Gene Ward Smith wrote: > Kevin Karn wrote: > > >>That's why this debate is so ironic. History has come full circle, and >>now we are at the point where reality-based people who deny the >>existence of angels are "cranks". > > > I haven't seen constructivists, etc. called cranks in these > discussions. However, suggesting > the continuum hypothesis is like angels dancing on a pin seems to me to > be backwards--it is the objectors who seem to have some kind of > philosophical qualm which almost seems to amount to a religious one. > I'm reminded of Kronecker's remarks about what God did and did not > create in terms of mathematicals.
I don't think Aquinas's argument over whether angels can occupy the same space should be seen as having much to do with religion - rather I see it as Aristotlean thinking taken to extremes. The question he poses, and answers, bears no reality to anything, neither to an atheist nor to a theist. Only the most ardent Aristotlean is going to be interested.