Science AND Faith in Middle-earth

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Over in Mirth and Novices and Newcomers there were two threads (here and here) very recently begun about the discovery of a now extinct race of hominid that scientists have dubbed the ‘hobbit.’ In response to that discovery, I put up the following post (the reason for quoting it again will become clear further on…I hope):

First, a clarification: I have already said in that other, more mirthful thread on this topic, that my father is an “evolutionary biologist.” Well, before somebody calls me on this, let me quickly say that such a formulation is rather redundant: it’s like saying a “flying pilot” or a “teaching professor” insofar as the study of biology (the study of living organisms) is, by definition, the study of evolution (how those organisms have changed through time). My father is, more properly, an endocrinologist, zoologist and comparative anatomist; he is also deeply interested and well-versed in the theory of natural selection.

(Parenthetical Comment: I usually try not to be too overtly provocative or confrontational, but on this one point I will be. . .pre-emptively so. If there are any creationists reading this, please don’t waste your time and mine by trying to argue that evolution is wrong, or didn’t happen, or whatever it may be that you try to argue. Evolution is a fact. I will not say anything about this ever again in the Downs, either in forum or via PM, so if you want to fight with someone about this, go find somebody else.)

This is why I find this discovery and the subsequent discussions in this thread to be so interesting, for it has got me to thinking about the evolution of the peoples in Middle-Earth. We all know how careful Tolkien was to get it ‘right’ in the creation of his secondary world: that it have and obey its internal laws, but that it be compatible with the laws of the primary world. Well, I think – either by dint of extreme care, foresight or luck – he has given us a world in which the theory of natural selection is borne out perfectly!

At the end of the Third Age, all of the talking races in Middle-Earth are in decline, except for Men. The reasons for this are wonderfully in line with natural selection: Men are not ‘better’ than the other races in any way; they are not aggressively wiping out the other races, nor are they in direct competition with them for resources. All of these views are traditional and widespread misinterpretations of what Darwin meant when he said “survival of the fittest.” What that oft-quoted, rarely understood phrase actually means is that those species that are better suited to their environment will have a better chance of reproducing than those that are not. The “fitness” is not a measure between species, but between a species and its environment. This is where I get to Tolkien:

At the end of the Third Age, the Elves are dwindling because they are no longer suited to the environment of Middle-earth. The magical woods and glades that housed them are disappearing; in fact, the realms that they are suited for disappeared at the end of the First Age, but little islands were created by a few powerful Elves to keep the culture alive. With the loss of these islands, there is no longer an environment suitable for Elf habitation, and thus they disappear. They might have had a chance to survive in M-E longer, but for their very low rate of reproduction; without being able to create new offspring who might be willing or able to move into new environments, they are doomed to pass with the passing of their natural habitat.

Much the same is true for the Dwarves. Their habitats, in addition to being scarce (mountains with caves and rich veins of ore) are also dependent upon a limited resource. What happens with the mines of their realms are used up? They also seem to suffer from the same low reproduction rates as do the Elves, this time from a scarcity of Dwarven women.

Hobbits are an interesting case. They have high rates of reproduction (c.f. Rose Cotton!) and are eminently suited to a variety of habitats in Middle-Earth. Their downfall is that they are unwilling or unable to leave the Shire. The Fell Winter nearly wiped them out, but there is no evidence that any of them left to colonise new environments. Hobbits are the perfect example of a species that is the victim of its own success. Sometimes it will happen in a stable environment that a species will become so well adapted to it, that they can no longer dissociate themselves from it without going extinct. So just like the new ‘hobbit’ species discovered in Indonesia, Tolkien’s Hobbits are trapped by the Shire as much as they are protected by it. For as long as the Shire is there, they will do fine. But as soon as there is an ice age, or a volcano or even an extended period of drought or rain brought on by climactic shift, they are doomed. And if there is one thing that evolution has taught us, there is no such thing as an eternally stable environment. Change is the order of the day.

And this is why Men do so well in the Fourth Age. With the passing of Sauron and the Noldor, the stasis that had been maintained in certain parts of Middle-Earth goes with it, and change begins to accumulate at an increasing rate. The Elves see their environment disappear, the Dwarves, presumably, consume their limited resources and are pushed into an ever narrower and smaller niche in pursuit of what they need, and the Hobbits remain in the Shire, growing ever closer to it until they share its fate. Only Men are equipped to survive because they are the only ones who are adapted to live in every environment in Middle-Earth. Think about this: like Elves they are happy in places like Ithilien; like Hobbits they do well in richly rolling hills (Bree, and environs); like the Dwarves they work well in mountains and with stone (Minas Tirith; the Hornburg); and they even inhabit environments that the others shun (the grasslands of Rohan).

I write all this not just to talk about evolution (which would be reason enough) but to point out just how surprisingly true to life Tolkien’s imagined world is, even in ways he does not intend it to be. Tolkien’s view of his peoples is clearly and explicitly creationist, but he is so careful an observer of life, and so particular a creator of life-forms, that they follow the established laws of the primary world (evolution)! Is it any wonder, then, that we should find that the primary world has creatures in it that not only resemble his imagined beings, but that they shared the same fate? Remember, the ‘hobbits’ of Indonesia, like the Hobbits of the Shire, were victims of their own success: they had become so perfectly adapted to their environment , that they were unable to spread beyond it (there were no other islands nearby with Komodo dragons and little food resources), and were thus totally wiped out when that environment was!

Hope my Dad will be proud of me for this!

As a follow up to this post, Heren-Istarion and I had a brief exchange of PMs in which we discussed how neither of us like to think in terms of religion versus science. The way H-I put it was that science is wonderful at working through the hows but not so much the whys, which is why both are necessary.

So this got me to thinking about fantasy worlds in general and Middle-earth in particular. What is the relation between imagined worlds peopled by magical beings, and science? Is it possible to develop a science of Middle-earth? There are geologic features and life forms that grow and develop according to the laws of nature (as we understand them). There are stars and planets and a moon, all of which adhere to the laws of physics; there is gravity and weather (meteorology) – but there are Balrogs, and wizards, and Rings that turn people invisible… Is Middle-Earth, in some sense, unscientific? Is the “magic” that motivates so many of its creatures and events nonrational?

Another way to think about it is this: are there things about the ‘reality’ of Middle-earth that are essentially based upon a “mystery” in the sense that they are unknowable, rather than not-known-yet. To what extent do we have to take Middle-earth on faith, and to what extent can we reconcile what we find there with the laws of science (again, as we know them)?

As a last thought, I would like to quote the final sentences of Darwin’s The Origin of Species:

Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

I have always found this sentiment fascinating, and touching. Even as Darwin concluded the work that was to set off one of the most heated debates about the validity of religious explanations of life, he did so by appealing to that God that many of his followers were determined to do away with: “having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one.” Darwin maintained until his death that his theory of natural selection was not opposed to a view of the universe that includes God; in fact, he found evolution and Christianity to be complementary.

Now, as I have said elsewhere, I do not want to touch of a debate about evolution! I have cited this passage instead to point out how the questions that I am posing about Middle-earth are not really unique to fantastic realms. Even in the primary world we are always working between two ways of seeing things: a “religious” way that bases itself upon revelation and mystery; and a “scientific” way that bases itself upon experimentation and reason. How does our encounter with Middle-earth help us work through these two ‘ways of seeing’? Is Middle-earth a mysterious dream? A rational experience? Some hybrid of the two? Is it understandable through the laws of science in the primary world, or does it operate according to its own rules? Are those rules rational/scientific? Non-rational/mysterious? Or some combination thereof?

