How Many Angles Can Fit On The Head Of A Pin?

If you search for the phrase "How Many Angels Can Fit On The Head Of A Pin?" on the web, the great majority of "hits" will treat this as a good example of an extremely foolish question.

The question was vital -- a matter of life and death in the 1200's when St. Thomas Aquinas grappled with this question and others, now seemingly trivial.

Aristotle is known, now, simply as a dead Greek. But some 1500 years after his death his philosophy was THE major competition for the Catholic Church.

The Church, in those years, believed in "symbols" and thought that the common man should accept without understanding, what the Church had to say about God and the spirit. God, for the average Catholic resided in the symbol of the crucifix on the wall, or the other ornaments.

Aristotle, unknown today by most, taught that God existed and could be understood by man -- that man did NOT have to just accept blindly what the "elders" taught. Socrates taught much the same, but didn't try, as Aristotle did, to put "science" into his spiritual philosophy.

God to Aristotle is the first of all substances, the necessary first source of movement who is himself unmoved. God is a being with everlasting life, and perfect blessedness, engaged in never-ending contemplation. [Source]

St. Thomas was charged with coming up with logic and reason, the same tools used by Aristotle, to keep the Church in its position of power.

Aristotle had taught that "man has three souls" and described them with great detail. The Catholic Church had nothing approaching this. Aristotle's only "proof" was logic, but the Church never even tried to come up with competing ideas for THIS concept.

So, one of the major questions of that day, still today, has to do with the nature of "spirit."

If an infinite number of angels could fit on the head of a pin, the an angel had no material substance and was definitely a purely spiritual, non-material entity.

If, instead, some finite number of angles could fit on the head of a pin, then the spiritual universe was not much different from the physical universe.

In the past the Catholic Church didn't have to answer that question . It only had to assert the truth: "God is a spirit" without explaining any rationale of "spirit." Science was NOT a part of the Catholic religion over a period of many centuries.

So, St. Thomas got the job of introducing reason and logic into a religion that had, heretofore, done without it.

Why? Because Aristotle was the growing and dominant threat to the Catholic Church and Aristotle taught that man could understand God, and spirituality, through logic and reason alone!

Neither side won, actually, because man, neither then nor now, has been able to demonstrate with logic, science and rationality, the nature of the human spirit. Instead, the argument fell more and more toward materialism. You could probably say that Aristotle was far more spiritual than St. Thomas, but Aristotle had only the logic and reason of a human to work with -- himself and his fellows.

St. Thomas has a brilliant mind, and understood logic, but he was tied to the dogma of the Church, and could not stray from those "truths."

It has only come in modern times that the science of engineering and "proof" could be and has been applied to the universe of the spirit.

In other words, both lost because "psychology" became, instead of the "study of the soul" the study of the reactions of a meat body, belonging to an animal (man) to various shocks and stimuli. Both Aristotle and St. Thomas would have thrown up their hands at this outcome -- but neither of them could ever prove his point with the tools he chose to use.

I've gathered some of the inane remarks from around the web, almost all of which miss the importance of this issue completely -- showing, I think, that man continues to lose the battle of spirituality versus materialism!

Prozac is the ultimate proof of failure -- the psychiatrists who believe that a terrible drug can actually "heal" the soul! They could be pitied, except that they act in full knowledge of the evil they do.

Material science cannot explain man. The missing data has always been non-material in nature.

The answer is that since an "angel" is a spiritual being it has no material mass. Thus, an infinite number of them could fit on the head of a pin. Any other answer denies the spiritual nature of angels, and denies the very existence of God.

That people have "seen" angels does NOT mean that there was any material substance to be seen -- but rather that among the many remarkable qualities within the spiritual universe there are included that "spiritual beings" (whether angels or others) have the ability to communicate, to be seen, to see, etc., all without necessity of having a physical substance.

