Anonymous
05/01/2025 (Thu) 20:50
[Preview]
No.69858
del
>Logic, I felt, was my only safe anchor reality; but if, as Walter Nigg points out, "angels
are powers which transcend the logic of our existence," did it follow that one is constrained to abandon logic in order to entertain angels? For the sake of angels I was ready to subscribe to Coleridge's "willing suspension of disbelief." I was even ready to drlnk his "milk of Paradise." But I was troubled. Never a respecter ofauthority, per se, particularly when it was backed by the "salvific light of revelation," I nevertheless kept repeating to myself that I was pitting my per-
sonal and necessarily circumscribed experience, logic, and belief (or nonbelief) against the experience, logic, and belief of some of the boldest and ~rofoundest minds of all times-minds that had reshaped the world's thinking and emancipated it (to a degree, at any rate) from the
bondage ofsuperstition and error. Still, I was averse to associatiilg myselfwith opinions and creeds,
no matter how hallowed by time or tradition, or by whomsoever held, that were plainly repugnant to colnnlon sense. A professed belief in angels would, inevitably, involve me in a belief in the supernatural, and that was the golden snare I did not wish to be caught in. Without committing myself religiously I could conceive of the possibility of there being, in dimensions and worlds other than our own, powers and intelligeilces outside our present apprehension, and in this
seilse angels are not to be ruled out as a part of reality-always remembering that we create what
we believe. Indeed, I am prepared to say that if enough of us believe in angels, then angels exist.