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

Interesting Ian said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dawkins' position is specific: "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.”

At no point does Dawkins state there are no 'Narnia type' worlds. He says there is no Narnia and no Toyland. C.S. Lewis never suggested for a second that Narnia is real, I have yet to hear from a 'Lucy' suggesting they have the magic wardrobe - I think that observable evidence indicates there is no Narnia - Dawkins' point proven.

As to the non-existence of Narnia type worlds, I'd suspect Dawkins is (as am I) highly doubtful that they exist.

Ian - are you trying to turn this into an atheist vs agnostic argument? Something along the lines of "You cannot prove there is no Narnia-type fantasy world, so you have to remain open to the idea?"

Fantastic claims demand fantastic evidence. IF there is a Narnia type world out there, the burden of proof lies with its inhabitants to show us the wardrobe. In the absence of any compelling reason to 'believe' in 'LikeNarnia Land' and with all observable evidence suggesting that wardrobes tend to have solid back walls, not witches distributing boxes of funky turkish delight - I think most rational thinkers, Dawkins included, would be comforatable in stating that no Narnia type worlds exist.
 
Induction.

No claim of magic has ever been borne out.

Therefore no claim of magic will ever be borne out.

Therefore there is no Narnia.

We could be wrong. But we're not, because the idea is silly.
 
Jon. said:
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.
Click to expand...

[pedant]That's the Compact Edition of the OED you're getting there. The proper dead tree version does add as its last synonym, "doubtful," and the instances cited do suggest that in actual use this doubtfulness was often used with a sense of irony.
"My Lords and gentlemen," says he, "it is a very moot point to which of those causes we may ascribe the universal dulness of the Irish." (Swift)
Click to expand...

Taken as meaning that a moot point is always debatable, and thus irresoluble and essentially pointless, I would suggest that the common usage seen in Goshawk's original instance is permissible. The question of whether chicken or egg came first is classically moot.

[/pedant]
 
Let me just make sure I have this straight...

Sane (I assume) adults are actually proposing that a world invented by a fiction writer, one that can only be accessed through a magical wradrobe, really exists? And someone assumes this to be true because nobody has taken the trouble to seriously investigate it and prove it false?

Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Antiquehunter said:
Dawkins' position is specific: "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.”

At no point does Dawkins state there are no 'Narnia type' worlds.
Click to expand...

It would be entirely uninteresting to assert that Narnia specifically doesn't exist. Of course it doesn't since it's a world and name that C.S. Lewis made up. It's obvious what Dawkins means. He means no worlds like Narnia. He's saying that his philosophical interpretation of reality is obviously correct. He's wrong. Indeed it's obviously incorrect.


Fantastic claims demand fantastic evidence.
Click to expand...

What constitutes a fantastic claim depends upon the Weltanschauung lens through which one views the world.

IF there is a Narnia type world out there, the burden of proof lies with its inhabitants to show us the wardrobe. In the absence of any compelling reason to 'believe' in 'LikeNarnia Land' and with all observable evidence suggesting that wardrobes tend to have solid back walls, not witches distributing boxes of funky turkish delight - I think most rational thinkers, Dawkins included, would be comforatable in stating that no Narnia type worlds exist.
Click to expand...

Does the same apply to all other possible Universes?
 
Interesting Ian said:
It would be entirely uninteresting to assert that Narnia specifically doesn't exist. Of course it doesn't since it's a world and name that C.S. Lewis made up. It's obvious what Dawkins means. He means no worlds like Narnia. He's saying that his philosophical interpretation of reality is obviously correct. He's wrong. Indeed it's obviously incorrect.
Click to expand...

And your evidence for this assertion is?

What constitutes a fantastic claim depends upon the Weltanschauung lens through which one views the world.
Click to expand...

:notm

Does the same apply to all other possible Universes?
Click to expand...

Skwerdle fnardlish.
 
Interesting Ian said:
No they don't mean that. They mean what they say.
Click to expand...

Dude. Listen to yourself - one minute you say the above, and then when someone says he meant there is no Narnia you say -

It would be entirely uninteresting to assert that Narnia specifically doesn't exist. Of course it doesn't since it's a world and name that C.S. Lewis made up. It's obvious what Dawkins means. He means no worlds like Narnia. He's saying that his philosophical interpretation of reality is obviously correct. He's wrong. Indeed it's obviously incorrect
Click to expand...