The pretty image above comes from a web site with some brief text that reads:

To treat angel's lightly or irreverently doesn't work for me, but at the same time, there's a rich folklore about them that really works in art. I think it's wonderful folklore and has a lot of value. While this saying, which forms the title of the piece, originated as a medieval jibe at overstudious clergy, I decided to tackle it in the spirit it was asked. So, at least in this case, there's a very simple answer. That answer is one.

How many angels can fit on the head of a pin

Did medieval scholars argue over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?

When people want to express total pointlessness, they sometimes say a thing is as silly as "arguing over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin." This argument is supposed to have taken place between Byzantine theologians or medieval scholars, or somebody. But I'm beginning to think the fathers (and mothers) of the church are getting a bad rap. Try as I might, I can't find any source that identifies when this argument took place, who discussed it, and what they said. Did this arcane debate really occur, or is this a case of ecclesiastical leg-pulling? --David F., Belle Fourche, South Dakota

I see from your letterhead that you're a minister, Dave. What's the matter, you couldn't ask the Big Guy yourself?

Let's get a couple things straight. First, you're misquoting the saying in question. According to unimpeachable sources, it's not how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, it's how many can do it on the point of a needle--which, of course, makes more sense. Second, the earliest citation I can find is from a book by Ralph Cudworth in the 17th century, which is a suspiciously late in the day.

Valuable insight on this question is provided by Isaac D'Israeli (1766-1848), the father of British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli. Isaac was an amateur scholar who published several books of historical and literary "curiosities," which were quite popular in their day. D'Israeli lampooned the Scholastic philosophers of the late Middle Ages, notably Thomas Aquinas, who were famous for debating metaphysical fine points.

Aquinas wrote several ponderous philosophical tomes, the most famous of which went by the awe-inspiring title Summa Theologica, "summary of theology." It contained, among other things, several dozen propositions on the nature of angels, which Thomas attempted to work out by process of pure reason. The results were pretty tortured, and to the hipper-than-thou know-it-alls of the Enlightenment (i.e., D'Israeli's day), they seemed a classic example of good brainpower put to nonsensical ends.

For example, D'Israeli wrote, "Aquinas could gravely debate, Whether Christ was not an hermaphrodite [and] whether there are excrements in Paradise." He might also have mentioned such Thomistic puzzlers as whether the hair and nails will grow following the Resurrection, and whether or not said Resurrection will take place at night.

D'Israeli goes on to say, "The reader desirous of being merry with Aquinas's angels may find them in Martinus Scriblerus, in Ch. VII who inquires if angels pass from one extreme to another without going through the middle? And if angels know things more clearly in a morning? How many angels can dance on the point of a very fine needle, without jostling one another?"

I have not been able to turn up the text D'Israeli refers to (my 17th-century files are just a mess), but it sounds like the work of some would-be comedian. Martinus Scriblerus (dimestore Latin for "Martin the Scribbler") is a pseudonym of a sort in common use among Enlightenment satirists, and the quoted items are burlesques of actual treatises in Aquinas's Summa.

Fact is, Aquinas did debate whether an angel moving from A to B passes through the points in between, and whether one could distinguish "morning" and "evening" knowledge in angels. (He was referring to an abstruse concept having to do with the dawn and twilight of creation.) Finally, he inquired whether several angels could be in the same place at once, which of course is the dancing-on-a-pin question less comically stated. (Tom's answer: no.) So the answer to your question is yes, medieval theologians did get into some pretty weird arguments, if not quite as weird as later wise guys painted them.

The Straight Dope / Questions or comments for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com
Comments regarding this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com
Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 Chicago Reader, Inc. All rights reserved.
No material contained in this site may be republished or reposted without express written permission.
The Straight Dope is a registered trademark of Chicago Reader, Inc.

At least the question has roused some artists, whether they are serious in their "answers" or not.

The fastest way to a philosophical headache
             Anselm (1033-1109) was Archbishop of Canterbury in England (though they forced the office on him). He was the first truly significant Medieval philosopher. for three reasons.
            First, he argued for the right relationship of reason and faith: "I believe that I might understand" (Credo ut intelligam). I agree, so he must be right. Second, he articulated a very influential theory of the atonement: the satisfaction view. In Cur Deus Homo (Why the God Man?) he suggested that Christ satisfied God at the cross, enabling a reconciliation between God and man. This theology came from the feudal society in which it was born, but that doesn't make it right.
            Third, he constructed the most complicated defense of God's existence ever devised: the ontological argument. Take two aspirin and proceed:
            Major premise: I can conceive of a perfect being ("that than which nothing greater can be conceived").
                        Minor premise: to be perfect, something must exist.
                                    Conclusion: God exists.
Philosophers are still debating. And in heaven, Anselm laughs at them all.

No way to treat a philosopher
            Anselm's philosophical sparring partner was Abelard (1079-1142). But the latter had far greater problems than the former.
            Abelard wanted to follow the art of disputation, so he became the student of William of Champeaux in Paris (around 1100). But he argued against William and was invited to leave. Later he met Heloise, a niece of a high official at Notre Dame, and fell in love with her. They had a child, and wanted to be married. Heloise's father found out, and had Abelard beaten and emasculated. Abelard went to a monastery, and Heloise to a nunnery. Abelard was accused of heresy, and expelled from the monastery. He entered another monastery, but was expelled again for heresy. He died soon after. And you thought you had a tough week.
            Abelard disagreed with Anselm's view of the atonement, putting forth his own "moral influence" theory. In his view, Christ's death was an expression of God's love designed to invoke a response of devotion, love, and obedience. In other words, the Father loves us because he loves us, not because his Son made him. I agree (though I think the atonement was more than an example or influence for us, being a substitutionary atonement man myself).
            And Abelard disagreed with Anselm's view of reason and faith. In fact, his credo was precisely the opposite: "I understand, that I might believe." Rationalists every since have agreed. A tough life, but a good thinker.

The dumb ox, on which we still ride
            Now we come to the highest expression of Medieval philosophy and theology: Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274). Remarkably, the greatest thinker of the Medieval era was known as the "dumb ox" as a child, and graduated last in his class (must have been some class!). He wanted to establish the Christian faith in a world where Aristotle was influential. And so, in essence, he applied Aristotle's ideas about purpose and materialism to Christian thought. With monumental results.
            Thomas used Aristotle's theories about cause and effect to promote the cosmological argument for God: if there is a creation, there must be a Creator. This is still the most popular defense of God's existence.
            He made enormous advances in our understanding of language as well. He showed us that "univocal" language occurs when the words mean the same thing in every context; "equivocal" language results from words which have nothing in common in different contexts; and "analogical" language happens when words have some relationship with each other in different contexts. The theological significance here is that our language about God has some truth, by analogy, even though it describes the One who is above all description. Thomas' approach to analogical language is still the foundational understanding of theological speech today.
            Thomas, following Aristotle, was also a big proponent of natural theology. He believed that God can be seen in his creation, and that faith and biblical revelation are only needed to complete what God has already revealed in nature. "Natural" revelation and "special" revelation are theological categories we get from Thomas and still use.
            His view of reason and faith: "I will observe, that I might know, and when my observation reaches its limits, then I will believe." From Thomas to today, most Roman Catholic thinkers agree. And many Protestants as well.
            What does it all mean for Christians seeking to serve Jesus today? Let's review:
            Augustine taught the church to see God as Trinity, mankind as fallen from inherited original sin, salvation as predestined, evil as the result of misused free will, and history as a war between God and Satan.
            Anselm gave us a reasonable approach to God's existence, to Jesus' death, and to faith itself.
            Abelard made reason into rationalism.
            And Thomas made rationalism into faith.
            They were right about many things, wrong about some things, but influential about everything.

Richard makes a couple of interesting points, but I think he's
exaggerating things (possibly for rhetorical effect). I also want to
drop in a couple of boring factual notes. First, I think it was Stephen
Jay Gould who pointed out that "how many angels can dance on
a head of a pin?" was not about whether it was 7 or 23, but whether
the number was finite. Given a world model in which angels were
important spirits that could act to affect everyday life, it made sense
to be curious about their nature: and whether an infinite number can
fit into a small space is not an unreasonable question. It may be,
100 years from now, that people will consider current discussions
about quarks equally silly. (I think the quark hypothesis is more likely
than the angel hypothesis, but nobody I trust has ever seen either.)

