“HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?”

That’s the question you should always ask believers when they make an unsupported assertions, ranging from “God is loving” to “Our souls live on after death.” The answer will always be one of two things: “The Bible says so,” or “I just know it to be true.” Neither of those are rational answers, but they satisfy the religious.

It is in fact the “how-do-you-know-that” query that really distinguishes New Atheism from Old. While atheists have always decried the lack of evidence for theism, it is the infusion of scientists and science-friendly people into atheism, starting with Carl Sagan and continuing on to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Pinker, and Dennett, that has made us realize that religious dogmas are in fact hypotheses, and you need reasons and evidence for accepting them. If you have none, then you have no reason to believe in God.

Nevertheless, religious dogma does change, but not because theology has found better reasons. It’s because a.) science has shown the dogma to be false (Genesis, Adam and Eve, creation, the Exodus, etc.) or b.) secular morality has shown that the tenets of religious belief are no longer supportable (hell as a place of fire, limbo, discrimination against gays, the Mormons’ refusal to let black be priests, etc.)

But I fulminate. The best “how do you know that” moment of the month is one I learned from a Sky News article: “Angels exist but have no wings, says Church.” In it, we learn that a prescient priest has decided that angels, like worker ants, are wingless:

Angels really do exist but do not have wings and are more like shards of light, according to a church official. Catholic Church “angelologist” Father Renzo Lavatori [JAC: great name!] says the celestial beings are back in vogue thanks to various New Age religions. But he insists that the traditional portrayal of angels as hovering, winged cherubs rather misses the mark. “I think there is a re-discovery of angels in Christianity,” Father Lavatori said at a conference on angels at a lavishly-frescoed Renaissance palace in Rome.

The angels conference is being hosted by Rome’s Palazzo della Cancelleria”You do not see angels so much as feel their presence – they are a bit like sunlight that refracts on you through a crystal vase,” he added. The senior clergyman was taking part in a debate this week on angelic art by the Fondazione Archivio Storico, an Italian art foundation. HOW DOES HE KNOW THAT? Here’s the results of a search for “angel” in the King James Bible (there are 10 pages of references). While they don’t appear to be explicitly wingéd, they are definitely anthropomorphic, wear clothes, and have bodies, e.g.: Revelation 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter. Shards of light don’t have hands. The Bible tells us clearly that angels look like people and can ascend and descend, whether with wings or under some other power. And clearly cherubim, which are for all purposes angels, have wings—big ones! Exodus 25:20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. 1 Kings 6:27 And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house. 2 Chronicles 3:11 And the wings of the cherubims were twenty cubits long: one wing of the one cherub was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house: and the other wing was likewise five cubits, reaching to the wing of the other cherub. Also, seraphim, which are classed as angels in the Holy Taxonomy of Divine Beings, are also wingéd: ser·aph (s r f) n.pl.ser·a·phim (- -f m) or ser·aphs 1. A celestial being having three pairs of wings. 2. seraphim Christianity The first of the nine orders of angels in medieval angelology. [JAC: If you want to learn about the LOLzy study of “angelology,” second in theological nonsense only to

The first of the nine orders of angels in medieval: If you want to learn about the LOLzy study of “angelology,” second in theological nonsense only to baraminology (the attempt to discern which “kinds” or organisms God created), go here or here If seraphim are angels, then, and have wings, as the quote below shows, then father Lavatori is simply wrong. Or “wings” may simply be a Biblical metaphor for “shards of light”: Isaiah 6:2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. So where did Father Lavatori get the idea that angels were shards of light? I’d love to ask him that question, for the words “shard” or “shards” do not appear in scripture. Sky News gives more information, revealing that while Father Lavatory knows that angels aren’t anthromorphic, he also knows that the devil is real (though he doesn’t say whether Beelzebub has horns, hooves, and a tail): Father Lavatori said the popularised image of angels is a necessary result of their being “back in fashion” but is dismissive of all the angel art around Christmas. “There is space for that, but you have to understand that these are not real representations. Angels do not have wings or look like cherubs,” he said. The widely-published Catholic clergyman is also a “demonologist” and says angels are more needed than ever. This is because increasing secularisation and materialism in society have left an “open door” for the devil, he said. “There is a lot more interference from diabolical forces. That is why you see queues of people outside the exorcists’ offices in churches,” he said. “Pope Francis talks more about the devil than about angels and I think rightly so. But it’s still early, he will get round to the angels too.” The Independent notes that Lavatori “has risked the wrath of the world’s Christians” by making such a presumptuous claim. That means that Christians want their angels to have wings. Can that faith get more ridiculous than this? BUT—we do know from the LOLcat Bible that cat angels have wings: h/t: Barry