Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > 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.
Although I will readily admit that this view I just expressed is based upon me piecing together bits and pieces of scantily gathered knowledge rather than any real expertize on my part. So any accusation that I don't know what I am talking about could be well placed at this point.