You may or may not agree with the theology, but at least this web site got the significance of the question. Unfortunately they got the answer wrong! See item Number Seven.

Is it Biblical to believe in both creation and evolution?

Can God create a rock so big that he cannot move it?

When a man serves God, is he not, in the highest sense, serving himself?

Who was Cain's wife? Where did she come from?

Where did God come from?

What exactly is the difference between the soul and the spirit?

What happens to people who never hear the gospel?

What happens to babies when they die?

Do animals go to heaven?

What are the theological ramifications of extra-terrestrial life?

How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?

Is salvation permanent or can it be lost?

Can a man who lives a good life go to Heaven?

What is the doctrine of Calvinism all about? What is its significance?

Philosophers and theologians hotly debated this subject in times past. They were not interested as to whether more than 15 or 20 could fit, but whether a finite number or an infinite number of angels could fit. The issue seems to revolve around properties of the spirit; can angels, who are spiritual beings, manifest themselves in any shape, size or form they wish?

Suppose the surface area of a pinhead is x, measured in (say) square meters. If 100 angels were to fit on this pinhead, (and assuming they all manifest themselves at the same size), each would have to occupy a surface area of at most x/100, same units. Possible? Most people would say so.

But could we have an arbitrarily large number of angels on one pinhead (i.e. could we have each angel occupy an arbitrarily small surface area)? I say that the answer to this question is no. I have two main reasons.

And so we see that this question is invalid, both because of the fact that surface area loses meaning when applied to small scopes, and because of the fact that angels are supernatural and do not necessarily conform to any mathematical or physical relationship whatsoever.

[Karl Note: Here we go. A supposedly spiritual response endorses materialism!]

Here is what might appear to be a reasonably official Catholic View? It is, of course, materialistic!

You see this source: I don't know if this is a legitimate Catholic Church view, but it certainly shows the materialism of so-called modern religion.

THE CATHOLIC PACIFIC NORTHWEST

A Catholic Christian Millennial Renaissance
Establishing a Christian Culture in the Pacific Northwest
Through God's Divine Grace and Divine Will
in the Eternal Light of Jesus Christ:
Divine Love and Divine Mercy of God

March 2, 2000 - Could you please tell me if it was St Thomas Aquinas who asked how many angels could fit on the head of a pin, and in what context he said it...thank you Richard Bromberg mds.

March 2, 2000 - Dear Richard. You are not the first visitor of our website asking this question. Two and a half years ago Ashley did the same on October 28, 1997. I checked Busa then, without any result. The question still puzzles me as well. Now Aquinas scholarship has advanced for two and a half more years, maybe someone else has found the answer for us... Carlo Leget

March 2, 2000 - Dear Richard. Or: for that matter, were they dancing the cha-cha? Although as Dr. Leget says, St. Thomas probably did not pose and answer this question, there might be a properly Thomistic answer to this. Aquinas admits, in the context of speaking of the self evidence of principles, that one self-evident principle which is given for the wise and not to the unlearned is that "an angel is not a body,... [hence] an angel is not circumspectively in a place" (STh I-II qu. 94, art.2) Now, in Thomistic angelology, only Aquinas held that angels are pure form (c.f. de ente, chapt. 4) and non-material.

It seems to speak of angels not being bodies is peculiar to St. Thomas, since he also took matter simply as corporeal matter. Although the others speculated about the non-corporeal materiality of angels, and hence it is still possible for them to speak of angels without a body and still having matter, it is all the same reasonable to think that St. Thomas took the above to be expressing his own theory of angelic composition.

Hence we may say that for St. Thomas, angels being pure form cannot be said to be located here or there. But to be on a pinhead is to be in a certain place. Therefore angels cannot be said to be on a pinhhead. If they cannot be said to be on the pinhead, then no angels may be said to be on a pin head. And therefore the answer to your question is, zero. Sincerely, Jude Chua.

