On an episode of the Late Show, host Stephen Colbert and Jane Lynch had an interesting discussion of guardian angels. Lynch, who starred as a guardian angel in “Angel from Hell”, related a story of how her guardian angel held her in a protective embrace during a low point of her life. Colbert, ever the rational Catholic, noted that he believed in guardian angels despite knowing they do not exist. The question of the existence of guardian angels is yet another way to consider the classic problem of evil.
In general terms, a guardian angel is a supernatural, benevolent being who serves as a personal protector. The nature of this guarding varies. For some, the guardian angel is supposed to serve in the classic “angel on the shoulder” role and provide good advice. For others, the angel provides a comforting presence. Some even claim that guardian angels take a very active role, such as reducing a potentially fatal fall to one that merely inflicts massive injury. My interest is, however, not with the specific functions of guardian angels, but with the question of their existence.
In the context of monotheism, a guardian angel is an agent of God. As such, this ties them into the problem of evil. The general problem of evil is the challenge of reconciling the alleged existence of God with the existence of evil. Some take this problem to decisively show that God does not exist. Others contend that it shows that God is not how philosophers envision Him in the problem, so that He is not omniscient, omnibenevolent or omnipotent. In the case of guardian angels, the challenge is to reconcile their alleged existence with evil.
There are presumably thousands or millions of cases each day in which a guardian angel could have saved the day with little effort. For example, a guardian angel could tell the police the location of a kidnapped or missing child. As another example, a guardian angel could keep a ladder from slipping. They could also do more difficult things, like preventing cancer from killing children or deflecting bullets away from school children. Since none of this ever happens, the obvious conclusion is that there are no guardian angels of this type.
However, as with the main problem of evil, there are ways to address this problem. One option, which is not available in the case of God, is to argue that guardian angels have very limited capabilities and are weak supernatural beings. Alternatively, they might operate under very restrictive rules. One problem with this reply is that weak angels are indistinguishable in their effects from non-existent angels. Another problem ties this into the broader problem of evil: why wouldn’t God deploy a better sort of guardian or give them broader rules? This, of course, just brings up the usual problem of evil.
Another option is that not everyone gets an angel. Jane Lynch, for example, might get an angel that hugged her. Alan Kurdi, the young boy who drowned trying to flee Syria, did not get a guardian angel. While this would be an explanation of sorts, it still just pushes the problem back: why would God not provide everyone in need with a guardian? We humans are, of course, limited in our resources and abilities, so everyone cannot be protected all the time. However, an omnipotent God does not face this challenge.
It is also possible to make use of a stock reply to the problem of evil and bring in the Devil. Perhaps Lucifer deploys his demonic agents to counter the guardian angels. So, when something bad happens to a good person, it is because her guardian angel was defeated by a demon. While this has a certain appeal, it would require a world in which God and the Devil are closely matched, thus allowing the Devil to defy God and defeat His other angels. This, of course, just brings in the general problem of evil: unless one postulates two roughly equal deities, God is on the hook for the Devil and his demons. Or rather, God’s demons since He created them.
Guardian angels fare no better than God in regards to the problem of evil. That said, the notion of benevolent, supernatural personal guardians predates monotheism. Socrates, for example, claimed to have a guardian who would warn him of bad choices (which Stephen Colbert also claims to have).
These sorts of guardians were not claimed to be agents of a perfect being, and so avoid the problem of evil. Supernatural beings that are freelancers or who serve a limited deity can reasonably be expected to be limited in their abilities and it would make sense that not everyone would have a guardian. Conflict between opposing supernatural agencies also makes sense, since there is no postulation of a single supreme being.
While these supernatural guardians do avoid the problem of evil, they run up against the problem of evidence: there does not appear to be adequate evidence for the existence of such supernatural beings. In fact, the alleged evidence for them is better explained by alternatives. For example, a little voice in one’s head is better explained in terms of the psychological rather than the supernatural (a benign mental condition rather than a supernatural guardian). As another example, a fall that badly injures a person rather than killing them is better explained in terms of the vagaries of chance than in terms of supernatural intervention.
Given the above discussion, there seems to be little reason to believe in the existence of guardian angels. The world would be radically different if they did exist, so they do not. Or they do so little as to make no meaningful difference, which is hard to distinguish from them not existing at all.
I certainly do not begrudge the belief in guardian angels. If that belief leads them to make better choices and feel safer in a dangerous world, then it is a benign belief. I certainly have comforting beliefs as well, such as the belief that most people are basically good. Perhaps these beliefs are our guardian angels.