[Boromir88]

I have no idea if this is what you are looking for, but I'll take a crack at it. First off, I think we have to make a distinction between the Science of Middle-Earth, and the Science of our time. In Middle-Earth, we have Balrogs, Wizards, talking swords, talking spiders, of course none of these are "scientific" or "proven" in our own time. However, they are "proven" in Middle-Earth. So, I think we have to look at the "Science of Middle-earth," and talk about it within the books/fantasy style realm, not within our own view, of that Balrogs don't exist.

I think to answer the questions between "Science" and "Magic" we have to look at Galadriel's words in "Mirror of Galadriel."

"And you?" She said, turning to Sam. "For this is what your folk would call magic , I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy."

To Galadriel, the Mirror of Galadriel, isn't magic, to non-magical beings (Sam) it is. For something that can't be explained by humans, we term it "miracle," or "magic." However, Galadriel isn't familiar with this term. So, to her, the Mirror of Galadriel isn't magic? Is it science? Let's look at some other Elvish items, The elven-cloaks, lembas, Miruvor. These too, would be considered "magical." But, Galadriel would term it something else. Again, is this science? Did the elves, examine, study, come up with water, food, cloaks, to feed and replenish the body, or to discover a form of invisibility?

P.S. I hope that's what you are looking for.

[Kransha]

Hybrid, baby, all the way...

*cough*

You pose a fascinating question (as always) and, for once, I'm gonna reply before the situation has gotten away from me. Lemme see what I can do, without sparking non-Tolkien controversy. The Lord of the Rings itself is neither fantastically magical (i.e. surrealistic, devoid of reality), or scientifically rational (i.e. fully based in fact, down-to-earth, understandable). It is magical more than scientific, but I believe that is more appropriate to stray away from the words 'science' and 'evolution' when speaking about Arda. Neither are applicable, though they are present. Middle-Earth posesses many sorts of magic, and many sorts of science, and many sorts of scientific magic as well.

All fantasy, of sorts, is based somewhere in science, unless it is fantasy to a certain degree. Perhaps the Valaquenta, of The Silmarillion, is not quite scientific, or even grounded in our degrees of reality, but it acts more as a creative, symbolic prelude, and explanation for the world we have become acquainted with, using the basic sciences of religious elements. I will not be so curt and unfeeling as to say, simply, that "religion is a science," even though I believe that, in a certain way, it is. Faith is the essence of religion, and religion itself is the science of faith, fantasy, which grounds it so that it can be understood. Fantasy, therefore, must be scientifically grounded, or else it is senseless. It is things like James Joyce's Ulysses: a stream-of-consciousness work that is less real, that distances itself from science as much as possible, or at least wordly science, and attempts to apply science to the mind (some think Joyce failed, others think he succeeded; I, though, am rather dismissive of the work's philosophies, but I'll save such debate for another time). If something is not at all scientific, and not at all rational, that is ceases to be workable fantasy, that can be related to, and becomes to surreal. Surrealism, in streaks or bounds, can be done, but if the water is not tread upon carefully, it will become cold and distant to the recipient.

Science and mentality function together in philosophy, which is, in essence, mental science, or, the science of a fantastic world. The two premier philosophies of Ancient Times, from which modern philosophies are oft derived, were Empiricism, primarily the brainchild of Aristotle, and Idealism, which was mainly flesed out by Socrates, and recorded by his student, Plato. These two philosophies are both sciences, but clear and total opposites. Aristotle's empiricism entails only physical objectivity, that only what can be experienced via the five human senses is truly real. Idealism, however, is the science of analyzing what cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt, but what can be thought. In many ways, Tolkien is filled with a kind of idealism. I do not know, personally if Tolkien was a Socratic Oxford Don, but even if he wasn't, all fantasy bears, in some regard, a bit of idealism, because it appeals to the deeper sciences of the human mind, the kind that cannot be simply learnt from a stingy textbook of over three-hundred pages, the kind that cannot be alphabetized and looked up in a cleverly, but scientifically worded glossary that would not appeal to lamens.

Of course (I use these two words entirely too much) Middle-Earth is realistic, and fantastic, and scientific, and rational. But, there is a marvellous prowess and advantage that it has over all fantasies that came after, besides its obvious originality in comparison. There are rules in Middle-Earth, but they are often not so clear and absolute, and potent, as to be stifling. The Eldar have Laws and Customs, Councils are formed, oaths are taken, things are done that cannot be undone, and thus are set in stone, but they are rules that a normal world must have, and they do not put boundaries on the preternatural beauty of the world. The science of Middle-Earth is the science that must be there. But that does not make it any less fantastic, it simply makes it real. Tolkien is not escapism, it is idealism, to some, metaphor, to others, high-culture, to a chosen literate few who may be present, lurking like proverbial Illuminati in the wings of our fair site, waiting to pounce upon us ignorant dis-adherants.

J.K.Rowling, author of the highly acclaimed Harry Potter series, of which I have mentioned before, wrote a great couple of books, a couple of books that has gathered about them a following like few others, and a generation behind...But, the rules and science of Rowling can become redundant, and it is reduced to generic fantasy, no matter who delving or well-written. This is, perhaps, why it is not as appealing to adults as to children, like the Tolkien literary armada. Mumbling funnily stated spells, that, over time, gain meaning in our hearts, may be flashy, and a good memory aid. But, did you feel the same pang in your heart the first time that youthful sorceror uttered the words "Expelliarmus," as when "he [Gandalf] raised his hand and from it a shaft of white light stabbed upward!" (RotK, The Siege of Gondor). I did not, (though I was not exactly 'impressed' by the quality of those books under any circumstance, regardless of what I may have said to the contrary).

Is not mythology, on a whole, an attempt to apply science to reality, fantastic as it is? Today, the concept of a falcon-headed deity, Horus, taking revenge on his donkey-headed uncle, Seth, for the wanton mutilation of his divine father, Osiris, who was later ressurected in a rather bizarre ritual, seems a bit farfetched, but the people of Ancient Egypt put their stock in that. The Book of the Dead, which is today merely a cobweb collecting volume of ludicrous pagan rites, was their Biology 101 Textbook, as well as their History, Sociology, Anthropology, and Literature Handbook. They had their petty beliefs, which are today fantasies, irrational an unequivocal, but those fantasies were once sciences. Who knows? Someday, all that we have worked to uncover about our lives may be considered a load of irrelevant bunk and drivel by the intelligent world. We examine the rationality of our fantasy so that we may understand ourselves and the worlds that exist beyond frog dissection and the minute filaments of knottgrass beneath a 10x lens. It was, in fact, Socrates himself who said: "An unexamined life is not worth living."

Woah, I...think...I got a bit off topic there. Oh well, nobody's perfect.

[Boromir88]

I must say you approach this topic wonderfully Kransha.

Nice points about Idealism, Surrealism, and mythology. For indeed they are all sciences.

There are rules in Middle-Earth, but they are often not so clear and absolute, and potent, as to be stifling. The Eldar have Laws and Customs, Councils are formed, oaths are taken, things are done that cannot be undone, and thus are set in stone,

Don't forget the government system of the Hobbits. Or the government system of Middle-Earth in general. There is an indeed set of rules for certain races of Middle-Earth. For example, the Lothlorien Elves, have their laws (and Haldir calls them "laws") about seeing the Lady of the Wood, with dwarves...etc.

I think a clear cut example of Middle-Earth science would be the sets of records in Minas Tirith. The records Gandalf gets to discover about the Ring of Power, much of these are lore and tales of old. Some are accurate, some are inaccurate, yet scientific documentation, none the less.

You obviously have a broader view of science then me. Science I've viewed as, a way to explain how we came up with what we got today. For example why dinosaurs are extinct, how humans appeared, these are more "scientific theories," then proven "scientifical facts." Then religion, would be a way to explain the unexplainable, maybe explain why we have emotions? Why we die? Anyway, to my point, Kransha, you have just broadened my view of religion. For I think science and religion are meshed together. Religion has it's own "scientific theories" of how we got, what we got today. A clear example, as you've mentioned, is mythology. For mythology, indeed is a science (you have the -ology), but it is also religion. It's what the greeks, egyptians, romans...etc, believed in their time. It's all they knew at the time, so they created this "theory" based on what they knew to try to prove how that became so. But their "Science of mythology" was intermingled with religion, since it deals with the worshipping of gods, and deals with a certain faith of what you have.

Eventhough, Science and Religion can be interchanged, there is also a line between them, and there are times when you can't interchange them. There is a clear difference between "Scientific theories," and "Scientific facts." The facts are the facts, and will stay as facts. The fact that their are humans today, and dinosaurs not, that's scientific fact. The fact that we have landed on the moon, is a "Scientific fact," (thought I can't say all people believe that :ahem: Carl Everett)! A "Scientific Theory," is a scientific hypothesis based on a set of studied data. Ok we have this today, now how did it happen? Is not Religion a "scientific theory" for it does the same thing, tries to explain "how this came to be."

To connect this with Middle-earth (so it doesn't seem like mindless rambling), I will take us back to the lore of Gondor. There are obvious documentations in Minas Tirith, some are "scientific fact" others are "stories, tales." The fact that Isildur died at Gladden fields, is fact. (In Middle-earth speaking).

Appendix F
But they (dwarves) are not evil by nature, and few ever served the Enemy of free will, whatever the tales of men say.

Those are unproven tales and theories made by men. Men lusted for the dwarvish gold, so they told false tales saying dwarves are evil. Just because something is false, doesn't mean it's not science.

[HerenIstarion]

Though not at knives with Kransha's and Boromir's posts as a whole, I feel obliged to add up a bit
Though in our world the terms at some points in history might have been interchangeable, it is not true for Middle Earth

Looking into etymology first (it can tell you a lot):

Religion: from Latin religare to tie back. With a meaning of 'to rely'
Science: from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens ‘having knowledge’

Now it me be argued that whilst both religion and science are in possession and in search of knowledge, the types of knowledge they are after, and ends they try to achieve are quite different. Here and after,when I name both terms I mean some ideal type of both - ideal religion and ideal science.

For one, and as mentioned by Fordim, science seeks 'how'. Religion seeks 'why'
For two, finding out each and particular 'how', science seeks to increase man's control over object/principle studied. It is a proud trade. And it has same goals as magic may have had. Religion, in finding out 'why', dicreases the sense of control man may have had, teaching him to rely (to trust – estel). It is a humble trade
For three, object of science is Nature, it is locked withing the system it studies, hence it can not possibly learn anything about what is outside (and don’t feed me with parallel universes and M-theory, it still does not explain the Why, it simply moves it further back), object of religion is what is outside Nature, and can not be worked out by science as it is locked within.
And four – whilst science does not necessarily allow for the universe to be created, but is not able to prove/disprove it, the basic fact under religion is that universe is created, by rational Being, which is called God/Allah/Eru etc.

Indeed, science may be traced back to Aristotle’s empirism, and religion back to Plato. But it may be traced even further back, for, I suppose, since the very beginning the clash of two worldviews – the ‘materialistic’ and ‘idealistic’ one, must have been afoot

So far with preliminaries. Let us move to ME, now.

Funnily enough, situation as described, which is natural to our world, in Middle –Earth applies to ‘baddies’. Baddies of higher up (I would not be mistaken in naming Fili and Ki, blah, I meant, Morgoth and Sauron), strangely enough, as they’ve seen Him with their very eyes, cease to believe in Eru. At least, they cease to trust in Him, the do not rely on Him any more. Both loose their ‘religion’, but acquire ‘science’ – they learn how to control and manipulate. And truly, their ‘science’ is verily advanced. They use the control they gain against principle they forgot. The worship they request from their followers is not ‘religion’ either – as it is not based on trust but on fear.

‘Goodies’, on the other hand, have both, and in harmony. They retain ‘religion’ – knowledge of ‘why’, and rely on, trust in, if I may coin such an expression – the “Primaeval Why behind of all Hows”. Their ‘science’ and ‘religion’ are not at odds in their society, as they know that those two branches of knowledge do not intercept, really. The control they gain is used to support the principle they remember (That's why Galadriel rebukes Sam for terming her and Sauron's powers 'magick' alike)

So, the ‘interchange’, all of the ‘battles’ of science and religion in the past and in present are based on mere misunderstanding. It is like fighting over the question like to, say: Is my car faster or is you milk whiter?. How can you compare those two things? Both, both, your car is faster, and your milk is whiter, and they do not thread on each others toes at all

cheers

[davem]

I can't help thinking that for Tolkien the magical (or more precisely the miraculous) is what's of central importance. The 'science' must be convincing, but must not exclude the miraculous. The miraculous is proof of the existence of Eru. Simply, there are things in M-e which cannot (& I think this is deliberate on Tolkien's part) be explained scientifically. Possibly this is Tolkien's reaction to modern science, which attempts (& goes a long way in succeeding) to explain away the supernatural. I suspect Tolkien wanted a world in which thee supernatural simply cannot be discounted. Eucatastrophe is not scientific, it is miraculous. Specifically, it is not technological: eucatasrophe is only possible in a world where miracles are possible. Eucatastrophe, after all, is not simply an emotional response (ie it is not purely 'psychological' - not merely an emotional reaction to an everyday event or 'fluke' happening). Eucatastrophe is an inner response to an outer, miraculous event.

In short, the eucatastrophic 'feeling' is our response to a miracle, & that miracle 'proves' that there is more to life than scientific materialism. We aren't responding simply to the fact that our heroes escaped by the skin of their teeth, but to the FACT that a loving God, Eru, cared enough about them to intervene & save them. That intervention proves that God exists, loves His creation, & therefore that the world, & our lives in it, are not random events. Eucatastrophe proves we matter, & that death is not the end, that the Universe is a creation, not a random event. Eucatastrophes prove that it all means something - all our struggles & sufferings, all our pain & loss & sacrifice.

The 'science' of M-e (ie the fact that we can construct 'scientifically' convincing accounts for certain events in M-e) serves to convince us that it could have existed; the 'magic' - the ultimate manifestation of which is eucatastrophe - is what convinces us of its meaning & 'value'.

I think M-e attracts us because of the magic - we don't 'tolerate' the magic because the 'science' has convinced us of that world's 'reality', we actually 'tolerate' the 'science', because the 'magic' makes that world meaningful.

