Do Faeries exist?

[MindOverMatter]

I don’t believe in faeries. They are, however, at least as plausible as giraffes or coelacanths (if we think of faeries as material entities). If we think of them as non-material entities which may assume visible embodiment, my attitude is: Haven’t seen one. Yet.

Sorry to butt in, but can i just add a statement to your post?
Im going to rudely assume you would say yes!

What alot of people fail to understand about comparing fairy tales with God, is that God as a concept has a causal significance; There are things about reality that seem intelligent and contrived, so it is only natural to concieve of a personal cuase that brought all things in to being.
But a fairy has absolutely no causal extention to reality, and so, no supporting evidence whatsoever. In light of this fact, i don’t think its fair to put such beings in the same catogories, since the only simerlarity they have is that they are said to be supernatural.
God is a more sophisticated concept.

 

[narrowpath]

Faeries…maybe god created them, maybe not.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
-Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5

 

[crowonsnow]

Sorry to butt in, but can i just add a statement to your post?
Im going to rudely assume you would say yes!

What alot of people fail to understand about comparing fairy tales with God, is that God as a concept has a causal significance; There are things about reality that seem intelligent and contrived, so it is only natural to concieve of a personal cuase that brought all things in to being.
But a fairy has absolutely no causal extention to reality, and so, no supporting evidence whatsoever. In light of this fact, i don’t think its fair to put such beings in the same catogories, since the only simerlarity they have is that they are said to be supernatural.
God is a more sophisticated concept.

What prevents a god taking the form of a fairy?

 

[narrowpath]

Or faeries from being created by God as caretakers or messengers?

 

[Dwyer]

This is a good question.

I have researched questions like this in the past.

My research can be summed up in the following answer:

It is a **philosophical possibility **that faeries exist, yet we just do not know of their existence.

I think to know conclusively whether faeries exist, one would have to visit ever galaxy, every planet in the universe, and even through different dimensions, in order to state absolutely, conclusively, slam dunk, and without a doubt 100% certitude, that faeries, as a matter of undisputible fact, do not exist.

So, we do not on this planet have any direct evidence that faeries exist.

But philosophically speaking, they could yet still exist.

Who knows, they could be living in a jungle on an island in the Indonesian Archipelego?

I know that sounds funny, but think about it.

Once, swans were thought to be all white; then, when Australia was discovered, black swans were discovered.

I guess everything comes down to a basic question: how do you actually “know” anything?

One could say there is no direct evidence of fairies.

But, philosophically speaking, one cannot say that there is absolutely no possibilty they do not exist in this Universe of ours.

We tend to analyze things from an empirical viewpoint because empiricism is one of the dominant philosophies in our society.

 

[crowonsnow]

This is a good question.

I have researched questions like this in the past.

My research can be summed up in the following answer:

It is a **philosophical possibility **that faeries exist, yet we just do not know of their existence.

I think to know conclusively whether faeries exist, one would have to visit ever galaxy, every planet in the universe, and even through different dimensions, in order to state absolutely, conclusively, slam dunk, and without a doubt 100% certitude, that faeries, as a matter of undisputible fact, do not exist.

So, we do not on this planet have any direct evidence that faeries exist.

But philosophically speaking, they could yet still exist.

Who knows, they could be living in a jungle on an island in the Indonesian Archipelego?

I know that sounds funny, but think about it.

Once, swans were thought to be all white; then, when Australia was discovered, black swans were discovered.

I guess everything comes down to a basic question: how do you actually “know” anything?

One could say there is no direct evidence of fairies.

But, philosophically speaking, one cannot say that there is absolutely no possibilty they do not exist in this Universe of ours.

We tend to analyze things from an empirical viewpoint because empiricism is one of the dominant philosophies in our society.

If fairies are possible, then is there anything that isn’t? Am I required to accept the possibility that my Granny is a visiting multi-headed invisible dragon from a parallel universe?

I think the practical benefit of such a thought is nothing more than the mental exercise it provides. It strengthens the brain, literally. Call it the ability to pretend. It’s just necessary. But is my Granny maybe really a dragon? Not hardly. Do I need to live with the possibility that she is? Certainly not.

 

[Dwyer]

If fairies are possible, then is there anything that isn’t? Am I required to accept the possibility that my Granny is a visiting multi-headed invisible dragon from a parallel universe?

I think the practical benefit of such a thought is nothing more than the mental exercise it provides. It strengthens the brain, literally. Call it the ability to pretend. It’s just necessary. But is my Granny maybe really a dragon? Not hardly. Do I need to live with the possibility that she is? Certainly not.

Yes, to simplify it, because I don’t have to much time, really anything is almost possible, philosophically speaking!

Man really knows very little about the Universe.

And man’s ideas about the Universe change.

First we had Ptolemy, then Copernicus, then Newton, and Einstein.

Our modern society has developed a belief system based on empiricism, pragmatism, and utilitarianism, and it ignores questions like the one that was asked.

How do you “know” anything for certain?

Because you believe it to be so.

Well, no, you are not required to accept the philosophical possibility you posed, but if you wanted to, you could,

 

[MindOverMatter]

What prevents a god taking the form of a fairy?

What is a fairy? It seems to me like you are adding images to God that cannot themselves be known to exist in light metaphysical anaylse (aided or otherwise), unless it is revealed through the light of Divine Revelation. The God of Abraham was simply known as “*** I am ***”. Simply put, God is identified by Christians as being the **Ultimate-Being **through which all possible beings come to exist. God is the ground of all being and thus has a causal connection to the Universe; and is as such that man can know of such a being through an inductive inference from those things which are understood by the natural light of human reason. We can know the kind of cause according to its effects (As dictated and demonstrated by Aquinas). Angels and Fairies on the other hand have an extra descriptive “contingent” characteristic that cannot be inferred “a-prior” or “a-posteriori” according to there natures (Unless of coarse you happen to see one), and so might as well not exist.

Christians accept the existence of angels, but only in respect of God creating them. We accept their existence by faith alone. For that reason, the concept of God is far superior to that of fairies and other folk tale characters, and that’s for the simple fact that one can build a metaphysical system of inference and logic around the concept of God. Therefore one cannot claim that the two concepts merit the same treatment of skepticism. It might very well be possible for God to use the image of a fairy to communicate to us, or even to create universes, but why not just create fairies as well as angels. Of course, I can’t rule the idea out, that God created angels and fairies or that God could not become one himself, since God can create any logically possible being. Not only that, God came to us in the form of the Messiah Jesus Christ.

 

[crowonsnow]

What is a fairy? It seems to me like you are adding images to God that cannot themselves be known to exist in light metaphysical anaylse (aided or otherwise), unless it is revealed through the light of Divine Revelation.But in the context of the discussion “divine” and “fairy” are identical in that they are not natural, not things that submit to observation and therefore not possessing predictable behavior, from a human perspective.

To differentiate between a supernatural god and a supernatural fairy is to enter into special pleading.

But again, I see all this as our imaginations at work, our brains doing their thing within the confines of natural selection.

 

[MindOverMatter]

But in the context of the discussion “divine” and “fairy” are identical in that they are not natural, not things that submit to observation and therefore not possessing predictable behavior, from a human perspective…

It is true that they share a similarity in the sense that they are thought to be “supernatural” in origin. However they differ in one vital respect; and the distinction is very real. First of all they both have different metaphysical functions of being; for lack of a better word.

God is described as “Ultimate Being” or Ultimate first Cause. The Christian has made that clear. But a fairy…a fairy has not been described as such, and if it was, the term would merely be another name for God. However, i not aware that “fairies” have been historically understood as ultimate beings or the Ground of being, or even the ultimate reality from which all beings become manifest. If the term fairy, lacks this clear definition and function, then it is a false comparison; and the same goes for angels or any other concept that is not understood in terms that describe in its entirety the “Christian God”. There is a big difference between the two.

In other words you have just invented a straw man of God by comparing the concept to a lesser being.

To differentiate between a supernatural god and a supernatural fairy is to enter into special pleading…

As i have shown in both posts, the concept of Supreme Being is as such that God can follow logically from the effects we see around us. Also, Gods nature has a huge and immediate effect on what and who we are as persons. God defines our ultimate purpose and end; not to mention the objective truthfulness of “universal moral statements”. The existence of God makes an infinite difference to our existence, for God ultimately defines it.

