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

[Interesting Ian]

Perhaps we need to backtrack a bit then. I disagree with this primary assertion on which you base your entire discussion. I don't think it's apparent at all that Dawkins believed he knew with certainty that no Narnia-type worlds exist, based solely on that single statement. This would probably be a good starting point. Perhaps you can go into detail your reason for making this assertion. No doubt you will claim it obvious, and declare any that disagree as doo-doo heads, but I fail to find another single supporter of this assertion in this entire discussion. Perhaps you need to convince at least one person that Dawkins did believe such a thing, so that you may then properly argue with them that he was wrong to do so.

What's this 'know with certainty' that you're talking about?? Why is it so difficult for people to understand that I am not saying that he or anyone else is stating that it is impossible Narnia type worlds exist; nor am I saying that he or anyone else is stating that they know with certainty that Narnia type worlds do not exist.

Does no-one actually read any of my posts at all?? I'm becoming more and more convinced that they don't because I cannot believe that it is possible for people to so comprehensively misunderstand.

I am not saying that we can interpret Dawkins as saying it is impossible that such worlds exist. Nor am I saying he is saying that we know with certainty that such worlds do not exist. He is saying we know that Narnia and other such similar type of worlds do not exist.

Here is the original extract from the website I quoted:

He said:

"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.”

or the original version:

"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. But there are also no devils, no hellfire, no wicked witches, no ghosts, no haunted houses, no daemonic possession, no bogeymen or ogres. Yes, Teddy and Dolly turn out not to be really alive"

Now, first of all when he says "seem" he is intending to point out that the world as revealed by science is a wonderous place. He is not trying, as one or two of you have suggested, to say that we have some reasons to doubt that Narnia, fairies etc do not exist.

Yes it does seem to be that Dawkins is giving a definitive statement that Narnia type worlds do not exist, or in other words we know that they do not exist (but not know with certainty or that it is impossible such worlds could exist). What he's doing is providing a list of things most likely we believed as children, but which we now recognise do not exist. He specifically says "Yes, Teddy and Dolly turn out not to be really alive". So that's quite clear. And also he says "But there are also no devils, no hellfire, no wicked witches, no ghosts, no haunted houses, no daemonic possession, no bogeymen or ogres". So he's giving a definitive statement that teddy and Dolly are not alive, and that there are no such things as hellfire, wicked witches, ghosts, haunted houses, daemonic possession, bogeymen or ogres. I have emphasised the word "also" so as to make it clear that he must also be holding that fairies, Father Christmas, Toyland, Narnia, Happy Hunting Ground, and angels also do not exist, otherwise he would not have employed the word "also".

Now it has been argued that he only meant the specific Narnia and not any other worlds very similar to it. But as I pointed out before, this interpretation is absurd. If we follow this line of reasoning this would also mean that he meant a specific Toyland and not other "toylands" where toys are alive and speak. And he only meant Teddy and Dolly are not alive, but Barbie might well be. I submit that this is an utterly absurd interpretation. For the people who think that I would advise you never to read any books because you would just systematically misunderstand everything that is said!

So, it appears to be he is giving a definitive statement that none of these type of things exist. This equates to a statement of knowledge.

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
I'm saying that we don't know whether any Narnia type world exists or not. Everybody else is saying either they do know or they are saying that it's overwhelmingly probable that no such type of world exists. I feel that such a world doesn't exist, but I deny that we can say that we either know it, or can claim that it's overwhelming improbable (how does one calculate probabilities in such a scenario??). Their justification for their position is that you cannot prove that Narnia type worlds do not exist.

Petre
Given your reply earlier, I find this bolded part of your statement superfluous and intentionally misleading, as you have already made clear no one has said this.

Not only have I not made it clear, this is just an outright lie. I said that no-one has said that it is impossible that Narnia type worlds should exist.

The problem here is that not one single person arguing against me understands the difference between knowing something does not exist, and saying it is impossible it does not exist!

As to your final exasperation about probability, understand it this way. There are three possible scenarios for such a world:

1. There is not now, nor will there ever be any interaction between our existance and that world.
2. Interaction is one way. Specifically, we can travel from this existance to that world, but cannot return (e.g. an afterlife).

I believe we can return from the afterlife. I believe in reincarnation.

3. There is some possible interaction between our existance and that world.

Case 1 is resistant to any probability examination, but is also uninteresting,

Speak for yourself. I don't find it uninteresting at all!

since there is absolutely nothing more do discuss about such a world.

Do you wanna bet??

I'm sure this is painful for some, for such a wonderous world to be discarded out of hand just because it can never be touched, but that is how adults deal with things with no relation to themselves.

As I keep saying, the fact that it is wholly undetectable gives no reason whatsoever to suppose it doesn't exist.

Case 2 is also resistant to any probability examination, but is discarded as uninteresting by skeptics. Their focus is on examining this existance, and the examination of others can wait until this one is finished.

You skeptic guys certainly seem to enjoy discussing uninteresting things! How many posts are there in this thread so far?

 

[clarsct]

Prove it.

 

[Jon.]

So, it appears to be he is giving a definitive statement that none of these type of things exist. This equates to a statement of knowledge.

Yes, Ian, it is a statement of knowledge. And if you would read the book instead of just picking bits from other people's reviews, you would see why Dawkins says he knows these things don't exist, and the degree of certainty he ascribes to that knowledge. No, I'm not going to post it all here - it takes a whole book!

Now, go away and read the book. Then, if you have any questions about what it says, come back and ask them. Until then, have a nice shutup.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Ian,

Get a life.


Everyone else,

Stop feeding trolls.

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
So, it appears to be he is giving a definitive statement that none of these type of things exist. This equates to a statement of knowledge.


Jon
Yes, Ian, it is a statement of knowledge.

WOW! Thank you!

That's one I've finally convinced, just a million to go!

 

[Interesting Ian]

Dawkins
But there are also no devils, no hellfire, no wicked witches . . .

Now we'll probably get some skeptics saying he's only saying wicked witches don't exist, but that good witches might well exist

 

[ChaosEngineer]

Facts about Narnia

“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.”

The claim here isn't that Narnia doesn't exist. It's that Narnia is physically inaccessible from "the adult world".

1. Even if Narnia existed off in L-space or where-ever, there's no practical way of getting there from the Earth. Therefore Dawkins's claim is true.

2. Even if it had been possible to get to Narnia from Earth, it wouldn't be possible today, because Narnia experienced Armageddon and Judgement Day in 1956 and no longer exists. (Source: "The Last Battle") Therefore Dawkins's claim is true.

3. Even if Narnia still existed, it wouldn't be accessible from "the adult world", because the books make it clear that only children can travel from Earth to Narnia. Therefore Dawkins's claim is true.

 

[Interesting Ian]

The claim here isn't that Narnia doesn't exist. It's that Narnia is physically inaccessible from "the adult world".

Eh??

{sobs quietly}

1. Even if Narnia existed off in L-space or where-ever, there's no practical way of getting there from the Earth. Therefore Dawkins's claim is true.

Yeah, good ol' Dawkin's!

2. Even if it had been possible to get to Narnia from Earth, it wouldn't be possible today, because Narnia experienced Armageddon and Judgement Day in 1956 and no longer exists. (Source: "The Last Battle") Therefore Dawkins's claim is true.

It also made clear that the more true real Narnia exists in the afterlife.

3. Even if Narnia still existed, it wouldn't be accessible from "the adult world", because the books make it clear that only children can travel from Earth to Narnia. Therefore Dawkins's claim is true.

No, Aslan only allowed children to enter Narnia.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Now, who's the silly boy here?

 

[Z]

I think Ian is drunk again...

It also made clear that the more true real Narnia exists in the afterlife.

What the f...?

 

[Ducky]

I think Ian is drunk again...



What the f...?

See?! I'm not the only one that thinks Ian posts while getting sloshed!!!


Ian: Please give sobriety a try.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I think Ian is drunk again...



What the f...?

Apart from Susan all the characters in all the books died in the last book. They entered the real true Narnia and saw the real true England where only the good things are preserved.

Am I the only one who has actually read the books??

 

[Jeff Corey]

I surely hope so. They sound like a load of tripe. With a delicate sauce of lark's vomit.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Apart from Susan all the characters in all the books died in the last book. They entered the real true Narnia and saw the real true England where only the good things are preserved.