[HerenIstarion]

Again, not generally disagreeing with previous post, I should comment a bit on the following:

The 'science' must be convincing, but must not exclude the miraculous. The miraculous is proof of the existence of Eru. Simply, there are things in M-e which cannot (& I think this is deliberate on Tolkien's part) be explained scientifically

Which reminds me of certain discussion we had with davem (btw, Evil Things)

If push comes to show, I fear 'real' miracles can be explained scientifically. What miracles per se do we meet in ME, as far as I may recall, are

1. Numenor catastrophe (the only one textually backed up as Eru's intervention)
2. Gandalf resurrection
3. Bilbo finding a ring
4. Gollum falling down with a ring

Scientific explanation:

1. Vulcanic erruption/earthquake
2. Clinic death/hallucination
3. Chance/coincidence
4. Chance/exaltation-hunger-dangerous place exposure mixt

Or, to put another wording around it, Eru is not breaking His own rules. If direct intervention it must be, it works along same pattern as 'natural' events would do.

[davem]

Well, ok, that explains the how (the 'science') but not the 'why'.

The difficulty I have with the oft-quoted theory that 'magic' is simply misunderstood technology is that that argument keeps the explanation within the world, & provides no opportunity for external intervnetion, which effectively denies the possibility of eucatastrophe, which involves a 'breaking in' of an external 'force'. Technology ('science') by its very nature is something that worldly beings develop to understand/manipulate the world - hence the Ring is technological, but so are the Palantiri, & (for all she may wish to distinguish what Elves do from what the enemy does) so is Galadriel's mirror - of course, there is a difference in the intent behind them. None of those things (or elven swords, etc) are 'miraculous'. We could say that the Silmarils, containing the Holy Light & being hallowed by Varda, are miraculous, or at least have a miraculous dimension or aspect.

The question is, then, whether the sudden 'uplift' we experience at our hero's last minute escape can be called 'eucatastrophic', or whether any rescue effected by technology (however wonderful that technology may appear) can be either.

My own sense is that Tolkien had a specific understanding of the eucatastrophic experience - it isn't something purely emotional - it must have a spiritual dimension. The most overwhelming feeling of relief & victory within the world is not eucatastrophic unless there is also a sense of 'eternity', of something greater breaking in.

Back to the main topic, though. There is a wonderful essay, A Physics of Middle-earth, in the 1992 Centenary Collection, which explores the scientific explanations of various M-e phenomena, pointing out, among other things, that if Legolas had been able to give a detailed description of Eomer's eored at a distance of five leagues, using only visible light, 'he would have been a bug-eyed monster, to the extent of having eyes on stalks in order to fit in a human sized face'. The authors go on:

Assuming resolution of half a metre at fifteen miles, & a roughly human sized pupil, we find that Elves' visible spectrumextends to about 170mm, or 2000THz.

& they speculate that Elvescoulld see well at least into the ultra-violet - All that is requiired, therefore, is for Elven lenses to transmit high-energy electro-magnetic waves.

They further speculate that in order for Legolas to be able to instantly calculate from that distance that there were 105 riders is not entirely unusual in humans, as some autistic savants can do such things.

There's much more in the essay - specualtions on Galadriel's Mirror (multiple universes theory), Palantiri, etc.

(The geology also seems to be accurate - see Karen Wynn-Fonstad's Atlas of Middle-earth)

[HerenIstarion]

it isn't something purely emotional - it must have a spiritual dimension

Total agreement again

I fear you did not follow me, or I failed to bring it across. I did not argue that miracles are not miracles. I was trying to say that miracles can be explained in a cientific way, as they follow the pattern the world itself follows. And it is not surprising – source of miracles and the world being the same. To use a crude analogy, BW is a creator of this site. In creating it, he used some scripts or whatever, to make it look like it does. Now, if he wishes to add something, he ‘directly intervenes’ using similar scripts he used when he was creating the site in the first place, and lo! We have something new which was never there before, and call it a miracle. But the patter BW followed is similar in both cases.

Spiritual dimension, whatever that may be, allows the viewer to appreciate miracle as miracles. Suppose someone on Elendil's ship were 'unbeliever' and meteorologist. Said someone would have epxlained drowning of the isle by tides, moon, earthquake etc. And the neat thing is, such a miraculous event could have been explained in that way too!

As for science and magic, I put them on the same shelf for the sameness of their goals - both seek to manipulate the world. And they can be mistaken for each other by ignorant. Per instance I don't know how my monitor works, I can say it is science, but it would not change my ignorance or the efficiency of its working processes if I label the principle behind its operation magic.

The difference is in using ‘naked’ technology by Sauron as opposed to Galadriel, who combines it with Estel – the principle I would call a religion of ME, and with readiness to give up power which science/magic gave her, “diminish and remain Galadriel”

[Bêthberry]

Well, I was going to stay on the sidelines and watch you boys play in centre court, but I guess I will lob a few observations of my own out anyway.

posted by davem:
The difficulty I have with the oft-quoted theory that 'magic' is simply misunderstood technology is that that argument keeps the explanation within the world, & provides no opportunity for external intervnetion, which effectively denies the possibility of eucatastrophe, which involves a 'breaking in' of an external 'force'. Technology ('science') by its very nature is something that worldly beings develop to understand/manipulate the world - hence the Ring is technological, but so are the Palantiri, & (for all she may wish to distinguish what Elves do from what the enemy does) so is Galadriel's mirror - of course, there is a difference in the intent behi
d them. None of those things (or elven swords, etc) are 'miraculous'. We could say that the Silmarils, containing the Holy Light & being hallowed by Varda, are miraculous, or at least have a miraculous dimension or aspect.

The question is, then, whether the sudden 'uplift' we experience at our hero's last minute escape can be called 'eucatastrophic', or whether any rescue effected by technology (however wonderful that technology may appear) can be either.

My own sense is that Tolkien had a specific understanding of the eucatastrophic experience - it isn't something purely emotional - it must have a spiritual dimension. The most overwhelming feeling of relief & victory within the world is not eucatastrophic unless there is also a sense of 'eternity', of something greater breaking in.

I'm not sure that this is not a self-contradiction, that davem here expects eternity to manifest itself with the same physical characteristics or effects as temporality does. However, my point really has to do with this idea that miracles imply some kind of doing away with the rules of ordinary or normal physics, a suspension of the laws of the natural world. I would argue instead that miracles involve a new way of seeing, of understanding. Something new opens up in the perceiver, a spiritual insight, rather than a breaking of the rules of creation.

This, at least, was the interpretation offerred some years ago when I had a similar discussion with the people I taught with at a Catholic college. In fact, many of my colleagues laughed at the idea that a miracle had to defy physical laws--laughed at it as childish. (Note, this was their opinion.) The meaning of the Flood was not that God will never seek retribution but that, essentially, He decides never again to intervene physically in creation. "We are on our own and must make our own efforts to understand" would be their way of saying what the rainbow means.

Thus, the crucial importance of Paul's blindness on the road to Damascus. Blindness and sight become metaphor for seeing and understanding and knowing. This is what miracle entails: enlightenment. I would argue that this is also what Tolkien means by eucatastrophe: a sudden moment of clear perception into the heart of the matter. (I almost said simply "matter' but decided that pun would be out of place.) This is why Tolkien ends "On Fairy Stories" as he does: the Christian is still to make his way in the world, which has not changed. But the person has.

It is possible that I have just here said the same thing as HerenIstarion:

I did not argue that miracles are not miracles. I was trying to say that miracles can be explained in a cientific way, as they follow the pattern the world itself follows. And it is not surprising ? source of miracles and the world being the same.

davem's point about the geography of Middle-earth is a good one, though, I think. Anyone who has read Fonstad's [i]Atlas of Middle-earth[/b] can see just how clearly and precisely and purposefully Tolkien described the lay of the land. Natural history!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Some very interesting responses so far. All I have to add at the moment is a thought that the discussion to this point has brought to me. I tend to think of things in terms of experiential reason: that is, I place my faith in the physical explainable (if not yet explained) phenomena of this world.

Tolkien went to great lengths to created M-e as an earlier 'version' of our own world -- so for that to to work, then the physical laws that govern our existence must also operate in M-e: this is why, I think, Tolkien works very hard to undo the 'unknowable mystery' of magic and the magical. It's a simple syllogism:

1) there is no magic in our world
2) M-E is our world

therefore

3) there is no magic in M-E

What there is instead is providence/miracles/Eru -- again, we have these in our world (according to Tolkien and like minded people), so the continuity is the same.

I think what we have with Tolkien's world is something like this: magic and science are not compatible -- either phenomena are explainable by reason or they are not; science and faith are compatible insofar as the things of this world (Rings of Power, Mirrors of Galadriel, Elven eyes) are explainable by reason (if not understandable to everyone), but there are things not of this world that we must take on faith alone (Eru, Providence, etc).

To return to my first point: I take my starting point of all knowledge to be the phenomena of this world, and place my faith in their explainability (call me a cock-eyed phenomenologist, but there you go). For someone like me, then, to "write off" the Mirror or Balrogs or Gandalf's "word of Command" as magic is to set an insupperable barrier between myself and Middle-earth. Again, another syllogism:

1) there is no magic in our world
2) there is magic in Middle-earth

therefore

3) Middle-earth is not our world.

This is why I have to see the events and characters of M-e as working within a scientific (that is, explainable/rational) framework. The irony for a person such as myself is that as soon as I see magic in Middle-earth, the 'magic' of the narrative disappears. The miraculous, sure, I can live with miracles (Gollum's fall at the Crack of Doom; the coming of the Eagles), but no magic please. . .

[HerenIstarion]

Is there magic out there?


This thread certainly smells like to C-thread, you know?

Let us have a nomenclature defined, than:

What do you call magic, in the first place? If you follow etymology (useful thing, I always say), it is Middle English magique, from Middle French, from Latin magice, from Greek magikE, feminine of magikos Magian, magical, from magos magus, sorcerer, of Iranian origin; akin to Old Persian magus sorcerer

Now old Persian Magus is paralleled in my own Georgian by mogvi, which is usually meant to term the Three Wise Men (yes, the same to come to see new-born Christ, them) – or, sighted people, or wise men. Malbeth the Seer is a better candidate for such a role than anyone esle

But the meanings modern society associates with word magic are:

1. a.: The use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations
2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell

Now, if we use these definitions, there is indeed no magic in ME. All abilities anybody displays are natural to them. Unnatural (mark you, ‘un’, not ‘super’) abilities are displayed by Nazgul, who were turned into what they are by Sauron using, again, his own natural abilities.

And nature is neutral (up to a point, it is tainted by Morgoth, so the whole world is fallen). It can be used either way, more easily to the good, for so it was in the beginning, but to the bad too, for it was poisoned by Melkor.

And it is to be remembered that term ‘magic’ is used by ignorant characters like Sam (who may be is similar situation as I’m with my monitor) Claims to label abilities of the kind ‘magic’ are always turned down by more wise characters.

Now miracle is supernatural – i.e. coming from outside after the system was created and locked. It is supernatural, and natural at the same time – following the rules of Nature it is fitted into. Another clumsy analogue – miracle is a car joining the main race in the middle of the route, not from the start – once it is on the road, it fits in with other cars. But miracles I can remember of are only four I listed above.

Links that may be interesting

Evil Things (page 3)
Acceptance of Mythology
Magic in Middle-Earth

[davem]

Ok, I'm not wishing to imply that a 'miraculous' event doesn't involve 'natural' phenomena, merely that there will be a spiritual dimension to it which will be percieved in some way by an observer, & that will inspire the true eucatastrophic feeling - ie, a purely 'natural' event, an accident, a fluke, won't. Eucatastrophe requires the supernatural dimension/intervention. That supernatural dimension may not be blatant, it may be ignorable - it may even not be percievable by some of those who witness the event (if they are not sufficiently 'spiritually aware'), but if that supernatural/Divine element is not present then no-one will have the eucatasatrophic experience.

In short, the eucatastrophic experience is an 'inner' response to an 'outer' phenomenon ('inner'=within the world, 'outer' = external to the world). Its a response to the Divine, & the Divine must be present to inspire it.

[Aiwendil]

Interesting thread.

First of all, I see there is some discussion about the difference between science and religion. Let me see if I can reply to this without derailing the thread. HerenIstarion wrote:

Now it me be argued that whilst both religion and science are in possession and in search of knowledge, the types of knowledge they are after, and ends they try to achieve are quite different.

and

For one, and as mentioned by Fordim, science seeks 'how'. Religion seeks 'why'

Now, this is certainly a very common view and one held by a lot of very intelligent philosophers. But in my opinion it's simply incorrect. The why/how distinction is, I think, not something that can be pressed too far. For any answer to a "why" question (i.e. an explanation) is in reality a sort of story about "how" something happened - it's the logical derivation of a result from certain premises. For example: "Why did you order vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate?" "Because I don't like chocolate." The answer provides a fact which, taken together with certain implied premises (like "all else being equal, people order the kind of ice cream they like") logically implies the result. The answers that religion proposes to "why" questions are of exactly the same sort - "why does the world exist?" "Because God exists, and God wants the world to exist". The facts provided, perhaps along with some premises about God's nature, imply the fact that was to be explained. Scientific explanations also have the same form - "why is there a spectral line here in the light from that star?" "Because there's neutral hydrogen in that star, and x, y, and z are facts about neutral hydrogen".

What is the difference, then, between science and religion? I think there is an epistemic difference and a methodological difference. The epistemic difference has to do with confirmation. Specifically, there is a criterion in science that any proposition is considered likely to be true if and only if there is sufficient empirical data that confirms the proposition. Now, there's been quite a lot of debate about what exactly constitutes confirmatory data - but whatever the nature of confirmation, there is no real dispute concerning the reliance upon it as a criterion for determining validity. The methodological difference is related - the main activity of experimental science is to attempt to disprove theories rather than to prove them.

That's a bit of a digression from the primary subject of the thread, but I think that the difference between science and religion is of central importance here.

I think that the why/how fallacy may be responsible for a tendency to oppose "magic" in Middle-earth with "science". Of course, in our world "magical" claims are generally supported not by science but by religion, if at all. But it's not as though the question of magic is the concern of religion rather than science; the question of whether any such phenomenon exists is a question common to both epistemic projects - it's merely that they sometimes offer different answers. In Middle-earth, magic (or whatever one wishes to call it) is an empirical fact; it's confirmed by the data. So in Middle-earth the answer provided by empirical science does not differ from that provided by religion (i.e. Eldarin lore). There is no need to try to invent technological or scientific justifications for magical phenomena in Middle-earth, because within Middle-earth those phenomena do not disagree with science.

That's why I think it's essentially incorrect to look for explanations of the sort "Downfall of Numenor = huge tectonic plate shift". If in real life a continent sank, it would contradict hundreds of years of evidence in support of certain geophysical theories, and in order to maintain a consistent description of reality, we would need either to explain the event using those theories plus some extra premises, or modify the theories. But in Middle-earth, the sinking of Numenor does not violate any such theories.

The only reason one might especially want to provide this kind of justification for events in Middle-earth is if one is really deeply committed to the view that Middle-earth is really our earth. But it's not. It's a work of fiction. Fordim rather hit the nail on the head with:

1) there is no magic in our world
2) there is magic in Middle-earth

therefore

3) Middle-earth is not our world.