But that is NOT what Dawkins said - he said NARNIA. Maybe you should read the OP again.
 
Interesting Ian said:
But the wardrobe was made from magic wood grown from a magic apple obtained from Narnia at the dawn of its birth.
Click to expand...
You need to show the undeniable "persistence".
What you said above has no "persistence" in reality.

Show me a magic wardrobe, apple tree that will be there day after day after day. Show me magic that works in a persistent fashion.
Bring me to the place called Narnia, and bring me there again tommorow.
Build me a magic wardrobe.

I bet the persistent thing we could find are Narnia story books, and Narnia DVD video disks. One charactistic of Narnia, is the persistent lack of a real life talking lion. And persistent lack of talking lion remains so day after day after day. It is Really just fictional.

The persistent tangible things about Narnia, as well as the "persistent lack-of", jointly, defines Narnia. As much as a sponge full of holes defines a sponge.
 
Antiquehunter said:
...Fantastic claims demand fantastic evidence. ....
Click to expand...
I understand what you mean. But seriously it tickled me.

Fantastic is derived from Fantasy.

So your sentence is abit akin to saying that, Claims that contains much fantasy need to be justified by fantasised evidence. :)
Which I don't think that's what you meant.
 
I was trying to remember the exact Carl Sagan quote - perhaps it was 'Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence'. (I don't have my books here in Kabul.)

Anyways - I trust you got my drift.
 
FramerDave said:
Let me just make sure I have this straight...

Sane (I assume) adults are actually proposing that a world invented by a fiction writer, one that can only be accessed through a magical wradrobe, really exists? And someone assumes this to be true because nobody has taken the trouble to seriously investigate it and prove it false?

Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

No. No sane adults. Just Interesting Ian.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Does the same apply to all other possible Universes?
Click to expand...
I take "possible universe" to mean non-existence but nevertheless, realistically imagined.

"Possible" and "persistence" I feel are 2 very important words.
Importance of "Possible" is "overated".

Possible universe are not as important as "persistent" universe.
If Narnia creatures like talking lion and centaur start walking out into our world, and interact with us, it is much more real than an imagined universe.

In fact, persistence fiction of Narnia, with it's widely published books and movie, is much more "real" than an imaginary universe within the mind of a single unknown person in timbukto.
 
Interesting Ian said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is just silly. Of course the burden is on you. It is an impractical impossibility to disprove an infinite number of theories. You seem to think the burden is on us just because you asked a question first.

Presumably, you do not believe in Narnia. Why not?

Also, prove to me you aren't Odin.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Dawkins stated it doesn't exist. If he has no arguments or evidence why should anyone believe him?
Click to expand...
Dawkins may not state arguments or evidence, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. Rather, I would surmise that he does not bother to state them because they are blindingly obvious to anyone with a mental age over eight years old. There is no positive evidence of the non-existence of Father Christmas, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, etc. etc. et-sodding-cetera, but they are known to be the product of human imagination, and nobody in his mind accuses people of being unreasonable for stating that these entities do not exist.
 
Interesting Ian said:
It would be entirely uninteresting to assert that Narnia specifically doesn't exist. Of course it doesn't since it's a world and name that C.S. Lewis made up. It's obvious what Dawkins means. He means no worlds like Narnia. He's saying that his philosophical interpretation of reality is obviously correct. He's wrong. Indeed it's obviously incorrect.
Click to expand...
I'm interested to know, what was it that, you think Richard Dawkins rejected; that which made his philosophical interpretation of reality incorrect.
 
Interesting Ian said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, this is just stupid, you are talking about a work of FICTION since when do we have to prove that a FICTIONAL world does not exist? Do we have to prove that Middle Earth doesn't exist too? Or Discworld? Or Ooopaloompa land?

This is just dumb, I am going back to playing with my cards, far more interesting building Lotus legal L5R decks than this nonsense.
 
Oh no? You mean the Stars Wars universe doesn't exist and Ian is not Jar Jar Blinks?
Mr. Bill voice:OOOH NOOO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom