Imagine no religion

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

More importantly, as opposed to the "one enormous and prodigiously strong animal" school of animism, rather than the "multitude of invisible animals" school -- sometimes referred to as Monotheistic Animism vs Polytheistic Animism -- Professor Tolkien opted -- in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings -- for the creation of a "Magical" world instead of an Animist or "religious" one. According to Frazer's monumental study, both the magician and the priest claim to believe in unseen animal -- or animated -- spirits (One or several) who they claim make the observable world work as it does. Both claim to believe that the magician and the priest can sway these animal spirits -- or spooks -- to make things turn out the way the magician or the priest want. They differ, however, in that the magician believes that he can compel, or coerce, the Spook-or-spooks to do what he commands through spells and enchantments, while the priest believes that only his ritual groveling and begging can convince the Spook-or-spooks to look favorably upon him and his tribe instead of some other priest or tribe. Therein lies the distinction between "Magic" and "Religion" -- both forms of Animism, but differing in their advertised ways of dealing with the unseen Big-Animal or host-of-little-unseen-animals -- none of which exist outside the fanciful human imagination. I leave it to the interested reader of The Hobbit and/or The Lord of the Rings to determine which form of animist behavior best describes Tolkien's Middle-earth: Magical or Religious.

Is 'all of the above' a valid answer? We have Eru. We have Fangorn and trees with souls. Animals speak and can be spoken to. Legolas reports the rocks of Hollin remember elves of ages past. Even if part of the spirit of Eru doesn't echo in everything, arguably a part of the spirit of Morgoth might. Simply saying 'everything has a soul' might easily start a discussion as to the nature of souls in Tolkien's world. Such a discussion would be inconclusive I expect. Anyway, one might argue that elements of monotheism, pantheism and animalism are present.

I would also suggest that both forms of magic exist. If one has a potent enough fea, one can draw on one's own strength and do stuff. Gandalf, as a maia, has such strength. Aragorn, in his healing and his prophecy, has such strength as well though how he manifests it is limited. There are times when various characters speak the names of the Valar in supplication.

The word I might use to describe Tolkien's world with respect to magic and religion would be 'complicated.'

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

According to Frazer's monumental study, both the magician and the priest claim to believe in unseen animal -- or animated -- spirits (One or several) who they claim make the observable world work as it does. Both claim to believe that the magician and the priest can sway these animal spirits -- or spooks -- to make things turn out the way the magician or the priest want. They differ, however, in that the magician believes that he can compel, or coerce, the Spook-or-spooks to do what he commands through spells and enchantments, while the priest believes that only his ritual grovelling and begging can convince the Spook-or-spooks to look favorably upon him and his tribe instead of some other priest or tribe. Therein lies the distinction between "Magic" and "Religion" -- both forms of Animism, but differing in their advertised ways of dealing with the unseen Big-Animal or host-of-little-unseen-animals -- none of which exist outside the fanciful human imagination. I leave it to the interested reader of The Hobbit and/or The Lord of the Rings to determine which form of animist behavior best describes Tolkien's Middle-earth: Magical or Religious.

Going by those parameters, it doesn't appear that LOTR fits the bill for "Magical" or "Religious".

You say that "the magician believes that he can compel, or coerce, the Spook-or-spooks to do what he commands through spells and enchantments".
Where in the books is that found? "Spells" are used by people who either, as Gandalf, have an innate ability to affect the physical environment, or, like the Witch-king, have so submerged themselves in the identity of those with innate power that they are able to "borrow" it. Spells are used in the books to affect the physical environment and further the cause of the caster, but I know of no instance in which they are used to "compel, or coerce" a higher power to do one's bidding.

Then, on the "religious" side, you say "the priest believes that only his ritual grovelling and begging can convince the Spook-or-spooks to look favorably upon him and his tribe instead of some other priest or tribe."
Likewise, I see no instance of that. The original premise of this thread was in fact that it is difficult to find any organised, ritualistic divine worship in the books. The sole exception is, as has been noted, the Númenóreans and their "Satanistic" Morgoth-cult. Crying to Elbereth for help in times of need may be considered a prayer, but there is no ritual involved, and it is done by anyone who feels the need for it, like Frodo and Sam. There is no priest to serve as an intermediary between the Middle-earth denizen and the Valar. The Valar themselves are intermediaries between the Children and the Creator.

As blantyr said, "complicated" does seem to be the watchword here.

[Pitchwife]

First, about the Frazer quote and a bit off topic, I suspect animals (at least domesticated ones) don't need to speculate about gods or spirits because they have us; and no doubt they quite often think that the gods must be crazy.

Second,

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

I agree completely with this usage of the more comprehensive term "Animist" in preference to the parochial and sectarian manifestations of received religious rituals that many people unconsciously assume when they -- loosely -- use the term "religious."

Well, I don't, mainly because if you say all religions are animistic, you make the words animist and religious synonyms, and thus one of them redundant - unless you mean that there are also forms of animism that are not religious; and it seems you do mean that when you say:

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Therein lies the distinction between "Magic" and "Religion" -- both forms of Animism, but differing in their advertised ways of dealing with the unseen Big-Animal or host-of-little-unseen-animals

But only a few lines above you said:

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Professor Tolkien opted -- in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings -- for the creation of a "Magical" world instead of an Animist or "religious" one.

- again using animist=religious as synonymous and opposed to magical.
See why I prefer to use the term in a narrow sense?

Third, no need for the bolding. We can all read and recognize a distinction without having it shoved in our faces.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Going by those parameters, it doesn't appear that LOTR fits the bill for "Magical" or "Religious".

Which, if I understood him right, is more or less what TMT was originally saying before he entangled himself in the intricacies of terminology.

About the eagles - I think you may be right that they were sent more for the Númenóreans benefit than the Valar's. Remember the Three Houses of the Edain originally were dissenters from Morgoth worship (as per Adanel's Tale in the Athrabeth); the Valar may have feared that their descendants might relapse if left to themselves (and surprise, they did!), so they felt a need to remind the Númenóreans "We're watching you." And I think it's no coincidence that the last warning omen from the West in the days of Ar-Pharazôn was a cloud of eagles - "The eagles of the Lords of the West are at hand!", no longer as witnesses, but in wrath.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

They differ, however, in that the magician believes that he can compel, or coerce, the Spook-or-spooks to do what he commands through spells and enchantments, while the priest believes that only his ritual groveling and begging can convince the Spook-or-spooks to look favorably upon him and his tribe instead of some other priest or tribe. Therein lies the distinction between "Magic" and "Religion" -- both forms of Animism, but differing in their advertised ways of dealing with the unseen Big-Animal or host-of-little-unseen-animals -- none of which exist outside the fanciful human imagination.

It would be very easy to build a cynical political model of how religion works, with or without actual magical powers by gods and priests. Perhaps the congregation provides power through worship needed by the gods and priests. Perhaps the congregation can coerce the gods through groveling and begging. Perhaps the prayers are compulsive, that the gods might have to act. Perhaps a god who does not respond to requests just doesn't get worshipped. Perhaps the priests are in it to maximize their own power, using the congregation and the gods equally. One could create a cynical scheme where all parties involved are asking 'what's in it for me', and acting in a selfish fashion.

One could create such a system of religion, but I don't think the above is at all what Tolkien did with Middle Earth. There is no priesthood trying to optimize their own power and influence. The Valar have an abundance of power, have no need to demand or coerce worship. The divinities seem more or less sane and rational, though hardly perfect and ideal. I have no sense that they would respond well to groveling or begging. Quite the contrary, they seem ready to let ordinary beings handle thing by themselves the majority of the time. Individuals in extreme situations might appeal to the Valar, but the sense that I get is that you don't bother them for little stuff. Even then, you might sort of let them know there is a problem by quickly invoking their Names, then do the best one can with or without their help.

I can see both wizardly and religious magic in Middle Earth. I do see an abundance of fea all over the place: Valar, elves, humans, trees, rocks, weather and most everything in between. One might apply various words used to describe human religions to Middle Earth, but I wouldn't expect to be able to neatly pidgin hole things.

But the notion that one should grovel and beg to manipulate the Valar… That just doesn't feel right. Whether one is writing fan fiction, role playing or holding a academic discussion, that just doesn't feel like the way to gain their sympathy or support. I'd recommend performing a great heroic deed or two. If you can't sing as well as Lúthien, I'd avoid the groveling and begging.

[Galadriel55]

I want to bring up one passage from The Sil:

And seeing no better hope, [Fingon] cried to Manwe, saying: "O King to whom all birds are dear, speed now this feathered shaft, and recall some pity for the Noldor in their need!"
His prayer was answered swiftly.

There is prayer in times of need, but still no mention of an organised worship system.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Originally Posted by skip spence

This isn't my subject but looking at our cultural history I imagine it's very hard to find a single human civilization or even tribe who hasn't got any religious beliefs, symbols, rituals, superstitions etc they share and find meaning in (obviously discounting modern secular states or where religion is officially shunned or forbidden like in the communist states).

Very hard, indeed, to find contemporary hunter-gatherer societies not exterminated by "the more advanced" animist civilizations. Hard, but not impossible. Hence, from Chapter IV of The Golden Bough: a Study in Magic and Religion, by Sir James George Frazer (http://www.bartleby.com/196/9.html):

"... among the aborigines of Australia, the rudest savages as to whom we possess accurate information, magic is universally practiced, whereas religion in the sense of a propitiation or conciliation of the higher powers seems to be nearly unknown. Roughly speaking, all men in Australia are magicians, but not one is a priest; everybody fancies he can influence his fellows or the course of nature by sympathetic magic, but nobody dreams of propitiating gods by prayer and sacrifice."

Originally Posted by skip spence

Yet in Middle Earth, among the peoples described in LotR, there hardly a sign of religiousness of any kind and no-one makes any reference to any divinity or lesser spirits, direct or indirect. Well, there's Faramir looking West before eating, but that's it, to my knowledge.

As a few other commentators have noted, Tolkien does include a few animist-sounding references to unseen spirits -- like the "Valar," etc. -- at various points in The Lord of the Rings, but nothing more significant than someone exclaiming "Holy Sh*t!" at the sudden appearance of a rampaging elephant (or Oliphaunt). More significantly, Tolkien does not follow up these exclamations with any detailed description of the supporting social institutions and ritual indoctrination that one would expect to permeate any overtly "religious" culture. Rather, we get numerous and significant episodes of "good" Magic versus "bad" Magic (i.e., Sorcery). For example:

They groped their way down the long flight of steps, and then looked back; but they could see nothing, except high above them the faint glimmer of the wizard's staff. He seemed to be still standing on guard by the closed door. ... Frodo thought he could hear the voice of Gandalf above, muttering words that ran down the sloping roof with a sighing echo. ...

Suddenly at the top of the stair there was a stab of white light. ... Gandalf came flying down the steps and fell to the ground in the midst of the Company.

"Well, well! That's over!" said the wizard struggling to his feet. "I have done all that I could. But I have met my match, and have nearly been destroyed." ...

... "What happened away up there at the door?" [Gimli] asked. "Did you meet the beater of the drums?"

"I do not know," answered Gandalf. "But I found myself suddenly faced by something that I have not met before. I could think of nothing to do but to try and put a shutting-spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that kind rightly requires time, and even then the door can be broken by strength."

... "Then something came into the chamber -- I felt it through the door, and the orcs themselves were afraid and fell silent. It laid hold of the iron ring, and then it perceived me and my spell."

"What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge. The counter-spell was terrible. It nearly broke me. For an instant the door left my control and began to open! I had to speak a word of command. That proved too great a strain. The door burst to pieces. Something dark as a cloud was blocking out all the light inside, and I was thrown backwards down the stairs. All the wall gave way, and the roof of the chamber as well, I think."

Now, Tolkien could have written this scene differently, from an animist perspective, in which case the Balrog on one side of the door and Gandalf on the other side of the door each get down upon their respective knees imploring their respective invisible deity-spooks (Melkor or Iluvatar, respectively) to either open or shut the damned door for them. But Tolkien didn't write the scene that way, for which considerate mercy I have always felt profoundly grateful.

Originally Posted by skip spence

Why do you think this is?