March 2, 2000 - Dear Richard, Stephen Clark thinks the question was not raised till the 17th century, although there is a slight chance that we may blame (again!) Scotus for it. Check the discussion on: http://www.liv.ac.uk/Philosophy/angels.html. Harm Goris

March 17, 2000 - You may also want to check David's Keck 'Angels and angelology in the Middle Ages'. OUP 1998, pp. 109-111. Keck seems to ascribe the question to Rabelais. Keck also mentions Bonaventure who asks the questions 'can an angel exit in a mathemical point (in loco impartibili vel punctuali)?' and 'can several angels exist in the same place at the same time?' With regard to the first question, Bonaventure answers that a mathematical point (punctus) is no place (locus) at all. Harm Goris

March 27, 2000 - Dear Jude and Richard, In the Summa Theologica, prima pars, q. 52, a. 1, St. Thomas says angels can be in a place, not as bodies, but by "application of the angelic power in any manner whatever to any place." Further, in article 3 of that same question, St. Thomas shows that there can only be one angel in one place, since the angelic power is an immediate cause, and two complete causes cannot be the causes immediately of one and the same thing. Assuming the head of a pin is one place, only one angel at a time could dance on that head. However, being matter and indefinitely divisible, we might say there are an indefinite number of places on the head of a pin, and therefore an indefinite number of angels could be dancing on the pin head. Jeremy McNeil

March 27, 2000 - Dear Jeremy, Yes, granted we take "to be in a place" to include being there by application of angelic power, as it were by remote presence and not by bodily presence, I must concede to your demonstration! It is an excellent answer - I am still very amused: since matter is indefinitely divisible, hence there are an indefinite number of places, and hence, an indefinite occasion for angelic causes, ergo. I hope the Instituut pins it up soon! Cheers! Jude

If you missed it, you can go to either a SHORT explanation of the whole story, or a detailed explanation on ONE PAGE. On this page you are getting more detail on one part of the story, but on either of those pages you can get the broad picture. Don't miss reading one of them. You can actually spend many hours on this web site, depending on the depth of research and reading you want to do. There are an amazing 4,000 pages here -- more information on these general subjects than almost all other web sites combined! At some point along the way you will probably say, "Karl's crazy," and leave never to return to this site, or you will say "I want to try some of that oral chelation formula he writes about!"

Special Pages On The Various of 12 Web Sites Authored by Karl Loren
OC History	Oral Chelation		Testimonials
Family Of Three Oral Chelation Formulas	Life Glow Basic		Life Glow Basic Ingredient List
Life Glow Plus	Life Glow Plus Ingredient List		American Heart Association -- Lies
Super Life Glow	Super Life Glow Ingredient List		FAQ
All Products	Shopping Cart Order Section		Research
Taheebo Life Tea	Witch Doctors Versus Harvard		MSM Sulfur
Calcium	How Bones Grow		Colloidal Minerals
Jean Ross	Philosophy		The Wednesday Letter
Arthritis & James Coburn's Use Of MSM	Karl Loren Viewpoints		News And Announcements
Dr. Flanagan's Microhydrin	500 Page Book On Heart Disease		Colostrum & Transfer Factor
Germanium	Ultrasound Technology		Bulk MSM
Cancer & Biopsy	Diabetes		Heart Disease & Bypass Surgery
Karl Loren's Diet	Guarantee		Navigation Help Page
The Links Below Jump To Pages On Whatever Web You Are In
Table Of Contents	Search This Web		Navigation Help Page
Write To Karl Loren -- He Pledges To Answer EVERY Personal Message, Personally. Click here or on his name in the box below.
The Links Below Are To Various Web Sites Published By Karl Loren
Karl Loren Web	Vibrant Life Web		Karl Loren's Book
Super Colostrum	Bulk MSM		Heart Disease
Emmessar	Happiness		Arthritis
Instead Of	Chelation Therapy		Super Colostrum (2)
Karl Loren's Catalog Store		Central Page For All 12 Webs!

