How does the text use the Socratic method to critique modern academic and cultural assumptions?

 The text uses the Socratic method—characterized by relentless questioning, seeking clear definitions, exposing contradictions, and professing ignorance (douta ignorância)—to comprehensively critique a range of modern academic and cultural assumptions prevalent among the students and faculty at "Havalarde" (a fictionalized version of Harvard Divinity School).

The primary targets of Socrates' critiques are the unexamined dogmas concerning progress, moral relativism, selective theological interpretation, and scientific certainty.

1. Critique of Academic and Theological Assumptions

Socrates uses sustained questioning (dialectic) to dismantle the logical basis of modern theological tolerance and liberal hermeneutics:

• Exposing the Dogma of Relativism: Socrates challenges the assertion by Bertha Broadmind and Professor Shift that all religions are fundamentally equal or relative. He establishes that the purpose of an "open mind" is to eventually discern truth from falsehood. If contradictory religious claims (e.g., monotheism vs. politeísmo, personal vs. impersonal God) are equally true, then the term truth itself is meaningless.
• Challenging Unexamined Premises: He forces Bertha to confront her underlying assumption that religion must be a human invention rather than a divine revelation. Socrates argues that adopting the idea that "all things human are equal" to avoid arrogance (the liberal position) is itself a form of arrogance because it presupposes knowledge about what God cannot do.
• Critique of Selective Interpretation (Hermeneutics): Socrates confronts the practice of accepting parts of Christian scripture (like God's love and forgiveness) while dismissing other parts (like judgment, hell, or miracles) as myth. He argues that this approach confuses interpretation with belief; one must first understand what the author meant before deciding whether to believe it. If the only authority Bertha has for believing God is loving (Jesus/the Bible) is the same authority that teaches judgment, she cannot logically accept one and reject the other, as it renders the source superfluous: "If she agrees with you, it is unnecessary; if she disagrees, it is wrong".
• The Liar, Lunatic, or Lord Trilemma: Socrates uses rigorous logic to critique the modern liberal view (held by Bertha and Thomas) that Jesus was merely a great moral teacher or wise philosopher. Since the scriptural texts assert Jesus claimed to be the supreme God, Socrates concludes that he must be "either a fool or God". Consequently, the idea that Jesus was a "simple wise man" is the most illogical position, because a non-divine man claiming divinity could not possibly be considered wise or possessing good sense.

2. Critique of Modern Cultural and Moral Assumptions

Socrates’ questioning of students like Bertha Broadmind and Thomas Keptic reveals deep inconsistencies in modern secularized culture:

• Questioning "Progress" and Happiness: Socrates initiates a line of inquiry into the value of modern progress by asking Bertha why, if technology grants convenience, her society seems nervous and rushed, like "slaves worried about displeasing their masters". He forces Bertha to admit that modern society suffers from higher rates of social ills (unhappiness, crime, anxiety), concluding that this "progress" seems to have made people less happy.
• Knowledge vs. Wisdom: He exposes the modern focus on accumulated knowledge (e.g., about the weather or diseases) over wisdom (knowledge of the best things in life, virtue). He asks why they replace the more valuable (wisdom of the ancients) with the less valuable (modern knowledge) and still call it "progress".
• Critique of Scientific Dogmatism: Socrates challenges Professor Flatland's assumption that the scientific worldview has refuted miracles. He demonstrates that Flatland’s certainty about the non-existence of future miracles is based not on evidence or fact, but on "something religious"—a kind of dogmatic faith in "Science" with a capital C. Socrates clarifies that natural laws describe what usually happens, not what is logically impossible, thus leaving the door open for miracles.
• The Problem of Entediada (Boredom): Socrates notes the modern invention of the word "boredom" (entediada), suggesting that his Athenian contemporaries did not need it. He observes that modern people often prefer crowded, "devastated" city life over the healthy countryside because they find the natural world "boredom".
• Moral Responsibility (The Chocolate Bar): The Socratic tenet that "all evil is the result of ignorance" is tested when Bertha admits to eating unhealthy chocolate while having full knowledge that it was bad for her. This forced self-contradiction leads Socrates to redefine the nature of evil, moving beyond mere ignorance to confront the concept of intentional disobedience (sin), something he had previously struggled to grasp in his philosophy.

3. Socratic Method and the Journey to Faith

The overall narrative structure utilizes the Socratic method as the "representative of natural reason" in its search for the ultimate truth.

• Socrates continually prioritizes the immutable nature of truth over comforting or fashionable beliefs.
• He models the philosopher who is neither a dogmatic (who thinks he knows everything) nor a skeptic (who thinks nothing can be known).
• His final conclusion is reached through logical inference: by questioning the extraordinary effect of Christian faith (martyrdom, world-changing impact), he concludes that the cause must be equally extraordinary. If the Resurrection was a lie, then an even greater miracle occurred: "doze judeus simples inventaram a mais fantástica e bem-sucedida mentira do mundo, em troca de nada, e morreram espontânea e alegremente por ela". This conclusion, derived from the rigorous application of reason, leads him to accept the literal Resurrection as the most rational explanation.

Socrates acts as the "little boy in The Emperor's New Clothes", using basic, fundamental questions to expose the fallacies and unproductive academic discourses—the "disguises, exhibitionism, and frivolous conversations"—of the modern university.