As Frazer puts it, the belief in Magic precedes and underlies the later belief in Animism (essentially, magicians pushed into the invisible background to make room for the intercessor-middleman-priest). "This universal faith, this truly Catholic creed, is a belief in the efficacy of magic. While religious systems differ not only in different countries, but in the same country in different ages, the system of sympathetic magic remains everywhere and at all times substantially alike in its principles and practice. Among the ignorant and superstitious classes of modern Europe it is very much what it was thousands of years ago in Egypt and India, and what it now is among the lowest savages surviving in the remotest corners of the world."

Tolkien's magical mythology appeals to the deeper and more universal levels of the human psyche which persist stubbornly throughout human history regardless of the transient local dominance of various animist factions.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Now, Tolkien could have written this scene differently, from an animist perspective, in which case the Balrog on one side of the door and Gandalf on the other side of the door each get down upon their respective knees imploring their respective invisible deity-spooks (Melkor or Iluvatar, respectively) to either open or shut the damned door for them. But Tolkien didn't write the scene that way, for which considerate mercy I have always felt profoundly grateful.

I don't think the actions of angelic spirits should be taken into account in this debate. Neither Gandalf nor the Balrog would have had any need for "prayer" in that circumstance. Being "divine" spirits of the Maia themselves, they were not of the Children of Ilúvatar, and had their own inherent powers. Elves and Men in fact reverenced the Maia in that respect, such as Ossë and Uinen.

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

As Frazer puts it, the belief in Magic precedes and underlies the later belief in Animism (essentially, magicians pushed into the invisible background to make room for the intercessor-middleman-priest). "This universal faith, this truly Catholic creed, is a belief in the efficacy of magic. While religious systems differ not only in different countries, but in the same country in different ages, the system of sympathetic magic remains everywhere and at all times substantially alike in its principles and practice. Among the ignorant and superstitious classes of modern Europe it is very much what it was thousands of years ago in Egypt and India, and what it now is among the lowest savages surviving in the remotest corners of the world."

And all that is Frazer's opinion. Really, I don't see how that is relevant, unless one can show that Tolkien thought along the same lines.

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Tolkien's magical mythology appeals to the deeper and more universal levels of the human psyche which persist stubbornly throughout human history regardless of the transient local dominance of various animist factions.

Yet Tolkien did say:

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously so in the revision.

Letter 142

The fact that the works do enjoy such popularity may have many reasons, but I don't think one can say a conscious rejection of religion was part of it.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I don't think the actions of angelic spirits should be taken into account in this debate. Neither Gandalf nor the Balrog would have had any need for "prayer" in that circumstance. Being "divine" spirits of the Maia themselves, they were not of the Children of Ilúvatar, and had their own inherent powers. Elves and Men in fact reverenced the Maia in that respect, such as Ossë and Uinen.

I'll throw up another perspective, pushing Inziladun's perspective a bit. Now, I haven't read Osanwe-kenta, Tolkien's essay on telepathy in Middle Earth. From various tidbits and reviews I gather the following… Range is not a large factor. Both individuals communicating don't have to be overly powerful. The power of the stronger is far more important than the lesser. The telepathy works best if there is a bond of authority, familiarity or a sense of urgency.

This sounds like a plausible conduit for prayer.

The other factor, as Inziladun says, is that very strong beings have innate power. I would count Eru, the valar, the maia, those who have seen the Trees, those who have dwelt in the blessed lands, all elves to a lesser extent, and some Dúnedain as among those who have such power. These might to greater or lesser extent practice the Art, a use of their own innate ability to effect things outside themselves. The telepathy of Osanwe-kenta would be just one sort of such manipulation.

In this context, religious magic might come in two parts. The first is telepathy, as an individual communicates with a divine being. The second is the divine being using his innate ability in answer to the prayer. I see no reason to distinguish between Gandalf's wizardly magic and Elbereth taking action from Mount Everwhite save that Elbereth might need to be told that something needs her attention. One might ask how much range the Valar have when manipulating the world. It would have to be considerable, perhaps indefinite.

I see Tolkien's magic as taking on many aspects. Religion and wizardly magics are just two. One can go on to prophecy, oaths, curses, the undead, fate, the creation of enchanted items, weather, corruption and other elements. It would be nice to unite them, to see underlying themes where one sort of magic merges smoothly with the next.

Is the above way of seeing religious and wizardly magic as aspects of the same thing plausible?

