man by God. Perfect freedom lies only in service to God. The existentialist defines God as "self-caused" and then says there is no God because it is impossible to be self-caused. The Christian says that God is "uncaused", not self-caused. If you want absolute freedom, it is all too easy to deem God nonexistent. Even Sartre admits that "since we ignore the commandments of God [concerning] all value prescribed as eternal, nothing remains but what is strictly voluntary." Throwing off all limitations and declaring his atheism, Sartre explains the process in his autobiography:

I had been playing with matches and burned a small rug. I was in the process of covering up my crime when suddenly God saw me. I felt His gaze inside my head and on my hands....I flew into a rage against so crude an indiscretion, I blasphemed....He never looked at me again....I had the more difficulty getting rid of Him [the Holy Ghost] in that He had installed Himself at the back of my head....I collared the Holy Ghost in the cellar and threw Him out.

Aldous Huxley, another famous existentialist, said:

For myself, no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was ... from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.

The truth of Huxley's words ring out loud and clear. All around us we find individuals rejecting the truth of God's word and embracing false doctrines that allow them to vent their passions and immorality. Satan loves to get us discouraged and despairing, then he shows us a false way out that caters to our old fleshly nature, a way that allows us to do as we please.

The Bible says that we are in bondage either to sin or to God. We will serve one or the other. Our only choice is to decide who or what we will serve, the God of the Spirit, or the god of the flesh. The choice is ours.

Rejecting Biblical Truth Ultimately Leads to Despair

How did modern philosophy arrive at such a seemingly absurd state? In the late nineteenth century certain scholars assaulted the Bible and Christian beliefs. This "higher criticism" was promoted by men dedicated to the destruction of orthodox Christianity. In their minds the Bible was no more than a novel, a book of fiction with some good moral lessons. This movement was the spiritual legacy of the Enlightenment which put the claims of religion outside the realm of reason. Natural law, based on human reason alone, was slowly substituted for biblical law. Christian faith was separated from historic reality. The focus of all studies was shifting from God to man.

The real motive of higher criticism of the Bible was purely ethical. Men and women don't like the idea of having to be obedient to God. Therefore, they denied the historic validity of the Bible. This denial was based on an evolutionary model of human morality and human history. They sought to separate ethics from faith in order to free themselves from God's final judgment.

Kierkegaard, a 19th century philosopher, is considered the father of existentialism. He took this idea of the separation of faith and reason and said that we could not know God rationally. Therefore, he tried to reach God by what he called an irrational leap of faith.Since it was not rational to believe in God, but it was necessary, you must believe irrationally.Sartre and Camus simply took the next step when they said belief in God was not only irrational, but unnecessary.

Therefore, modern man started the path to a meaningless life when he questioned whether man could know God. Indeed, when man questioned even God's ability to communicate with man, this led the existentialist to ask, "If God is dead, isn't man dead also?" This existential death of man has lead to apathy, absurdity and ambiguity.The philosopher Bertrand Russell said it best when he said:

What else is there to make life tolerable? We stand on the shore of an ocean, crying to the night and to emptiness. Sometimes a voice of one drowning, and in a moment the silence returns. The world seems to me quite dreadful, the unhappiness of many people is very great, and I often wonder how they all endure it. It is usually the central thing around which their lives are built, and I suppose if they did not live most of their lives in the things of the moment, they would not be able to go on.

Rejection of God's grace creates a world of hopeless despair. Existentialism leaves man without hope. In contrast, the Christian has the hope of eternal life based on faith in a living, personal God whom we can personally experience with all our mind, body and spirit.

Can Human Beings Live the Existential Life?

How many of your acquaintances are demonstrating by their lives that they believe there are significant ethical implications in the decisions they make and the activities they are involved in? Do you know people who live life caught up in self-preoccupation, doing only that which gives immediate pleasure? Are they filling their lives with movies, TV, sports and other preoccupations which shield them from dealing with the ethical reality of their lifestyle?

In this essay I have been discussing the ethics of humanistic existentialism, an ethic of freedom in ambiguity. It is an ethic that says man is nothing except what he or she decides to create of themselves and whatever choice they make really doesn't matter.
It sounds absurd, and it is, but sadly it is the ethic often being taught on the college campuses. One philosophy professor at a major university in Texas proudly informs his classes that he is an atheist and that his goal is to show the class that they can develop a system of ethics without a belief in a god. Of course he is right. One can design a set of relativistic ethical standards, but it is an ethic built on sand. An ethic of ambiguity will never give the support these students need in the hard world of reality. Did Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, the leading writers in existentialist theory, hold to their position till the end?
There is evidence that they did not. From a dialogue recorded in 1980 when nearing his death, Sartre came very close to belief in God, perhaps even more than very close. He made a statement that may show his acceptance of the grace of God. He said,

I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God.

In this one sentence Sartre seems to disavow his entire system of belief, his whole life of dedication to existentialism. If this is true, it is a condemnation of humanistic existentialism by Sartre himself.

What about Albert Camus? According to Rev. John Warwick Montgomery, an internationally respected Lutheran minister and author, there was a retired pastor of the American Church in Paris who told him that Albert Camus was to have been baptized within the month of his tragic death and that Camus had seen the bankruptcy of humanistic existentialism.

All this is second hand information, but it does cast a shadow upon the ethics of existential humanism. Either we live a life of hope or of despair. Regardless of the claims made, existential humanism does not leave room for hope. Simone de Beauvoir, the mistress of Sartre and also an existentialist writer, came the closest of any of these writers to the real truth when she said it was reasonable to sacrifice one innocent man that others may live. This is the foundation of the whole gospel message of Christianity: Jesus Christ, the innocent Son of God, died that all men might be saved. Meanwhile the existentialist stands alone with hope only in one's self. He is alone in a world without Christ, instead of being secure in the knowledge of Christ's love and redemption. Praise God that He is there and He is not silent!

© 1996 Probe Ministries

Notes

1. Robert N. Bellah, et al., The Good Society (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1991), 43, 44.
2. C. Stephen Evans, The Philosophy of Despair: Existentialism and the Quest for Hope (Dallas: Probe Books, 1984), 17, 71-72.
3. Jean-Paul Sartre, "Existentialism and Ethics." Moral Education. Barry I. Chazan and Jonasa F. Soltis, Eds. (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1973, reprinted from Existentialism, New York: The Philosophical Library, 1947), 11-61.
4. Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity, Trans. Bernard Frechtman (New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1991), 142.
5. Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology, Trans. Hazel E. Barnes (New York: Washington Square, 1965), 627.
6. Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism and Humanism, Trans. Philip Mairet (London: Methuen, 1948), 28.
7. Evans, 72.
8. Norman L. Geisler, Is Man the Measure? An Evaluation of Contemporary Humanism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983), 40-41.
9. De Beauvoir, 24-25.
10. Evans, 74.
11. Linda A.Bell, Sartre's Ethics of Authenticity (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1989), 28.
12. Otto Bollnow, "Existentialism's Basic Ethical Position," Contemporary European Ethics, Joseph J. Kockelmans, Ed. (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1972), 332.
13. Philip Thody, Sartre: A Biographical Introduction (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971), 72.
14. Sartre, Existentialism and Humanism, 23-24.
15. Jean-Paul Sartre, The Words (New York: George Braziller, 1964), 102, 252-253.
16. Quoted by Stanley L. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1980), 116.
17. Gary North, The Hoax of Higher Criticism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 9-48.
18. Geisler, 46-47.
19. John Warwick Montgomery, "Letter from England," "On the Reliability of the Four Gospels," New Oxford Review (May 1994), 22-24.
20. De Beauvoir, 150.