How do we know that places like Narnia do not exist?

Interesting Ian

Banned
I
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
7,675
The guy writing a review of Richard Dawkin's book "Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder" on the following page:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0009.html

states Dawkin's states in his book that:

“The adult world may seem a cold and empty place with no fairies and no Father Christmas, no Toyland or Narnia, no Happy Hunting Ground where mourned pets go, and no angels — guardian or garden variety. . . . Yes, Teddy and Dolly turn out not to be really alive.”
Click to expand...

Let's keep this simple and concentrate on one of these things that Dawkin's apparently knows doesn't exist; namely Narnia. What arguments does Dawkin's come out with that another world like Narnia, only accessible through magic, doesn't exist? Does he actually come out with any arguments for this assertion? If not are there any half decent arguments against the existence of worlds/Universes like Narnia?
 
Interesting Ian said:
The guy writing a review of Richard Dawkin's book "Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder" on the following page:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0009.html

states Dawkin's states in his book that:



Let's keep this simple and concentrate on one of these things that Dawkin's apparently knows doesn't exist; namely Narnia. What arguments does Dawkin's come out with that another world like Narnia, only accessible through magic, doesn't exist? Does he actually come out with any arguments for this assertion? If not are there any half decent arguments against the existence of worlds/Universes like Narnia?
Click to expand...

There is no evidence of Narnia. Anyone who claims Narnia exists will be asked to provide evidence of it. If they cannot do so, their claim can be dismissed.

As I have said before, any claim that can be advanced without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
 
Back to the point.

Is anyone arguing that Narnia actually does exist? If not, then this whole discussion is moot.

Ian, please clarify. Are you claiming that Narnia does exist, or simply that it might exist?
 
I would think C.S Lewis knew if it existed,and to my memory he was a writer of childrens fiction,which kind of gives it away.
 
You cannot prove a negative, Ian. You can't prove that something does not exist--you can only prove that something does exist.

Thus your OP's point is kinda moot, IMO.

"How do we know that there isn't any such thing as Narnia?" We don't. There may be a Narnia somewhere, and it's just that nobody has come up with any proof of its existence yet. So what? [shrug]

If not are there any half decent arguments against the existence of worlds/Universes like Narnia?
Click to expand...
No. Because you can't prove that something doesn't exist.

Less than five years ago, there would have been many more than half-decent arguments against the existence of water on Mars. It's pointless to go by what "half-decent" arguments against something are out there, because as new data comes in, it can change, literally, overnight.

I'm sorry, I don't see where you're going with this, Ian. Did you just wanna shoot the breeze about the book, or the review, or Narnia, or Dawkins, or atheism, or what? I'm not surprised that the ID author of "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith" wouldn't like a book that says that God did not design everything personally from scratch.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Let's keep this simple and concentrate on one of these things that Dawkin's apparently knows doesn't exist; namely Narnia. What arguments does Dawkin's come out with that another world like Narnia, only accessible through magic, doesn't exist? Does he actually come out with any arguments for this assertion? If not are there any half decent arguments against the existence of worlds/Universes like Narnia?
Click to expand...
Yes, let's keep this simple. If you're going to try and discredit Dawkins, you're obliged to attack what he actually says. Dawkins doesn't say there are no world/universes like Narnia; he says there is no Narnia specifically.

Based on articles such as this Guardian article on the Ulster landscape which inspired C.S. Lewis in giving shape to Narnia, or this "For Dummies" piece on whether the Narnia series was intended to be allegorical, it's safe to say that the status of Narnia as fictional has never been in question. After all, a discussion on whether or not a particular work is (intended to be) allegorical presupposes that the work in question is fiction. And if Lewis himself said Narnia was fictional, I'm much inclined to take his word for it.

That's the simple answer.
 
Who is this "Dawkins"? The OP dealt with "Dawkin's" who way or may not exist, unless you are a hopelessly silly materialist.
 
Let's Discus's

If Narnia existed, it must be a place created by an Oxford don where no one uses an apostrophe other than to show possession (not the demonic kind) or as a contraction, as in It's for "it is." For god's sake, what is being taught in English classes these days, in this wicked world?

That said, let us not go to Narnia, it is a silly place.
 
Give it up, folks. We shall have a world where:

[latex]$\forall x\, \exists x {\rm ~unless~} x {\rm~has~been~disproven}$[/latex]

~~ Paul
 
JLam said:
Is anyone arguing that Narnia actually does exist? If not, then this whole discussion is moot.
Click to expand...
Surely all the good discussions are on matters moot? Or are you complaining about the apostrophe abuse and then abusing the word moot? Or is it that I am out of touch, and the dictionaries are now allowing the use of this word to mean pointless, as opposed to debatable?

Cheers,
Rat.
 
Rat said:
Surely all the good discussions are on matters moot? Or are you complaining about the apostrophe abuse and then abusing the word moot? Or is it that I am out of touch, and the dictionaries are now allowing the use of this word to mean pointless, as opposed to debatable?

Cheers,
Rat.
Click to expand...
That was one heck of an Ian impression, Rat.
 
It used to exist until the Invisible pink unicorn (PBUH) ate it.
 
Rat said:
Surely all the good discussions are on matters moot? Or are you complaining about the apostrophe abuse and then abusing the word moot? Or is it that I am out of touch, and the dictionaries are now allowing the use of this word to mean pointless, as opposed to debatable?

Cheers,
Rat.
Click to expand...

Wiktionary, dictionary.com, and Merriam-Webster all do. The OED, however, does not.

I would argue that the OED is, sadly, out of touch with current usage of the word, at least in North America. Here, a "moot point" is generally seen as one with no practical value.
 
I thought it referred to an ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of the shire. Why would they have a pointless bloody meeting? Hadn't they better things to do, like flogging the peasants, serfs and kine?
 
Jon. said:
There is no evidence of Narnia. Anyone who claims Narnia exists will be asked to provide evidence of it. If they cannot do so, their claim can be dismissed.
Click to expand...

Shifting the burden of proof. If the claim is that you know Narnia type worlds do not exist, then you must present arguments or/and evidence. Furthermore these arguments or/and evidence must be sufficiently compelling to justify the assertion we know that Narnia type worlds do not exist.
 
JLam said:
Back to the point.

Is anyone arguing that Narnia actually does exist? If not, then this whole discussion is moot.
Click to expand...

Somebody is asserting that narnia type worlds do not exist; namely Richard Dawkins. I was wondering if he or anyone else can justify his assertion.

Ian, please clarify. Are you claiming that Narnia does exist, or simply that it might exist?
Click to expand...

It's not important what I believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom