Tag: David

Commonplace –

“The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God’. (Psalm 53:1)

Psalm 53:1 and Psalm 14:1 are identical; they both open with the words of the fool. While there is much to ponder in Psalm 53, it is worthwhile to consider just this first sentence and see what we make of it.

Matthew Henry makes a great point about this verse when writing on Psalm 14: the fool is saying it in his heart.

“The sinner here described. He is one that saith in his heart, There is no God: he is an atheist. ‘There is no Elohim, no Judge or governor of the world, no providence presiding over the affairs of men.’ They cannot doubt of the being of God, but will question his dominion. He says this in his heart; it is not his judgement, but his imagination. he cannot satisfy himself that there is none, but he wishes there were none, and pleases himself with the fancy that it is possible there may be none. He cannot be sure there is one, and therefore he is willing to think there is none. He dares not speak it out, lest he be confuted, and so undeceived, but he whispers it secretly in his heart, for the silencing of the clamours of his conscience and the emoldening of himself in his evil ways”. (Henry 231).

In commenting on Psalm 53, Henry continues:

“He is a fool (in the account of God, whose judgment we are sure is right) that harbours such corrupt thoughts. Atheists, whether in opinion or practice, are the greatest fools in the world. Those that do not seek God do not understand; they are like brute-beasts that have no understanding; for man is distinguished from the brutes, not so much by the powers of reason as by a capacity for religion. The workers of iniquity, whatever they pretend to, have no knowledge; those that may truly be said to know nothing that do not know God” (Henry 358).

It is good to pause and consider just the first verse. What is a fool? He is one who denies God. He is an atheist; a person with reason, who is unreasonable. Thomas Aquinas addresses the question of God’s existence in the Summa, Question 2, which Peter Kreeft expounds on in his, Summa of the Summa: “Whether the Existence of God is Self-Evident? Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God is self-evident” (54). Further on Aquinas addresses this statement:

“On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher, [Aristotle], states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition “God is” can be mentally admitted: The fool said in his heart, There is no God (Psalm 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident.

[Aquinas answers] that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways; on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as “Man is animal,” for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore, the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being, non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and the subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Beothius says…”that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space.” Therefore, I, [Aquinas], say that this proposition “God exists,” of itself is self evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject; because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (Q.3.A.4). Now because we do no know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature–namely, by effects.

“Reply Obj. 1. To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man’s beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists; just to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching; for many there are who imagine that man’s perfect good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures, and others in something else” (Kreeft 55-56).

If we consider Aquinas’ words about the existence of God with the fool’s words, we can see that God exists whether the fool is willing to admit it or not. The fool is one who has chosen happiness in created things over happiness in the uncreated God. It is helpful to consider Kreeft’s footnote to “the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all” (54):

“For the vast majority of all humans who have ever lived have believed in some God. Children (or societies) have to be educated out of theism into atheism, not vice versa. Atheism always comes later” (54).

Works Cited

Henry, Matthew. “Psalm 53.” Matthew Henry’s Commentary On the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition. Volume 3, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., March 1996.

Holy Bible: Giant Print with Study Aids. Dugan Publishers, Inc., 1984.

Kreeft, Peter. Summa of the Summa. Edited and annotated by Peter Kreeft. Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1990.

© 2025 Angela Hormberg