How do we know that places like Narnia do not exist?
- Thread starter Interesting Ian
- Start date
-
- Tags
- exist narnia richard dawkins
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
Yes, yes you do.Delphi said:
~~ Paul
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Not that it will do any good.
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
If anyone actually does that, I'm afraid we're going to have to re-think the whole "homo sapiens are the most intelligent species" hypothesis. I propose felis silvestris catus.
I doubt it. In his presentation at TAM3, Dawkins drew a distinction between the paranormal and the "perinormal."
I'm going on memory here, but I believe he defined the paranormal as (roughly) "things for which there is no evidence and for which we do not expect to find evidence because it would contradict a great deal of existing, reliable evidence."
The "perinormal" was (again, roughly and from memory) "things for which there is no evidence, but for which evidence might someday be found without contradicting existing, reliable evidence."
Dawkins even speculated that the JREF Challenge could someday be won by such a "perinormal" claim.
So I doubt that your hypothetical 17th Century Dawkins would be so quick to exclude the possibilities you list.
HeyLeroy
Vegan Cannibal
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Messages
- 5,567
Very open-minded. Having not read his books, on what do you base your opinion?
Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
Don't try to worm out of your position. You said that the very existence of a world like Narnia violates all known laws of physics. So we can, for the sake of argument, suppose that magic doesn't exist. We can even suppose that such a world or worlds (Universes) are completely inaccessible.
Now what I want to know is how the existence of Universes similar to Narnia violates all physical laws??
Laws are just descriptions of reality. Reality has no obligation to constrain itself to act in accordance with what modern western science dictates.
A question: What about Robert J. Sawyer's 3 novels regarding a parallel Universe where Neanderthals became the dominant humans with a technological society, and where we died out? Does such a Universe also violate all physical laws?
Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
What do you want me to respond to? There's nothing for me to say. As I said, people simply need to provide reasons or evidence to justify the assertion that Narnia type worlds do not exist. I see nothing of any relevance in your posts to this question.
Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
On reading various articles written by him and from seeing him on numerous TV programmes.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Yes.
Obviously not. Rather, the reverse is true. Science (the "modern western" attribution is nonsensical) is constrained to describe reality.
Since it does so, extremely successfully, and since it makes no allowance at all for gateways in wardrobes leading to magical worlds, we conclude that such things do not exist.
No.
It just doesn't exist.
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
Ian, your problem seems to be that Dawkins did not qualify his statement.
Fine, he was wrong not to do so. Are we done now?
Fine, he was wrong not to do so. Are we done now?
"Narnia type world".
And I would say that, so far, Ian have not achieve success in convincing all here that Dawkins meant "No Narnia type world".
Ian need to decide now his options:
(1) To continue to try to convince others about what he thinks Dawkins meant.
Or
(2) To continue to discuss about the existence of "Narnia type world"/"place like Narnia" and exclude any discussion about Dawkins' opinion.
Ian need to decide. Because ...
(1) he is the thread starter. And we ought to respect his intended areas of discussion.
(2) The thread title is "How do we know that places like Narnia do not exists?" Not "Did Dawkins ....." .
(3) If Ian err by placing counter-productive distraction of talking about Dawkins, he need to be aware and to stop it.
Ian, if you indeed do NOT want to talk about Dawkins. Then it would be your responsibility to define "places like Narnia" or "Narnia type world" so that fruitful discussion can be conducted.
"Places like Narnia" has to be defined by Ian or by Dawkins depending on Ian's intend. Since Dawkins isn't here, it is meaningless to get Dawkins to define it. And thus it falls on Ian shoulder to define it.
We should all wait for Ian to give us an anchor to the definition of "place like Narnia".
Ian asserted that Dawkins referred to "No Narnia type world exists" when Dawkins asserted that "(there is) No Narnia". What Dawkins really meant, have to be verified by Dawkins. Since Dawkins isn't here, it won't be useful to speculate.
And I would say that, so far, Ian have not achieve success in convincing all here that Dawkins meant "No Narnia type world".
Ian need to decide now his options:
(1) To continue to try to convince others about what he thinks Dawkins meant.
Or
(2) To continue to discuss about the existence of "Narnia type world"/"place like Narnia" and exclude any discussion about Dawkins' opinion.
Ian need to decide. Because ...
(1) he is the thread starter. And we ought to respect his intended areas of discussion.
(2) The thread title is "How do we know that places like Narnia do not exists?" Not "Did Dawkins ....." .
(3) If Ian err by placing counter-productive distraction of talking about Dawkins, he need to be aware and to stop it.
Ian, if you indeed do NOT want to talk about Dawkins. Then it would be your responsibility to define "places like Narnia" or "Narnia type world" so that fruitful discussion can be conducted.
