By Selwyn Duke

When actor and director Mel Gibson was asked some years ago
about certain difficulties he had when making his film The Passion of the Christ, he registered a countenance of unease
and said (I’m paraphrasing), “Something doesn’t want this to happen.”

Being just a couple of seconds of his interview, it was
perhaps hardly noticed by many. But it might have made the ears of people of
faith, particularly Christians, perk up. And they would have known precisely to
what he was alluding.

Of course, any talk of spirits not confined to the local
liquor store is now often considered the stuff of children and crackpots. Yet
is such scoffing logical?

Modern man, ever the materialist, may scoff at that
question. “Matters of faith are anything but logical,” says he, “so making
light of them is eminently so.” But this betrays a misunderstanding of logic.
Logic is not an answer; it is a method by which answers can be found. As such,
like a computer, its “output” is contextual to the entered data. In other
words, it can only tell you if something makes sense within the universe of information, or assumptions, in which it is
operating.  So, garbage in, garbage
out. But note that garbage makes absolute sense in an intellectual garbage
dump.

Some may now think the next question tackled would be: which
is that mental landfill, the religious or secular universe of ideas? In this
article, however, I will deal with a little picture, not the big one. We are
going to examine angels and demons, whose existence, of course, I cannot prove
or disprove (although I certainly have always believed them, as when I was a
wee lad already, my mother told me in no uncertain terms that I was a little
devil). Yet there is something I can prove: scoffing at talk of their existence
is illogical within the context of
what, even today, is most people’s world view.

A majority Americans will say they believe in God and also that
we humans have souls. Of course, to believe the former but not the latter would
be to contend that God created soulless sentient beings, organic robots who —
or, I should say, which — are just
some pounds of chemicals and water. For, without souls, that is all we would
be. This conception of man’s nature is, by the way, a corollary of atheism and
is the expressed belief of people such as physicist Stephen Hawking.

But while most will reflexively say we have souls, they do
not consider what a soul actually is. It is called the spiritual part of us
because it is in fact a spirit, a ghost.
All these terms are synonyms.

Now, a corollary of belief in God and His creation is that
the spirit preceded the flesh (viewing matters through our “handy illusion,” as
Einstein put it, called time); after all, God is a spirit and He came “first.”

So now let us lend perspective to the belief in angels. It
states that before the spirit we call God created man, who is spirit and flesh,
He created a race of beings who are only spirit. And like us they have intellect
and free will, which is why they could choose evil and some rejected God. We,
of course, call these fallen angels “demons.”

Thus, within the context of most people’s world view, belief
in angels is anything but fanciful — it is a piece that fits seamlessly into
the foundational Western faith puzzle. After all, what is fantastic about the
idea that God’s first order of Creation was to create beings who, like Him,
were pure spirit? In other words, you may question theists’ universe of ideas, as
atheists do. It is illogical, however, to accept their basic tenet of God’s
existence but then say that a belief in lesser spirits is preposterous.

This brings us to the next order of Creation. It is also
true that a belief in angels can very much influence our conception of man. As
James Collins wrote in The Thomistic Philosophy of the Angels:

The unity of the source of all
being and the analogical similarity of all things guarantee that a knowledge of
each grade will shed some further light upon what is below and what is above it
in the hierarchy of reality. For the better understanding of God and the
creative process, we can turn to that order of being which provides the most
intimate created similitude of the first intelligent and free Agent.

But where we once studied angels to better understand God
(and also that below them in the hierarchy of reality: man), now we do
something different. As David Keck points out in Angels and Angelology in
the Middle Ages:

Of all God’s creatures, human
beings are nearest to the angels, and angelology thus promises to illuminate
anthropology. In the modern world, the impulse to learn about human nature from
closely related beings has shifted subjects from seraphim to simians. Whereas
modern scientists study the origins of the apes to uncover clues about
humanity, medieval theologians investigated angels.

Of course, what else would materialistic modern man study?
The Manicheans believed there should be a victory of the spiritual over the
material, but today’s fashionable heresy proposes a victory of the material
over the spiritual — by declaring the spiritual a no-show. As a consequence,
whereas we once looked up to glean insight into our nature, we now look down. We
do not believe in Heaven and aspire higher, but only in the material world and
use as role models the only other kinds of creatures found within it: the
lower. For example, today it is not uncommon to hear, as a famous primatologist
(whose name is not important) has reported, “The Bonobo apes have sex
frequently — even with members of the same sex — and this may be their secret
to avoiding conflict.” Of course, the implication is that we humans just need
to dispense with our Puritanism and unshackle our inner simian. Why, we do not
need God or the law to act “morally,” as the aforementioned primatologist has
also said; just take our cues from nature.

Putting aside the fact that “morality,” properly understood,
is incomprehensible within a universe of atheism (for who is to say what is
right then? All is reduced to preference), those who animalize man present
animal nature quite selectively. They will say that chimpanzees may comfort
distressed neighbors, but chimps will also kill other chimps for sport. And I
have yet to hear, as in the Planet of the
Apes, a repetitive chant of “Ape killed ape!” as the hairy miscreants are
held to account. It is also never proposed that since most apes — and, in fact,
the majority of higher life forms — are male-dominated, that man should be
patriarchal.

We can also note that, as the last 50 years have attested,
there is not much correlation between increasing libertinism and atheism and
decreasing violence and strife. And this was entirely predictable. We used to
say about the best of men, “He is an angel”; now we say about man, “He is a
talking ape.” So is it any wonder he has started to act like one?

One purpose man’s heroes always served was to give him
examples of virtue to which to aspire. Those heroes evolved as time progressed
from mythical characters such as Odysseus and Jason — who, though brave, had
human frailties — to idealized real ones such as George Washington, who could
not tell a lie. And thus does the Catholic Church declare saints, who exemplify
ultimate virtue, winning battles not over terrible sinners, but over sin itself.
And what do moderns give us? The Bonobo ape. Or, worse still, pop-culture
icons.

Whatever our beliefs about the spirit world, there is no
question that man is better when he looks up to the ethereal than down to the
terrestrial. For the more we kill our heroes and angels, dismissing them as
fantasies of the past, the more we birth demons in the present.

      Contact
Selwyn Duke or follow him on
Twitter

        © 2012 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved