I had an interesting experience last August. I was at the dentist and the gentleman who handles finances for the dentist and who is very interested in computers, asked me a question: “What are you going to do about artificial intelligence?” I told him that I did not know anything about it. 

He asked me to write a sentence. I wrote the following: “Jean-Paul Sartre is an atheist. Robert Lauder is not an atheist but there are some similarities in their philosophies.” The finance officer took the sentence and left the room for about five minutes. When he returned he had a two page essay comparing Sartre’s philosophy to my philosophy. The essay was written by a computer! I could not believe it.

I don’t remember when I became convinced that we should accept truth wherever we find it. Was it while I was a student in college? Was it when I was a student in the major seminary? Was it when I first started studying Thomas Aquinas? 

I just do not remember, but I believe I have profited greatly from that approach to truth. If something is true, it is true no matter who teaches it; if something is false, it is false no matter who teaches it. 

Sartre (1905-1980) is probably the most famous existentialist. I do not accept several doctrines of his, but he has greatly influenced my philosophical views. For example, I do not embrace his atheism but I think because of Sartre’s atheism I have seen more deeply into the mystery of God. 

One of the most stimulating evenings I have enjoyed at St. John’s University was the evening the theater group at St. John’s put on Sartre’s play “No Exit.” I had requested that the play be performed and I encouraged all the students in my classes to attend. 

The performance was excellent and about 30 of my students met after the performance in one of the classrooms and while drinking soda and eating pizza we discussed the play and Sartre’s philosophy. I think that this is the type of evening that should happen at universities often. 

Next semester I am going to try to get the play performed again. 

There is a short essay by Sartre entitled “Portrait of the anti-Semite.” Sartre claims that he once thought that the antisemite was the same as the rest of us — he ate, slept, worked, had a family but there was one difference. The antisemite hated Jews. Except for that, he was just like us. 

Sartre goes on to say that he changed his view of the antisemite. He now believes that the antisemite is entirely different. Everything he does is influenced by his antisemitism. The antisemite eats differently, sleeps differently, works differently because he has turned himself into a hater, and that influences everything he does. 

I try to stimulate students to reflect on their free choices. I ask my students, if a person really hates someone or some group, does that influence all his relationships? I ask, if some member of the Mafia, who is not psychologically sick, regularly, freely murders people, is that member of the Mafia able to love his wife? 

I suggest that if we hate anyone, that changes our relationships with everyone. I then ask the students, if they really love anyone, does that change their relationships with everyone? I have my own answers to these questions, but I do not immediately give my answers to the students because I am hoping that my questions will stimulate the students to think about what hating and loving does to the person who hates and loves. 

Sartre was an unhappy atheist. He wished that God existed because then reality might make sense and we might have some answers to some deep philosophical questions. Sartre’s view was that not only is there no God but there cannot be a God once we claim that human persons are free. 

Sartre thought that if God was all-powerful then there would be no room for human freedom. We might think we are acting freely, but an all-powerful God would reduce us to puppets or robots. Human freedom would be an illusion. 

I cannot explain how God can be an all-powerful Creator and yet we are capable of performing free actions. That involves one of the most profound mysteries. 

However, I think I can point out why Sartre’s view is erroneous. Sartre is thinking of God as a physical cause that forces people to act a certain way. But what if God is not a physical cause in people’s lives but rather a Love-Cause? What does love do? Love liberates and frees those loved. 

God’s love, rather than making us puppets or robots, helps us to reach a new level of freedom.