In fact, I think that a major mistake Tolkien made in the 1950s was his apparent rejection of the old flat earth cosmology on the grounds that such a thing contradicts modern scientific theories. Arda must contradict modern scientific theories - to revise it to the point where it did not would amount to rejecting it entirely and starting a completely new work.

And that's wholly unnecessary, because, no matter how self-consistent, engaging, and even enchanting (to invoke the Thread Which (apparently) Must Not Be Named) Middle-earth is, it is not really our world. It's fictional, and its science need not match ours.

[Lalwendë]

Fordim asks:

Is Middle-earth a mysterious dream? A rational experience? Some hybrid of the two? Is it understandable through the laws of science in the primary world, or does it operate according to its own rules? Are those rules rational/scientific? Non-rational/mysterious? Or some combination thereof?

The simple answer as I see it (and I'm saying what others have already eloquently expressed), is that of course Middle Earth reflects basic scientific knowledge which we share. This is what makes it a solid, believable world. And of course there is also magic, as this is what makes Middle Earth a fantasy world. Without either of these things then Middle Earth would either be the same as our world, or incomprehensible to a reader.

On the issue of magic/miracle, I do not separate the two. Both suggest occurrences which are unexplainable and unexpected. I also view science and 'faith' as inextricably linked. Both are used to explain and to control the world we live in. Faith was, and still is, used to explain occurrences which humans could not or cannot explain with reason. Many tenets of faith have since been explained by science, and for many, the scientific explanation has now overtaken the 'faith' explanation, e.g. evolution. At the beginning of time, the ability to make fire was seen as divine, and in our time, the ability to communicate with the 'spirits' is taken as divine. Along with this, many would have seen making fire as devilry and many see communicating with spirits as trickery. Who is to say whether the latter 'magic' will one day be explained by science? Even now physicists are working at the outer limits of what most of us can comprehend by experimenting with the nature of time and matter itself. Personally, I hope that scientists will remain unable to explain everything.

With theoretical science, we can see that the area often verges on the mystical itself. Tolkien was not against science, but the application of science, i.e. technology, in a context that is free of considerations of morals or philosophy or 'faith' - not sure how this should really be termed, as faith often means something different to me. Both Gandalf and Saruman possessed knowledge of a suspiciously gunpowder like substance. While Gandalf, operating in the context of not causing others any harm, used it to make fireworks, Saruman, operating without moral considerations, used it to cause damage. We can see in our own world, as each new development in theoretical science gives way to its inevitable application in technology, we are confronted with new moral dilemmas. For example, scientists discovered genetics, which has given way to many morally contentious applications of genetics, e.g. GM crops.

I think Tolkien's message is not that science is wrong, but that the misapplication of technology, in a moral void, is wrong. Both science and faith work together in Middle Earth as this is right. What is totally acceptable about this (unless you side with Sauron!) is that there is no one religion in Middle Earth, but there is a strong, and liberal, moral context.

[Boromir88]

Now on to my spiel about the religion aspect of Middle-earth. I think a word we can tie into this would be fate. Fate, deals with your path, your future, your end, has already been decided. The clearest example of fate that I can come up with is Romeo and Juliet, where Romeo whines about how the gods have it in for him. Some quick examples of Fate in middle-earth.

The Istari-Radagast, chosen by Yavanna, falls in love with nature, birds in particular. Saruman-Aule, becomes greedy, lustful for power (Same with Sauron, dwarves, and Noldor, but they aren't Istari, lol). Gandalf, it's interesting that he really isn't most like any Valar, maybe most like Manwe. So, it's just interesting how Tolkien states Gandalf is the only Istari to complete his "task." The Istari are just some quick examples of fate.

Another example is the Mirror of Galadriel. It shows your "fate," or what may very well be your "fate," (Or it will show your past and present). Anyway, point is Galadriel makes a quote, seeming as if one can step out of their "fate," they can step away from the "path" that has already been chosen for them.

Mirror of Galadriel

"You (Sam) cannot go home alone," said the Lady. "You did not wish to go home without your master before you looked in the Mirror, and yet you knew that evil things might well be happening in the Shire. Remember that the Mirror shows many things, and not all have yet come to pass. Some never come to be, unless those that behold the visions turn aside from their path to prevent them. The Mirror is dangerous as a guide of deed."

Galadriel warns us of the danger of knowing what might happen in the future. But she also makes the statement Some never come to be, unless those that behold the visions turn aside from their path to prevent them. It's as if, if you turn away from your "fate" your "path," to prevent what "might happen in the future," then that will happen. Sam's path is to travel with Frodo, now that he see's what "could" happen, he wants to go back to the Shire, he wants to turn aside from his path. Galadriel warns if he does to prevent what "could" happen then it will happen. The Shire indeed does become corrupt, but who knows, it could have been worse if Sam turned away to head back to the Shire at this point, Or it may not be, the danger of the Mirror is revealed. It benefits us to know our "fate," our "future," but there's also a risk in it as well.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

This thread certainly smells like to C-thread, you know?

Then how can I resist?

I agree with Aiwendil concerning the artificiality of distinguishing between the "How’s" and "Why’s". To illustrate the point further, it would be perfectly reasonable to give identical answers to both of the questions: "How does a car work?" and "Why does a car work?" In both cases, the explanation could be given by reference to the technical workings of the vehicle (about which I understand very little). Of course, one might make a distinction by responding to the "Why" with "To get people from A to B". But, even then, there is a rational, scientific answer to both the "How" question and the "Why" question. Science can explain how the car works, but science (in a very broad sense) can also explain why cars are used.

The same applies to evolution. So, the response to "How does evolution work?" might be "Natural selection". And that would be a perfectly reasonable response to the question "Why does evolution work?" too. Or one might make a distinction and answer the latter question with "To ensure the continuance of life" since, if species do not adapt to changing conditions, then they will die out. In both cases, science can provide the (or at least an) answer.

Now, I am not saying that faith cannot provide an explanation of the "Why?". I am simply saying that it does not provide the only explanation. Indeed, both the "How’s" and the "Why’s" can be answered by reference to faith (so the distinction is, again, artificial). However, it seems to me that the key difference between science and faith is that science seeks to explain by reference to objectively verifiable facts (even though those facts may only give rise to a likelihood or even a possibility of the existence of the event which they seek to explain), whereas faith requires no such explanation. Those who hold a particular religious belief do so by virtue of their faith and not by virtue of any objective proof.

So, how does this apply to Middle-earth?

Well, I agree with what has been said previously concerning the necessity of the existence within Middle-earth of scientific laws with which we, the readers, are familiar. This is what makes it a credible world and believable to us as readers. In this regard, I would testify to the usefulness of Karen Wynn Fonstad's Atlas of Middle-earth in highlighting the way in which Tolkien's world corresponds with our understanding of topography and geology, not to mention climatology, biodiversity and demography. And we are only too aware that Tolkien's languages are very much scientifically based.

Tolkien showed his awareness of the need for Middle-earth to work on a scientific, and therefore credible, level in his Letters. In a letter to Naomi Mitchison (Letter #154), he wrote:

Yours is the only comment that I have seen that, besides treating the book as 'literature', at least in intent ... also sees it as an elaborate form of game of inventing a country - an endless one, because even a committee of experts in different branches could not complete the overall picture.