Fairies, Angels, Trolls, and Elf’s, on the other hand, make very little difference if at all; and, outside of God, it really wouldn’t matter to me whether or not they existed. They only exist contingently, and therefore require an ultimate being to bring them in to being before they can be supernatural or otherwise. They also need Divine Revelation in order to be known. Your attempts to identify fairies with ultimate reality, just doesn’t work.

But again, I see all this as our imaginations at work, our brains doing their thing within the confines of natural selection…

If you think that everything you are, do and say, is ultimately defined by chemical reactions in your brain in relation to objective stimulus—random or otherwise—then you are absolutely determined one way or another to think so. But please don’t expect me to take you seriously if you are nothing more then a bag of chemicals with only the illusion of self determination and creative personality.

Peace.

 

[cpayne]

**

If fairies are possible, then is there anything that isn’t? Am I required to accept the possibility that my Granny is a visiting multi-headed invisible dragon from a parallel universe?

I think the practical benefit of such a thought is nothing more than the mental exercise it provides. It strengthens the brain, literally. Call it the ability to pretend. It’s just necessary. But is my Granny maybe really a dragon? Not hardly. Do I need to live with the possibility that she is? Certainly not.

Well, to sort of repeat myself: Christians do not have non-supernaturalist presuppositions that such a thing is *a priori *impossible. However, most Christians do have the presupposition that our senses can be trusted, since they are God’s gift and our primary initial source of knowledge. So, since all our experience militates against your grandmother being a dragon (although I’ve never met her ), it’s fair to say by now that she is not, and you don’t have to live with that possibility.

As others have pointed out, the religious experience of God and the logical argument for God’s causal existence are different from the faery / dragon / unicorn / spaghetti monster / Santa Claus examples continually trotted out.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What of those who believed there entire lives, only to walk away in confusion and unbelief?

Are you suggesting that they " didn’t really believe"? If you are, that’s laughable.

If you’d sort out the formatting, I might be able to find the post ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi All,

As a philosphical pragmatist, I take the perspective that a belief is to be understood in terms of the real consequences of holding that belief. What are the consequences of believing in faeries? How does one behave who believes in them compared to one who does not? (This is really a question about God, right?)

Best,
Leela

How would you tell apart the following:​

• **someone who believes in the existence and activity of faeries **
• **someone too idle to do the housework **
  **If the same effect can follow from two or more different causes, does this not suggest a difficulty in pragmatism ? **

 

[Leela]

How would you tell apart the following:​

• **someone who believes in the existence and activity of faeries **
• **someone too idle to do the housework **
  **If the same effect can follow from two or more different causes, does this not suggest a difficulty in pragmatism ? **

Hi Gottle of Geer,

No, actually. In fact, pragmatism was invented to get us past such intractable metaphysical questions as free will versus fatalism and the like. The idea is to simply ask what the consequences of believing in one position or the other. If there is no difference, then they cash out to be the same thing. A difference must make a difference. One who believes in free will, for example, behaves no differently than one who does not, so the question is not really a question since there is no difference between the choices.

What does belief or disbelief in faeries do for you? Does belief in faeries help or hinder successful action? I can’t see how such a belief would be useful in any way.

Best,
Leela

 

[cpayne]

Hi Gottle of Geer,

No, actually. In fact, pragmatism was invented to get us past such intractable metaphysical questions as free will versus fatalism and the like. The idea is to simply ask what the consequences of believing in one position or the other. If there is no difference, then they cash out to be the same thing. A difference must make a difference. One who believes in free will, for example, behaves no differently than one who does not, so the question is not really a question since there is no difference between the choices.

What does belief or disbelief in faeries do for you? Does belief in faeries help or hinder successful action? I can’t see how such a belief would be useful in any way.

Best,
Leela

Okay, temporary hijacking here. Thread changed NOW (by faery magic?) from God’s existence (disguised as "faeries’ existence) to “problem with pragmatism.”

The problem with pragmatism is its limited view of the nature of truth. Let’s say I was in a burning building, ready to collapse. A child is in the corner—I can’t get her out, but she can come to me (because of her lighter weight). But she can’t move, because she’s terrified. So I tell her, “It’s all right, there’s no problem. There’s no danger. But I want you to come to me now.” Finally she comes to me and we both make it out of the building just before it collapses.

