It has always seemed to me completely inconsistent that existentialism should deny the existence of God and then proceed to use the language of theism to persuade men to live right. The French writer, Jean-Paul Sartre, for instance, states frankly that he represents atheistic existentialism. ?If God does not exist,? he says, ?we find no values or commands to turn to which legitimize our conduct. So in the bright realm of values, we have no excuse behind us, nor justification before us. We are all alone, with no excuses.? Yet in the next paragraph he states bluntly, ?Man is responsible for his passion,? and further on, ?A coward is responsible for his cowardice.? And such considerations as these, he says, fill the existentialist with ?anguish, forlornness and despair.? It seems to me that such reasoning must assume the truth of everything it seeks to deny. If there were no God there would be no such words as ?responsible.? No criminal need fear a judge who does not exist; nor would he need to worry about breaking a law that had not been passed. It is the knowledge that the law and the judge do in fact exist that strikes fear to the lawbreaker?s heart. There is someone to whom he is accountable; otherwise the concept of responsibility could have no meaning.
