The old philosophy question — How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? — has gotten a bad rap.*
Yet three important answers contest for dominance:
1. An infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a pin. As purely spiritual beings, angels do not take up physical space, so an infinite number of them can fit into any given physical space.
2. No angels can dance on the head of a pin. Angels are non-bodily beings, but dancing is by definition a bodily activity. Therefore …
3. The very question is blasphemous and obscene!! Dancing is a lewd and lascivious activity, and angels — being pure and moral — would never debase themselves so.
Which answer is best?
[* Which raises a side question: Could or would angels dance to rap music, or only to other genres?]
We can dismiss the second answer fairly easily. Flames are described as “dancing”, and flames aren’t purely physical in nature–like waves, they are an emergent property of a physical action, but actually represent motion of physical objects rather than being physical objects themselves. (For those unfamiliar, non-breaking waves move directionally, but the particles that compose them do not–this is why navigational markers can remain in place without being attached to the sea floor.)
The third can be dismissed by the simple expedient of pointing out that it makes a myriad of assumptions, all of which are contestable. It attempts to smuggle in an entire philosophical school as a basic premise.
Ergo, the first answer is correct.
The second one is correct.
Flame occurs in time and occupies space, but angels do not.
The answer is none. Since the pin is real and angels are not, the pin would be by itself.
How do you know when an atheist walks into a room? Don’t worry, they will tell you
Dancing is lewd and Lascivious? Says who?
Why would an angel dance on the head of a pin? It seems like an absurd yet insightful question. It calls us to try to grasp concepts that are beyond the capabilities of the human brain. Angels are spiritual beings and yet they appear in bodily form to people on occasion. They are known as messengers so why can’t a dance be part of a message? We know Jesus attended weddings and drank wine and yet dancing is not mentioned, but why would it be? It is probably assumed by the authors that normal social customs, whatever they were at the time would be understood to have been included. I’m not a theologian so I don’t know whether history tells us there was dancing. So why do we care if an infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a pin? We don’t! We just care that angels are spiritual creatures who are their to help us. Isn’t that good enough?
Zorba the Greek quite rightly remarked: “Clever people and grocers, they weigh everything.” Philosophy, or sophistry, all of the above is simply the flotsam and jetsam of undisciplined minds. The answer, you see is disarmingly simple, not complex, above-all, it is common sensical, without guise, to wit, the answer to this 17th century koan is, “One”! ONE angel at a time can dance on the head of a pin; the others must wait their turn.”
Why can’t angels dance on the head of a pin? If they need to or want to they sure might. My question is do angels want or need to dance on the head of a pin? and if so , do they want to or need to because God made them want or need to do so or do they have their own free will? So yes they can,can, even of they can would they?I kinda imagine like a vapor one extends their particles out into a small point so they can all fthey’re? The pin,unless otherwise they form together manifesting one being so they can dance together as one. The answer might be many angels can but they are one when they dance make sense? Why would an angel dance on the head of a needle? But yes many can if they want or need to, unless the angel inhabits a person’s body then I would say maybe one. Wait ,but how many angels can inhabit a person’s body at once? So many questions….all in one one in all….Who knows, ask him
Some angels do take up physical space think of Sodom and Gomorrah and the two Angels that came to destroy it, they came in the flesh. Dancing is not lewd and Lascivious. David’s wife was punished by being made unable to have children because she tried to correct David for dancing out of his clothes onto the Lord.
God still loves you And will talk to you if you would genuinely want to talk to him. I have been very lucky to experience God to the point that I know he is real just like I know gravity is real. I understand not everyone has been as blessed as I have. I do pray that he reveals himself to you in a way that you could discover his true character. I have found him to be loving, Just, caring about the every day day today things, he has a great sense of humor and I have experience A lot of a-ha moments when spending time with him.
I like your response, you may not be a theologian but I believe you to be accurate
Thank you, Ginger.
I’m an septuagenarian atheist, but an examination of a biblical concordance (Strong’s or Young’s) or any bible site, e.g. biblegateway.com, q.v. Psalm 149 v3, Ecclesiastes 3 v4, reveals that the bible is replete with examples of people, considered spiritually credible, enjoined to dance; therefore, it cannot be considered lewd or lascivious in terms of the biblical position, whatever the flatulent German monk opined. If a person of faith were to take literally the biblical injunction that ‘with God all things are possible’ then any number of angels could be dancing on the head of a pin. To me this is as fictional as, how many fairies can there be at the bottom of my garden? But I’m using logic here, not speaking from a position of faith, as I share Christopher Hitchens position on all matters regarding religion.
Over the years a huge number of theological man-hours have been spent debating the famous question:
How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin?
In order to arrive at an answer, the following facts must be taken into consideration:
Firstly, angels simply don’t dance. It’s one of the distinguishing characteristics that marks an angel. They may listen appreciatively to the Music of the Spheres, but they don’t feel the urge to get down and boogie to it. So, none.
At least, nearly none. Aziraphale had learned to gavotte in a discreet gentlemen’s club in Portland Place, in the late 1880s, and while he had initially taken to it like a duck to merchant banking, after a while he had become quite good at it, and was quite put out when, some decades later, the gavotte went out of style for good.
So providing the dance was a gavotte, and providing that he had a suitable partner (also able, for the sake of argument, both to gavotte, and to dance it on the head of a pin), the answer is a straightforward one.
From Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch by Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman
The idea that dancing is evil so angels would not debase themselves is a puritanical thought put forward by Cromwell. The original question obviously depends on the type of dance. Knowledge of medieval dance now is limited but the carole or rondeau is common. Essentially a circle of dancers. Which would need a lot of room for movement. Moving through the ages to more modern dances the Foxtrot and waltzes also need some room. However Line Dancing would mean a number of angel can dance. Anyone who has been to a nightclub will realise that that this form presents an almost infinite number. Pack em in. Dance in one spot. Go-go dancing would possibly be the only form in which one angel can dance on a pin.
My question is: how many angels can stand, not dance,on the tip of a needle?