"Places like Narnia" has to be defined by Ian or by Dawkins depending on Ian's intend. Since Dawkins isn't here, it is meaningless to get Dawkins to define it. And thus it falls on Ian shoulder to define it.
We should all wait for Ian to give us an anchor to the definition of "place like Narnia".
Antiquehunter
Degenerate Gambler
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2005
- Messages
- 5,088
Actually - I don't think Dawkins should have to qualify every literary statement he prints in a book. A scientific declaration - absolutely. But IN MY OPINION - anyone reading Dawkins' works who sincerely believes that Narnia-type places may exist, or that it is relevant to allow for their existence using obscure logic (because of multiple universes etc...) is a nutbar.
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
Well that post was certainly all over the place. Careful. You keep throwing it into random gears like that and you'll ruin the transmission.
I think you're asking me for a list of all of the laws of physics and how a fantasy novel violates each of them. Grown ups have better things to do with their time. If you want a starting place, an ocean going vessel cannot fit inside a wardrobe. If you need more than that, you're on your own.
As for your random name dropping of some particular novel by Sawyers, why does it matter? It's a book. It's not real. Maybe you'll have to cry yourself to sleep a few nights at that revelation, but you'll get over it like you got over Santa not being real. Or did I just ruin that for you, too?
Ignoring that bit of pedantry and moving on to the bit about the universe not being obligated to follow the laws of physics the evil European closed minded devils invented just to restrict you free thinkers (translating what you meant by "western science" there,) if you can show me an instance of reality not conforming to the laws of physics, we'll talk. Until then, I'll be busy with the rest of the scientists trying to learn more and make our world a better place (you know, the REAL world. Not Narnia.)
Last edited:
Yeah_Right
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2002
- Messages
- 638
Well, approaching this from another direction, we can assume that Dawkins thought about the existence of Narnia like worlds, and given the lack of evidence, he concluded there are no Narnia like worlds. Just like any sane adult would.
Even if there were such worlds, how would we get to them? Unless there was some sort of inter-dimensional device that created a portal to these other worlds. I'm not really talking magic here, more of something based on physics and science of course. But such a machine is extremely unlikely, rather like a wardrobe created from a magical apple tree. But assuming the worlds are magical, I think it's safe to assume they don't exist. My reason for saying this? Lack of evidence. And, of course, there's no way to say that magic even exists let alone using it to travel to other realms.
Even if there were such worlds, how would we get to them? Unless there was some sort of inter-dimensional device that created a portal to these other worlds. I'm not really talking magic here, more of something based on physics and science of course. But such a machine is extremely unlikely, rather like a wardrobe created from a magical apple tree. But assuming the worlds are magical, I think it's safe to assume they don't exist. My reason for saying this? Lack of evidence. And, of course, there's no way to say that magic even exists let alone using it to travel to other realms.
Belz...
Fiend God
Interesting Ian said:
As it's been explained to you, although it is POSSIBLE that Narnia exists, assuming there are an infinity of other universes covering all possible laws and configurations, there is simply no evidence that there ARE other universes, or that there specifically is a NARNIA. Until such evidence is shown, it is reasonable to conclude that it does not exist. Otherwise we'd be believing in every piece of fiction even thought up. Get it ?
The half-decent argument for the non-existence of Narnia (and any other wardrobe bound universes) is that we have yet to detect even the smallest shred of evidence for them. The only reason we might think they exist at all is because some guy said "Hey! This would be a neat way to write an allegory about Jesus."
It's certainly possible that there multiple fantastic universes in each bit of furninture. But until we we find some reason to think they actually are there (as opposed to finding ways to dance around all the stuff we know about how the universe works in hope of finding a kingdom in the cupboard), my money sits firmly on "Narnia doesn't exist."
It's certainly possible that there multiple fantastic universes in each bit of furninture. But until we we find some reason to think they actually are there (as opposed to finding ways to dance around all the stuff we know about how the universe works in hope of finding a kingdom in the cupboard), my money sits firmly on "Narnia doesn't exist."
One of the principle points about Narnia type worlds is that people can spontainously travel there, disappearing from this world for a short time before they reapear here.
This is, obviously, what violates our known laws of physics, not that some universe may exist which doesn't follow them.
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,866
Please, try to engage your memory. When I asked if Dawkins had to proclaim his lack of infinite knowledge, to keep you from interpreting his statement as a claim that he DID have infinite knowledge, you said that he meant what he said. I'm asking now if that is a universal standard--if language disclaiming infinite knowledge must be appended to statements that are known for all practical purposes to be true, but cannot be disproven without infinite knowledge.
THAT is what I want you to respond to--can someone say "The Easter Bunny doesn't exist"... or do they have to say "The Easter Bunny doesn't exist, but only as far as we know, in this infinite universe somewhere there could be an Easter Bunny."?
Tricky
Briefly immortal