But the game is one which has rules, and it seems that Tolkien considered it important that these should be capable of formulation on a scientific basis:

I am more conscious of my sketchiness in the archaeology and realien [German: "realities, technical facts"] than in the economics: clothes, agricultural implements, metal-working, pottery, architecture and the like. Not to mention music and its apparatus. I am not incapable of or unaware of economic thought; and I think as far as the ‘mortals’ go, Men, Hobbits, and Dwarfs [sic], that the situations are so devised that economic likelihood is there and could be worked out ...

Tolkien goes on to illustrate the point by reference to the capabilities of Gondor and the Shire to support their respective populations in terms of agriculture, industry and trade (for example between Hobbits and the Dwarves of the Blue Mountains).

Later in the same letter, he refers to the transition of the setting for his legendarium from a flat world to a globe:

... an inevitable transition, I suppose, to a modern 'myth-maker' with a mind subjected to the same 'appearances' as ancient men, and partly fed on their myths, but taught that the Earth was round from the earliest years. So deep was the impression made by 'astronomy' on me that I do not think I could deal with or imaginatively conceive a flat world, though a world of static Earth with a Sun going round it seems easier (to fancy if not to reason).

So, 'scientific reality' would not allow Tolkien to set his legendarium on a flat world, even though it would have presented a more suitable setting for it (a point which Aiwendil made earlier).

Similarly, in a draft of a letter to Peter Hastings (Letter #153), he wrote:

I suppose that actually the chief difficulties that I have involved myself in are scientific and biological - which worry me just as much as the theological and metaphysical ... Elves and Men are evidently in biological terms one race, or they could not breed and produce fertile offspring ...

Interestingly, he went on to make the point that, although his world should be scientifically credible, its science need not correspond precisely with the facts of our world:

But since some have held that the rate of longevity is a biological characteristic, within limits of variation, you could not have Elves in a sense 'immortal' - not eternal, but not dying by 'old age' - and Men mortal, more or less as they now seem to be in this Primary World - and yet sufficiently akin. I might answer that this 'biology' is only a theory, that modern 'gerontology', or whatever they call it, finds 'ageing' rather more mysterious, and less clearly inevitable in bodies of human structure. But I should actually answer: I do not care. This is biological dictum in my imaginary world. It is only (as yet) an incompletely imagined world, a rudimentary 'secondary'; but if it pleased the Creator to give it (in a corrected form) Reality on any plane, then you would have to enter it and begin studying its different biology, that is all.

Mischievously, he provides a possible 'Primary World' explanation for Elves' longevity, but points out that the biology of the ‘Secondary World’ can still be ‘real’ (in a scientific sense) even though it might not correspond with our understanding of the science.

The basis of this thread is the relationship between science and a magical world such as Middle-earth. Clearly, Middle-earth contains creatures, objects and forces which are not, in scientific terms, in existence in our world. As has been pointed out, this is precisely what makes it fantasy. But these extracts suggest to me that Tolkien’s approach was to create a world which is, to a significant degree, scientifically credible by reference to the rules of our ‘Primary World’ (in terms of topography, climate, geography etc), but which, where it varies from those rules, is also scientifically credible by reference to its own internal rules (the essence of a modern ‘myth-maker?). In other words, from the perspective of the reader, everything within Middle-earth is scientifically provable within the context of that world. So, it is a fact that Eru exists and that Arda was created in the manner set out in the Ainulindalë. Similarly, ‘magic’ exists and Elves are immortal (as long as Arda remains in being). As has been suggested previously on this thread, it would, I think, be possible to come up with a theory as to “How” (or “Why”) ‘magic’ works in Middle-earth, just as Tolkien suggests that it would be possible to come up with a theory to explain Elven longevity.

So how does faith come into it?

Well, I think that there are two levels on which one can (and should) address this. First, there is the faith of the good characters within the story. For most, there is no guarantee that Eru exists. Some (such as Hobbits) don’t even have any clear conception of what He is. And yet they have faith that there is, ultimately, a source of Good within Eä and that it will prevail, and they act accordingly (ie on the basis of their faith rather than science or objectively provable facts). Even those who are aware of Eru’s existence (as a fact) must rely on their faith that His Will will prevail. They have no guarantee that it will.

Which brings me to the second level, which concerns the faith of the reader. Those who have religious beliefs may (and surely almost certainly will) find the faith shown by the good characters to be applicable to, and reinforcing of, their own faith. And this ‘faith-within-the-story’ can touch even those who do not have strong religious convictions, if they are sufficiently receptive to it, in the sense of ‘enchantment’ (or ‘faerie’ or ‘synchronicity’, call it what you will ) that it brings.

But, in both cases, I would suggest that this is only possible through the combination within the story of scientific reality (in our real world terms) and ‘fantasy’ or ’magic’ which is nevertheless internally credible. Take the scientific reality away and the ‘magic’, along with the story, loses its credibility. But take the ‘magic’ away, and the faith becomes grounded in reality and thus adds nothing to what we have already (ie it has no 'added value'.

Does that make any sense at all?

[HerenIstarion]

Aiwendil, agreeing up to a point, I will risk going a bit off the Tolkien track and elaborate on 'why'-s and 'how'-s a bit more.

Indeed, 'why'-s and 'how'-s are interchangeable, unless you reach the ultimate end (or beginning). In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded is the funniest explanation of the origins ot our world I’ve ever heard (by Terry Pratchett), and, even if modern M-theory of 11 dimensional membranes hitting each other and causing Big Bang may explain ‘how’ the world came about, it does not tell me ‘why’ there were such membranes in the first place.

So, questions of ‘why this three is growing’ type may be answered by both faith and science, and even ‘why the universe is like to what it is’ as well, But to simpify it other way round, all the ‘why’-s science gives answer to, can be viewed as ‘how’’s as well - why is there a spectral line here in the light from that star?" "Because there's neutral hydrogen in that star, and x, y, and z are facts about neutral hydrogen" = the spectral line we get if x is added up to y and z = how.

But there is a question where ‘how’ given by science does not equal ‘why’. That’d be the question of.

"why does the world exist?" "Because God exists, and God wants the world to exist".

You give me my sword here. For you pose the question, answer as I would have answered it in case I needed “why” type of answer and than shift on to give an example of ‘how’ question of starshine – that is, the ‘how’ particular part of the world, not the world as a whol.,

True, the ‘because’ given by faith to that last question is not based on emirical fact, and can not be viewed as valid in case one counts only answers backed up by empirical data as valid. But given that faith is just about relying on authority without sufficient data, we are in a deadlock here – unless either of us changes position, i.e., I agree that only empirical proof is valid, or you agree that there is no need for the proof to be backed up by empirical data, we don’t agree

On to ME now. Agreeing with much of SpM-s excellent post, I’ll risk saying that ME (at least Hither Lands, as in Aman there are folks who have empirical back up to their trust in Eru), given its ‘internal lows’ = Primary World on the moral plane, in case of faith and science relationship.

On that last paragraph I'll have to elaborate later, though - too much on my hands right now

[davem]

Apart from what’s been said so far, I think we also have to take into account who’s writing the accounts - ie the ‘internal’ authors.

It seems to me that we’ll have a range of approaches in these accounts, & a range of ‘scientific’ theories to account for events. Silmarilli, Palantiri, Elven cloaks, Lembas, etc., will all be developments of Elvish ‘science’, but is Elvish ‘science’ equivalent to human science?