Did I lie to her?

Given the results-oriented nature of pragmatism, the answer would have to be “No, you told her the truth”—even though we all know that I DID lie to her.

This is the problem. Some things are true and some things are false, and knowing the difference is important, despite their seeming lack of “cash value” in pragmatic results.

Thread changed NOW (that faery magic sure comes in handy) back to “Do faeries exist?”

 

[Leela]

Hi Cpayne,

The problem with pragmatism is its limited view of the nature of truth. Let’s say I was in a burning building, ready to collapse. A child is in the corner—I can’t get her out, but she can come to me (because of her lighter weight). But she can’t move, because she’s terrified. So I tell her, “It’s all right, there’s no problem. There’s no danger. But I want you to come to me now.” Finally she comes to me and we both make it out of the building just before it collapses.

Did I lie to her?

Given the results-oriented nature of pragmatism, the answer would have to be “No, you told her the truth”—even though we all know that I DID lie to her.

Interesting example. This lie saved the girl’s life, but as I understand Catholic morality, lying to the girl in this case as in all cases is a sin. For the pragmatist who does not concern herself with moral principles and instead tries to maximize human flourishing within an ever changing context, the behavior you described is moral.

This is the problem. Some things are true and some things are false, and knowing the difference is important, despite their seeming lack of “cash value” in pragmatic results.

Thread changed NOW (that faery magic sure comes in handy) back to “Do faeries exist?”

Pragmatists don’t have any problem saying that some things are true and others are false. We just say that “true” and “false” and all other such descriptors of sentences are understood in practice rather than as essences. In other words, I can’t make any sense of Truth independent of what we are saying is true.

Pragmatism isn’t about being pragmatic in the sense of being practical but rather it is about looking at meaning, values, facts, etc. in practice. Doing so can be helpful in dissolving a lot of metaphysical disputes.

For example, this dispute about faeries doesn’t seem to mean anything in practice. A pragmatist may say that it is not worth discussing. But this discussion is really about God, isn’t it?

Best,
Leela

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi Gottle of Geer,

No, actually. In fact, pragmatism was invented to get us past such intractable metaphysical questions as free will versus fatalism and the like. The idea is to simply ask what the consequences of believing in one position or the other. If there is no difference, then they cash out to be the same thing. A difference must make a difference. One who believes in free will, for example, behaves no differently than one who does not, so the question is not really a question since there is no difference between the choices.

This states part of the problem, without answering it.​

What does belief or disbelief in faeries do for you? Does belief in faeries help or hinder successful action? I can’t see how such a belief would be useful in any way.

Best,
Leela

That doesn’t answer the question - it dodges it ​

I am not sure. The question as I see it, is whether the universe is a faery-containing one.

Have you read Braithwaite ?

 

[Leela]

This states part of the problem, without answering it.​

That doesn’t answer the question - it dodges it ​

I am not sure. The question as I see it, is whether the universe is a faery-containing one.

Have you read Braithwaite ?

HI Gottle,

I certainly don’t want to dodge any questions. Can you let me know what you think I didn’t answer? (Of course, I don’t believe in faeries if that is what you are wondering. But this thread isn’t really about faeries, is it?)

I haven’t read Braithwaite. Is there something you’d like to tell me about him or her?

Best,
Leela

 

[LegoGE1947]

Fairy lore is inconsistent, unorganized, and largely anectodal. Fairies are not a necessary factor to the existence of the universe. Their existence cannot be deduced from pure logic. Nobody died in defense of the faith in fairies. I have not had current personal experience of fairies, nor know of anyone else who has within my immediate family, within my social circles, or even within the scope of current events.

We do however, believe in a spiritual realm that sometimes manifests in our physical realm. Sometimes these are angels confused as something else. Sometimes these are something much more malicious masquerading as something else to deceive and harm the sons and daughters of men.

Are we talking about the fairies who live in San Francisco?

 

[LegoGE1947]

Oh in that sense people have seen faeries too, but we usually say they are delusional or hallucinating… People who have “seen” god should really then go and see a psychologist.

The Bible says no one has ever seen God and lived. so I’d say these people specially televangelists who so glibly speak of encounters with God should read their Bibles a little closer specially some of the scriptures they may not agree with!