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by The Misfortune Teller

Now, Tolkien could have written this scene differently, from an animist perspective, in which case the Balrog on one side of the door and Gandalf on the other side of the door each get down upon their respective knees imploring their respective invisible deity-spooks (Melkor or Iluvatar, respectively) to either open or shut the damned door for them. But Tolkien didn't write the scene that way, for which considerate mercy I have always felt profoundly grateful.

Agreed, if for no other reason then because having them get down to pray in the middle of an action-packed scene would have ruined the pace (a thing that irks me about clerics in D&D); but also because the Balrog broke Gandalf's spell, which if it was due to divine intervention rather than their respective innate power would imply that the Balrog's 'god' was stronger than Gandalf's, and I can't see Tolkien intending that.

(Can we, however, also agree that, whatever we may believe about our real world, from the immanent perspective of Tolkien's subcreated world Eru and the Valar were reality? Dismissing them as 'spooks' doesn't seem quite adequate.)

Originally Posted by TMT

Tolkien's magical mythology appeals to the deeper and more universal levels of the human psyche which persist stubbornly throughout human history regardless of the transient local dominance of various animist factions.

Looking strictly at LotR, and leaving the Silmarillion and Tolkien's later theological/metaphysic writings (where Eru and the Valar figure much more prominently) out of the picture, yes. Even in LotR, there are hints of divine providence at work behind the scenes, but done very subtly and vaguely and avoiding any mention of specific systems of theology or worship (or 'animist factions').

About prayers to Elbereth or the Valar in general (which are about the only instances of overt religious behaviour in LotR that come to my mind), I doubt they would have to be told when their attention was needed, and I really can't see that any coercion was involved. (Frankly, the thought that e.g. Sam 'speaking in tongues' at Cirith Ungol would be able to coerce Elbereth feels rather ridiculous.) So what exactly was the point of prayer in Middle-earth? Maybe it was just a question of the praying person acknowledging "I can't cope with this on my own, I need help."

(To illustrate my point, my other favourite fantasy writer, Stephen R. Donaldson, wrote a short story Unworthy of the Angel from the pov of angel on a covert mission to save the soul of an artist who has made or is about to make a pact with the devil; the story derives its tension from the premise that the angel is powerless/forbidden to interfere openly until the person concerned, i.e. the artist, gives him permission by calling out for help. Maybe the Valar were under a similar restriction regarding the Younger Children in the Third Age?)

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

(Can we, however, also agree that, whatever we may believe about our real world, from the immanent perspective of Tolkien's subcreated world Eru and the Valar were reality? Dismissing them as 'spooks' doesn't seem quite adequate.)

I'd second this. I am quite cynical about many real world religions, and was very cynical when I created my clerical and religious system for my D&D world. However, viewing Tolkien's works through the filter of a cynical view of religion in general isn't apt to get one close to the spirit of his works.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

(To illustrate my point, my other favourite fantasy writer, Stephen R. Donaldson, wrote a short story Unworthy of the Angel from the pov of angel on a covert mission to save the soul of an artist who has made or is about to make a pact with the devil; the story derives its tension from the premise that the angel is powerless/forbidden to interfere openly until the person concerned, i.e. the artist, gives him permission by calling out for help. Maybe the Valar were under a similar restriction regarding the Younger Children in the Third Age?)

The briefings the Valar gave to the five wizards might reflect this. The Istari were to work against Sauron, but were forbidden to use force or fear. I would strongly suspect the Valar had a similar code of behavior that limited their own actions.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Yet in Middle Earth, among the peoples described in LotR, there hardly a sign of religiousness of any kind and no-one makes any reference to any divinity or lesser spirits, direct or indirect. Well, there's Faramir looking West before eating, but that's it, to my knowledge.

Why do you think this is?

If I may interject, perhaps it's a question of defining or understanding what is meant by religion or religiousness.

We tend nowadays, especially in the west under Christian experience, to equate religion with formal belief. There's several creeds which Christians recite as part of their statement or expression of belief and centuries of theology have been devoted to developing precise notions of belief.

But not all religions (and not Christianity exclusively) place such a high value on orthodoxy. In fact, in may, orthopraxy is the more important value, the emphasis on right behaviour rather than right belief.

