That really is the end of the Book; but I hope I may be excused for wanting to end on a more personal note. I have tried to suppress my own views as much as possible. My private opinions are irrelevant to the main argument; and when I have said, “in my opinion such and such”, I did so simply to stress that it was only an opinion; I did not mean to suggest it was a fact.
Nor do I intend to air my views now; but there is one matter in which I am obviously involved, and which may be of interest to other people too. It is this. Assuming the basic argument in the book is correct (making allowances for the many mistakes, which there must be), is there anything in the argument which is inconsistent with orthodox Christianity? In my opinion there is not.
Let me make one thing plain. I am aware that there must be many mistakes. The logic of the argument probably has gaping holes in it. My insight into human nature is probably frequently faulty, relying as I do almost entirely on what I have seen in the Law Courts. I still think they provide as good a laboratory as one could wish for observing human nature; but there is no doubt that the observer tends to get a jaundiced view of life. With lawyers, the…