93. God's Existence and the Fool: Philosophy's Foundation

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

• The Fool and God’s Existence: Thomas Aquinas comments on Psalm 32/52 (“the fool has said in his heart, there is no God”) to argue that denying God’s existence is fundamentally foolish. A man cannot be a philosopher if he is a fool, since a philosopher must be a lover of wisdom.

• Humility as Essential to Philosophy: True philosophy requires intellectual humility—recognition that human wisdom is inferior to divine wisdom. This humility is necessarily ordered to God and is incompatible with atheism or materialism.

• The Origin of the Word “Philosopher”: Pythagoras, called wise by others, refused the title and instead called himself a “lover of wisdom” (philosophos), implying recognition of a wisdom higher than man’s. This etymological origin shows that philosophy inherently acknowledges divine wisdom.

• Ancient Greek Philosophy and God: Greek philosophers—Heraclitus, Socrates, Aristotle, Plato—all presupposed God’s existence and emphasized human wisdom’s inferiority to divine wisdom. The concept of “becoming like God so far as possible” (from Plato’s Theaetetus) is itself a definition of philosophy that presupposes God.

• Demonstration vs. Self-Evidence: Before attempting to demonstrate God’s existence, Thomas addresses whether God’s existence is self-evident (rejecting the claim that it is obvious) and whether it can be demonstrated at all (rejecting the claim that it cannot be known through reasoning).

• Comparison of Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologiae: The Summa Contra Gentiles presents the arguments for God’s existence more explicitly and developmentally than the Summa Theologiae. The argument from motion in the SCG has two premises each requiring three proofs; in the ST, there is only one argument from motion with one proof for each premise.

Key Arguments #

Philosophy Requires Belief in God #

1. A philosopher is a “lover of wisdom” (from Greek philosophos)
2. A fool cannot love wisdom (for he would not be a fool if he did)
3. One who denies God’s existence is a fool (per Scripture)
4. Therefore, one who denies God’s existence cannot be a true philosopher

Humility as Central to Philosophy #

• Humility is primarily ordered to God, placing one’s own mind under God’s wisdom
• If there is no God, there is no basis for philosophical humility; human reason becomes the supreme measure
• The ancient philosophers universally acknowledged human wisdom’s subordination to divine wisdom
• Without humility, there is no genuine pursuit of wisdom (as stated in Proverbs: “ubi humilitas, ibi sapientia”)

Philosophy’s End: Assimilation to the Divine #

• Plato defines philosophy in the Theaetetus as “becoming like God so far as possible for a man” (homoiosis theo kata to dynaton)
• This definition presupposes God’s existence; one cannot become like God if God does not exist
• Both practical philosophy (ethics, politics) and theoretical philosophy (wisdom) aim at likeness to God
• The very desirability of the philosophical end is understood in terms of its being divine

What “All Nature” Seeks #

• Not only humans but all creatures—plants and animals—seek to be like God in their own way
• Form is something God-like (God is pure act; form is act)
• Reproduction in plants and animals is an attempt to achieve immortality (like God), since the individual is mortal but the species perpetuates
• This universal striving toward the divine shows that philosophy is not an anomaly in nature

Important Definitions #

Philosophos (φιλόσοφος) #

A lover of wisdom; one who loves wisdom but does not himself possess it in fullness. The term’s coinage by Pythagoras implies humility and recognition of wisdom higher than human wisdom.

Homoiosis theo kata to dynaton (ὁμοίωσις θεῷ κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν) #

From Plato’s Theaetetus: “becoming like God so far as possible for a man.” This phrase defines the end of philosophy and presupposes God’s existence and transcendence.

Demonstratio (Latin) #

A type of proof or reasoning. Thomas distinguishes between demonstration of the fact (demonstratio quia) and demonstration of the reason why (demonstratio propter quid). God’s existence is known through demonstratio quia—from effects to cause—not as self-evident.

Motus (Latin) #

Motion in the Aristotelian sense: the actualization of a potential as such; the process of becoming. Everything in motion must be moved by another.

Movens immotum (Latin) #

An unmoved mover; that which causes motion without itself being moved. The arguments presented will establish the necessity of a first unmoved mover, which is God.

Pro-syllogism or “backup syllogism” #

A secondary syllogism used to prove one of the premises in the chief argument. In the Summa Contra Gentiles, each of the two main premises of the argument from motion requires three such supporting proofs.

Examples & Illustrations #

Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing #

Berquist recounts the subplot involving Hero being falsely accused, showing how the Friar recognizes her innocence through her reaction and emotional expression. Beatrice insists to Benedick: “I am as sure that she is innocent as that I have a soul.” Berquist uses this to illustrate how an ordinary speaker (Shakespeare’s characters) treats the existence of one’s own soul as utterly self-evident and unquestionable—parallel to Thomas’s point about God’s existence being evident even to the uneducated.

The Hyperbole of Absolute Certainty #

When Beatrice says “I am as sure of this as that I have a soul,” she is employing a hyperbole equivalent to “I am as sure of this as that two plus two is four.” The very structure of such speech indicates that both the existence of a soul and mathematical truths are treated as beyond doubt in ordinary discourse.

Modern Disconnect from Soul #

Berquist notes that in contemporary culture, people speak as if they do not know they have a soul, treating it as news rather than something obvious. This contrasts sharply with Aristotle’s observation that while philosophers dispute what the soul is, there is universal agreement that living things have a soul. The very word “animal” comes from the Latin anima (soul).