Karen Armstrong in The Spiral Staircase has a good discussion on the difference and the significance of orthopraxy as religious behaviour. Here's ye olde Wikipedia on orthopraxy (although I'm not sure this is the best discussion of it).

After all, religion need not be specifically about doing churchy things or religious acts or having a priestly hierarchy, but about living a way of life that brings one closer and closer to an ethical or moral standard. For some people, ritual, prayer, mantras, meditation help the individual achieve that desired status. These are acts which bring them closer to the ideal of an ego-free, selfless "Golden Rule."

It seems to me that LotR particularly is imbued with what can be called orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. It is historically true that Judaism and Islam have placed greater emphasis on orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy, but that does not mean the concept would not be known to Tolkien. In fact, I rather think that his removal of overt, formal signs of religion would be very close to an exploration of orthopraxy, since "right behaviour" is so clearly an issue in the story. It doesn't matter what Frodo "believes" or even that he finally came under the domination of the Ring; his actions enabled the Ring to be destroyed. I think Tolkien actually explains Frodo's moral achievement in this way, that Frodo brought about the conditions which led to the Ring's destruction. I don't have the Letters at hand, but I recall strongly (which doesn't mean my memory's right! ) this as Tolkien's defense of Frodo. Sounds very much to me like a culture where right behaviour is the salient factor rather than church hierarchies and formal dogmas and codes of belief.

Tolkien's discussion of allegory and his explanation of the Allies' behaviour (in the Forward to the Second editon where he dismisses charges of topicality) suggest also to me that he was thinking clearly of right behaviour rather than formal belief.

[skip spence]

Orthopraxy. Never heard that term before. But I like it, orthopraxy. And you are quite right, in Middle Earth it doesn't seem to matter whether the people are educated in the higher truths like the Eldar, or unschooled and (in all likelyhood) superstitious like the Rohirrim ot the Hobbits. How they measure up is decided by how they act in relation to their fellow man (or Elf or Dwarf etc) and to nature. This is something I really like about Tolkien's world and his morals. His moral standard is not a judgemental one in the sense that many conservatives now and in the past hold dear, where a failure to comply to orthodoxy leads to condemnation, but rather one tolerant of differances between peoples and individuals, as long as the heart is in the right place and you try to do what is good. I don't feel excluded from this moral standard, penned up by a deeply religious man, although I've no theistic beliefs myself and I respect Tolkien for that.

Originally Posted by Beth

It is historically true that Judaism and Islam have placed greater emphasis on orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy, but that does not mean the concept would not be known to Tolkien.

You mistyped and mixed up the terms here, didn't you?

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by skip spence

His moral standard is not a judgemental one in the sense that many conservatives now and in the past hold dear, where a failure to comply to orthodoxy leads to condemnation, but rather one tolerant of differances between peoples and individuals, as long as the heart is in the right place and you try to do what is good. I don't feel excluded from this moral standard, penned up by a deeply religious man, although I've no theistic beliefs myself and I respect Tolkien for that.

Well said - and I hope we can all agree that while for some people (as Bêthberry carefully put it) religious behaviour can be a way to achieve a moral/ethical standard, it's by no means a prerequisite, and may (again for some people) even have a contrary effect (as TMT noted).

Which is one reason why I'm not quite comfortable with the (modern?) tendency to reduce religion to a system of ethics (sort of a last resort of liberal theology when all else fails) - I don't feel it does complete justice to either ethics or religion. But this doesn't touch the importance of doing the right thing over belief or ritual in Tolkien. Very good point IMO.

Originally Posted by skip spence

You mistyped and mixed up the terms here, didn't you?

I don't think so. The wikipedia article Bb linked to treats ethics as only one aspect of orthopraxy, others being e.g. "tradition, sacrificial offerings, concerns of purity"; look at the importance of keeping the Mosaic law in Judaism, or of prescribed prayers, fasting etc. in Islam, and you see orthopraxy all over the place.

[Inziladun]

That's an interesting find, Bb. Like skip, I don't think I've ever heard the term "orthopraxy" before, but it seems to be in line with what you said earlier here.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

After all, religion need not be specifically about doing churchy things or religious acts or having a priestly hierarchy, but about living a way of life that brings one closer and closer to an ethical or moral standard. For some people, ritual, prayer, mantras, meditation help the individual achieve that desired status. These are acts which bring them closer to the ideal of an ego-free, selfless "Golden Rule."