What I mean is, Elvish brains, & therefore Elvish perceptions/experiences may be profoundly different - for instance, they cannot, apparently, distinguish between humans & hobbits! Clearly this is not because they’re blind - they could, obviously, tell that Aragorn was taller than Bilbo. The only explanation for their difficulty in telling the difference between the two must be that they perceive the world differently. Tolkien says they live in both worlds at once; mortals, generally live only in one world - the one we know.

But isn’t science objective; isn’t it about ‘facts’? I think this is the problem.(Let’s put aside for a moment the ‘fact’ that Ainulindale is based on an account given to the Eldar by the Valar)

Its entirely possible that from an Elvish perspective Ainulindale could be literally true, because they experience reality differently from us. Human ‘science’ reconstructs the origin of the universe, based on our science, & comes up with the Big Bang theory; Elvish ‘science’ comes up with Ainulindale.

Its also possible that the reason the Elves can still find the Straight Road is that for them the world is still ‘flat’, or perhaps its the case that in this world the earth is round & in the otherworld its flat. If Elves can exist in both worlds, possibly they can switch ‘frequencies’, like changing channels. Perhaps there are two ‘sciences’ in M-e - a flat earth ‘science’ & a round earth ‘science’.

Mythic worlds tend to be flat - not because of ignorance, but because a flat earth is (potentially) infinite - it can contain anything imaginable - endless forests, purple oceans, green suns, a man in the moon, mountains which reach to the stars. So, because what they (potentially) contain is unlimited, their extent is also unlimited. Round earths, however big, are finite - there is a limit to what they may contain. Flat earths may be ‘unscientific’ but they are magical - you could actually meet [anything there. Basically, science sets limits on how far you can go, how fast, by what means, who you’ll meet, what is (& more importantly) what isn’t possible.

Back to M-e: I’ve seen various maps of M-e by different illustrators, & there are some I have a problem with (some are by Tolkien himself, unfortunately). The problem is these maps show he regions beyond the maps in TH, LotR & TS - some even attempt to show the whole extent of M-e, even to laying out the locations of Aman, & the far eastern regions of M-e. This destroys the magic of possibility by setting limits. A round world is a limited world - but its not simply physically limited its also imaginatively limited.

In short, its not Faerie, because Faerie cannot be fitted within limits. So, Faerie may actually have its own ‘science’ but it will not correspond automatically to our ‘science’. What’s interesting is the way Faerie ‘science’ (magic) seems to work in this world, while our ‘science’ seems not to apply there - Elven cloaks don’t simply camouflage the travellers while they’’re in Lorien, Elven swords don’t simply glow blue while in the otherworld, palantiri work anywhere. It seems that once an otherworld object is created it simply works wherever it is. This would seem to imply that Faerie ‘science’ is more ‘correct’ than our ‘science’.

Lalwende has made some interesting points - wasn’t it the case that for a long time scientists denied the existence of meteorites, reasoning, basically, ‘There are no rocks in the sky, therefore rocks can’t fall out of the sky!’ (Robert Anton Wilson, anyone?).

‘Round world ‘science’ is principally about defining limits, Faerie ‘science’ is without limits, because round worlds are ‘limited’, & Faerie is not.

[Aiwendil]

HerenIstarion:

There are two fallacies here, I think.

First, the how/why issue. You say that this:

"why does the world exist?" "Because God exists, and God wants the world to exist".

. . . is the answer to a "why" question but not a "how" question. Yet it would be just as satisfactory an answer to the question "how did the world come to exist?" And the answer about spectral lines would be just as satisfactory an answer to the question "why are there spectral lines here?" as "how do the spectral lines come about?" The two questions have the same logical structure - each asks for a fact or set of facts which, together with certain premises, implies the conclusion. Now, if one wants to use a convention where questions relating to certain subject matter are designated "why" questions and others "how" questions, that's fine, but the difference is then an arbitrary one and, I think, not one supported by the connotations of natural language. In any case, the point is that there is no subset of such questions which science, in principle, is not concerned with, except insofar as the empirical confirmation criterion restricts the kinds of answers it gives.

The second fallacy is the "first cause" fallacy. The root of this mistake is the assumption that for every fact, there is some unique other fact or set of facts that explain (i.e. logically imply it). This leads people like Aquinas to conclude the existence of God, since some fact is thought to be needed to explain the basic physical laws. But the assumption is incoherent, since, just as the theist asks for an explanation of the basic physical laws and posits God to provide it, one could go further and ask for an explanation of God, then for an explanation of that explanation, and so on ad infinitum. Now there is a tradition of theist claims to the effect that the God explanation is special in such a way that it does not require a further explanation, or that it explains itself. The validity of such a claim is where the argument would lie if we were to continue down this road (which it's probably best we don't do). Let me just point out, though, that the difficulty for the theist here is that he or she needs to alter the assumption that "for every fact, there is some explanation" in such a way that it would logically still require an explanation to exist for basic physical laws but not for the existence of God.

Putting that aside, I think that the correct thing to say about first causes is simply that they are not required, logically. There is no theorem that states that for every fact there is a unique, non-circular explanation.

Of course, the mere logic of the situation, even if it shows that the first cause argument cannot prove the existence of God, certainly does nothing to disprove the existence of God. And fortunately so, or else in my view the facts about Middle-earth would be not only fictional but logically incoherent. I do not think that they are. They are different facts than the ones that are true in the real world, but (except for contradictions among different incarnations of the legends) they do cohere.

Davem wrote:

Mythic worlds tend to be flat - not because of ignorance, but because a flat earth is (potentially) infinite - it can contain anything imaginable - endless forests, purple oceans, green suns, a man in the moon, mountains which reach to the stars.

some even attempt to show the whole extent of M-e, even to laying out the locations of Aman, & the far eastern regions of M-e. This destroys the magic of possibility by setting limits.

In short, its not Faerie, because Faerie cannot be fitted within limits.

You make a good point about flat worlds. But the fact is that in no version of the mythology was Arda ever intended not to be finite. As I argued in the canonicity thread, Arda is not Faerie. "Faerie" is not a single, well-defined place, real or imaginary - it's a network of images, associations, archetypes, etc. Middle-earth, on the other hand, is a well-defined (excepting the ambiguity resulting from the multitude of versions) imaginary place. It would be a wholly different mythology if Arda were literally infinite in extent.

[HerenIstarion]

there is a tradition of theist claims to the effect that the God explanation is special in such a way that it does not require a further explanation, or that it explains itself. The validity of such a claim is where the argument would lie if we were to continue down this road

True, I can't empirically 'prove' the validity of that last argument, I have only circumstantial evidence to provide you with, but that will bring us off Tolkien allright (even if I hold that it really explains itself). But really it's a draw, so let's call it quits. Anyways, it was flattering to be termed 'intelligent philosopher' up there. My cheeks are still glowing

But back to ME, again

What I was trying to say is that for elves and men, who haven't got direct experience of Eru (i.e. haven't got empiric data backing up His existence), the situation of 'faith vs science' is morally equal to that of our Primary World. And, risking repeating myself, in that respect, Good vs Evil is also opposition of societies where Faith and Science (or estel and magic) are harmonized (case 1 - Free People) and where Science is not even in conflict with Faith, but it's only Science and no Faith at all (or no estel but magic only)(Case 2 Sauron)

Things like longevity of elven life, their good sight (even if it really were ultraviolet) etc etc are not really 'magic' or 'miracle' - they are facts coherent inside ME and therefore natural (and so 'scientifically' explainable)

Why I equal magic to science (or technology) in ME's case, I've already explained. For more, see Post #54 of the Acceptance of Mythology thread

cheers