Am I the only one who has actually read the books??

Here ya go. This is from the last couple of pages from the last book:

"Why!" exclaimed Peter. "It's England. And that's the house itself - Professor Kirk's old home in the country where all our adventures began!"
"I thought that house had been destroyed," said Edmund.

"So it was," said the Faun. "But you are now looking at the England within England, the real England just as this is the real Narnia. And in that inner England no good thing is destroyed."

. . . . . .

Then Aslan turned to them and said:

"You do not yet look so happy as I mean you to be."

Lucy said, "We're so afraid of being sent away, Aslan. And you have sent us back into our own world so often."

"No fear of that," said Aslan. "Have you not guessed?"

Their hearts leaped and a wild hope rose within them.

"There was a real railway accident," said Aslan softly. "Your father and mother and all of you are - as you used to call it in the Shadowlands - dead. The term is over: the holidays have begun. The dream is ended: this is the morning."

 

[PixyMisa]

Here ya go. This is from the last couple of pages from the last book:

Yep.

As you might guess, that pissed me off enormously. Hurrah! We're all dead!

Feh.

Now, back to statements of knowledge.

Any generalised statement about the real world is arrived at inductively. You can't know everything, so you follow what you do know. As I said, there is, so far, no evidence that magic or magical worlds exist; none whatsoever. And we have looked. Oh, how we have looked.

Further, if there were magic or magical worlds, what we think we know of how the Universe really works would be wrong - and yet, we have tested our knowledge countless times, and it isn't wrong. (At least, not in such a way as would permit magic.)

So there is no magic, and there are no magical worlds that interact with our Universe. Same thing, really. Inductively.

As for magical worlds that don't interact with our Universe; they don't exist. By definition. They are imaginary. That's it. To exist is to interact; they don't; therefore they don't.

This doesn't apply to galaxies beyond the edge of the observable Universe, because although they are not causally connected to us now, we can infer their existence from the properties of the Universe. We don't just make them up; we don't assume they are there because they are possible; we have physical evidence that the Universe is larger than we can observe. (Which sounds weird, I agree.)

 

[ChaosEngineer]

"Why!" exclaimed Peter. "It's England. And that's the house itself - Professor Kirk's old home in the country where all our adventures began!"
"I thought that house had been destroyed," said Edmund.

"So it was," said the Faun. "But you are now looking at the England within England, the real England just as this is the real Narnia. And in that inner England no good thing is destroyed."

Obviously the real Narnia and England are the complete ones. The Faun is talking about a sanitized parody of those two lands, with all the dangerous or questionable stuff removed, and the empty spaces filled with anachronisms like Professor Kirk's old house. The whole thing sounds sort of like Disneyland on a larger scale.

It's better than nothing, but I don't see how we can call it 'Narnia'.

 

[Beleth]

Certainly not for this idealist/theist.

Really?

You don't find the thought that everything you have ever experienced, all the friends you have made, all your loved ones, all the things you find the most joy in, etc. are just figments of your imagination -- or worse that they are all figments of someone else's imagination -- to be utterly depressing?

It's just about the most depressing thought I can think of. And I don't logically see any other conclusion to be had from idealism.

But, to each his own, I suppose.

 

[Z]

Thanks for clarifying, Ian. It's been 15 years or more since I read the Chronicles.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Really?

You don't find the thought that everything you have ever experienced, all the friends you have made, all your loved ones, all the things you find the most joy in, etc. are just figments of your imagination -- or worse that they are all figments of someone else's imagination -- to be utterly depressing?

It's just about the most depressing thought I can think of. And I don't logically see any other conclusion to be had from idealism.

But, to each his own, I suppose.

That should be more likely the conclusion of a materialist based metaphysic. I can infer the existence of peoples' minds from the movement of their bodies because I recognise consciousness is causally efficacious in and of itself. The materialist believes that everything anyone ever does or says is the result of physical laws playing out. Thus people would act and say precisely as they do even if nobody was ever conscious (which is why the materialist has to say that certain appropriate physical events logically necessitate consciousness -- a thesis which is patently false).