Notable Quotes #

“The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.” (Psalm 32 or 52) Thomas Aquinas comments on this passage to argue that atheism is not merely incorrect philosophy but fundamental foolishness incompatible with the philosophical enterprise.

“Pythagoras [called wise by others] said, ‘Don’t call me wise. God alone is wise. What shall we call you?’ He said, ‘Call me a lover of wisdom.’” This etymological origin of the word “philosopher” shows that humility before divine wisdom is built into the very concept of philosophy.

“As a child is to a man, so is man to God.” (Heraclitus) Illustrates the radical inferiority of human to divine wisdom, a humility Berquist argues is essential to philosophical pursuit.

“The divine nature has understanding; the human does not.” (Heraclitus) Emphasizes that wisdom and understanding belong properly to God, not to man, establishing the necessary humility of philosophy.

“Philosophy is becoming like God so far as possible for a man.” (Plato, Theaetetus) Berquist argues this definition of philosophy from one of antiquity’s greatest philosophers presupposes God’s existence. Without God, this entire conception of philosophy becomes meaningless.

“We are shaped and fashioned by what we love.” (Goethe) Berquist uses this to show that if one loves wisdom, one becomes wise; if one loves foolish things, one becomes a fool. Therefore, one cannot love wisdom while denying God’s existence.

Questions Addressed #

Can a Man Be a Philosopher if He Thinks There Is No God? #

Answer: No. A philosopher must be a “lover of wisdom.” A fool cannot love wisdom (for he would not be a fool if he did). Scripture and Thomas teach that one who denies God’s existence is a fool. Therefore, a man who denies God cannot be a true philosopher, regardless of technical skill in argumentation.

Why Is Humility Essential to Philosophy? #

Answer: Humility consists in placing one’s own mind under a higher wisdom—ultimately, under God’s wisdom. Without recognition of God, there is no basis for humility; human reason becomes the measure of all things. The ancient philosophers universally treated human wisdom as subordinate to divine wisdom. Proverbs teaches: “Where there is humility, there is wisdom” (ubi humilitas, ibi sapientia).

How Can God’s Existence Be Demonstrated if It Is Not Self-Evident? #

Answer: Through what Thomas calls demonstratio quia (demonstration of the fact): reasoning from sensible effects to their cause. One observes motion in the world and reasons backward to a first unmoved mover, which is God. This is different from demonstratio propter quid (demonstration of the reason why), which would explain why God must exist necessarily. The fact that God’s existence requires such reasoning does not make it unknowable, only non-obvious.

What Is the Relationship Between the Two Summas on the Argument from Motion? #

Answer: The Summa Contra Gentiles presents the argument from motion in greater detail and explicitness than the Summa Theologiae. In the SCG, there are two arguments from motion; in the ST, there is one. Each of the two main premises in the SCG argument is supported by three proofs (pro-syllogisms); in the ST, fewer are provided. The SCG version is more developed because it draws on the fuller treatment in Aristotle’s Physics.

Why Must One Already Believe God Exists Before Proving It? #

Answer: Even in geometry, before one can be motivated to demonstrate that a theorem is true, one must first have some sense or intuition that it is true. Similarly, before making the effort to demonstrate God’s existence through natural reason, one must already have some basic awareness or belief that God exists. A man who already thinks there is no God will not genuinely pursue arguments for God’s existence; instead, he will seek reasons why God does not exist. The demonstrations presuppose an initial openness or inclination toward belief.

Methodological Notes #

The Importance of Direct Engagement with Texts #

Berquist emphasizes that students should read the Summa Contra Gentiles directly, particularly Chapter 13 onward, rather than relying on summaries. The Leonine edition is recommended for its footnotes, which provide cross-references to parallel discussions in other works of Thomas.

Comparison of Different Texts by the Same Author #

Berquist cautions that an author’s later writing on the same topic may be more concise than earlier writing. A writer may develop an idea thoroughly in one place and then briefly reference it in a later work. Understanding the fuller development in the earlier work is sometimes necessary for understanding the later, more contracted treatment. Example: the commentary on the Sentences (early) develops the argument from motion more explicitly than the Summa Theologiae (later).

The Danger of Premature Confidence in the Proofs #

Berquist notes that there is a tendency in some Catholic educational contexts to teach the five ways of God’s existence to young students with the expectation that they can defend them publicly, without fully understanding their difficulty. This is naive and potentially dangerous. One should approach these demonstrations with caution, returning to them repeatedly throughout one’s philosophical studies, gaining deeper understanding each time. Charles DeConinck expressed more confidence in God’s existence from what his mother told him than from the formal proofs.

Connections to Previous Discussions #

• The discussion of the soul’s obviousness connects to Berquist’s previous point that people in modern times wrongly treat the soul’s existence as unclear or debatable, when ancient philosophy (including Aristotle) treated it as utterly unquestionable.
• The emphasis on philosophy as requiring humility before God connects to Berquist’s broader theme that wisdom involves recognition of one’s limitations and dependence on a higher source.
• The reference to Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing illustrates how even in literary art, characters naturally express certainty about the soul as a baseline for other certainties.

Structure of What Follows #

Berquist indicates that he will examine the first argument from motion in the Summa Contra Gentiles, specifically Chapter 13. This argument has two main premises:

1. Premise 1: Everything in motion must be moved by another
2. Premise 2: The series of movers cannot regress infinitely

Each premise will require proof. The Summa Contra Gentiles provides three proofs for each; the Summa Theologiae provides one for each. The conclusion is that there must exist a first unmoved mover, which is God.