SUBSCRIBE: The Wednesday Letter is a free electronic monthly newsletter written and published by Karl Loren. You can view more than 50 back issues of this publication by clicking here. The Wednesday Letter subscription list is maintained on a secure server, no name is ever given or sold to anyone, and it is never used except for this Newsletter. It is automatically published on the Tuesday night just before the first Wednesday of every month. You can subscribe to this free monthly electronic letter by entering your eMail address and name below. You will then automatically receive a request for confirmation, sent to whatever address you have entered. If you do NOT receive this confirmation request, then you will not be subscribed. There may have been an error with your address and you should resubmit. The letter is never sent twice to the same address -- so you do not have to worry about a duplicate subscription. When you receive this confirmation request you must reply to it, or your subscription will not become active. No one can subscribe your name, and address, without you being notified, and if you get an unwanted notice of subscription you only need to DO NOTHING and the subscription will NOT be active.

REMOVAL: You can remove yourself from the subscription list in several different ways. Click here to read about this entire newsletter system. Every edition of The Wednesday Letter is delivered to your address with YOUR name and address in view on the letter, with a link that allows you to remove THAT name from the subscription list. If you try to send this removal message from an address different from the one you used to send in your original confirmation, then you will get a warning notice first, sent to the subscription address, asking you to confirm that you want to be removed from the list -- by replying to THAT request for confirmation, you will then be automatically removed. Thus, no one else can unsubscribe you, from some other computer, without your knowledge. But, if you send in the unsubscribe notice from the same machine used to receive the Letter, then the removal from the subscription list is automatic.

Personal Message: When you send a personal message to Karl Loren, you will receive a personal reply as per his instructions. Karl pledges that every personal message will get a personal answer. When you provide your mail address, we will send you free information including our free catalog and a cassette tape lecture by Karl Loren about heart disease, no charge, by mail, even if outside the US. You can select particular information you would like to receive, along with the free cassette tape and catalog.

You can reach Vibrant Life in many ways, including by mail to Vibrant Life, 2808 N. Naomi St., Burbank, CA 91504. Within the US and Canada, use the toll free number: (800) 523-4521, the local number: (818) 558-1799, the FAX: (818) 558-7299, eMail to kimberly@oralchelation.com or any one of the hundreds of message forms throughout the 50 web sites. Vibrant Life normally ships the same day we get an order. There are message forms on each of the 100,000+ pages on this and other sites where you can communicate with Vibrant Life. Check out our companion site, at: http://www.oralchelation.net where Karl's 2000 page book is published. Karl Loren is the author and webmaster for this BOOK, as well as for another web site about ORAL CHELATION. His personal philosophical articles are at PHILOSOPHY.

Copyright © May 20, 2008 6:25 AM by Karl Loren on behalf of Vibrant Life, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Permission is granted for non-commercial downloading, copying, distribution or redistribution on two conditions: One, that some form of copyright notice is included in every copy distributed or copied, showing the copyright belonging to Vibrant Life, Burbank, CA, at www.oralchelation.com . The second condition is that the material is not to be used for any purpose contrary to the purposes and objectives of this site. This permission does not extend to materials on this site which are copyrighted by others.

How Many Angles Can Fit On The Head Of A Pin?

The Symbol Was Considered MORE Important Than That For Which It Stood -- Because At That Time The Common Man Was NOT Considered To Be Capable Of Understanding The Underlying Truth -- So, He Should Accept The Symbol As The Truth!

This was exactly the opposite of what Aristotle taught.

You Cannot Find God In A Test-tube!

How many angels can fit on the head of a pin

Did medieval scholars argue over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?

November 11, 1997

Dancing Angels

By C. CLAIBORNE RAY

You may or may not agree with the theology, but at least this web site got the significance of the question. Unfortunately they got the answer wrong! See item Number Seven.

Apologetics: Common Theological Questions

How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?

[Karl Note: Here we go. A supposedly spiritual response endorses materialism!]