What I might wonder about is where the "ethical or moral standard" comes from. Must it not be of Ilúvatar to be "right"? If the standard is up to the individual, all bets would seem to be off.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It doesn't matter what Frodo "believes" or even that he finally came under the domination of the Ring; his actions enabled the Ring to be destroyed. I think Tolkien actually explains Frodo's moral achievement in this way, that Frodo brought about the conditions which led to the Ring's destruction. I don't have the Letters at hand, but I recall strongly (which doesn't mean my memory's right! ) this as Tolkien's defense of Frodo. Sounds very much to me like a culture where right behaviour is the salient factor rather than church hierarchies and formal dogmas and codes of belief.

Certainly Frodo answered the "call", taking the Ring in accordance with the higher power. I do note that he had knowledge of Elbereth before he ever got involved with it, though.

I still can't get past the Númenóreans, and their simple form of formalised "worship" with the Meneltarma ceremonies. Moreover, that form of worship seemed to be acceptable to Ilúvatar, while it lasted. Favour was shown to the Men of Númenor, and they lived under the protection of the Valar. After the Kings hardened their hearts and stopped the custom, things went downhill for Númenor very quickly.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

What I might wonder about is where the "ethical or moral standard" comes from. Must it not be of Ilúvatar to be "right"? If the standard is up to the individual, all bets would seem to be off.

Well, Ilúvatar didn't issue a Torah or some such to His Children. He gave laws (axani) to the Valar which they in turn taught to the Elves (and they in turn to the Númenoreans?), but the majority of Men in Middle-earth received no such instruction. The only way their ethical standards could be derived from Ilúvatar (and not just cultural tradition, like e.g. the warrior ethic of the Rohirrim) would be if he somehow 'programmed' it into them when he made them - which is I think imaginable and would more or less boil down to what we call individual conscience.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I still can't get past the Númenóreans, and their simple form of formalised "worship" with the Meneltarma ceremonies. Moreover, that form of worship seemed to be acceptable to Ilúvatar, while it lasted. Favour was shown to the Men of Númenor, and they lived under the protection of the Valar. After the Kings hardened their hearts and stopped the custom, things went downhill for Númenor very quickly.

Yes, the Númenóreans are cum grano salis the Jews of Middle-earth in this respect (also in their language, which has a strong Semitic flavour in my ear). But as you noted yourself earlier, the Elvish 'proxy' worship was acceptable to him as well, and we don't see him getting angry with anybody because they did not worship him in any ritual way. I think what really did the Númenóreans in was turning from non-worship to active Morgoth-idolatry - so it would seem Eru was OK with people not worshipping him as long as they worshipped no false gods in his stead.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by skip spence

You mistyped and mixed up the terms here, didn't you?

Pitch got to this before me. Both the Wiki article and Armstrong's discussion explain how the right behaviour matters more than the belief and argue that this is more predominant in Judaism and Islam. In fact, she retells this story from Hyam Maccoby:

Originally Posted by The Spiral Staircase, p. 235

"Some pagans came to [Rabbi] Hillel and told him that they would convert to his faith if he could recite the whole of Jewish teaching while he stood on one leg. So Hillel obligingly stood on one leg like a stork and said, 'Do not do unto others as you would not have done unto you. That is the Torah. The rest is commentary. ' "

There's a good bit of Jewish humour in this, of course.

If y'all will bear with me, I'll quote the most succinct passage in Armstrong's argument about orthopraxy.

Originally Posted by The Spiral Staircase, pp. 270-271

Hyam Maccoby had given me a clue. . . . He had told me that in most traditions, faith was not about belief but about practice. Religion is not about accepting twenty impossible propositions before breakfast, but about doing things that change you. It is a moral aesthetic, an ethical alchemy. If you behave in a certain way, you will be transformed. The myths and laws of religion are not true because they conform to some metaphysical, scientific, or historical reality but because they are life enhancing. They tell you how human nature functions, but you will not discover their truth unless you apply these myths and doctrines to your own life and put them into practice. The myths of the hero, for example, are not meant to give us historical information about Prometheus, or Achilles--or for that matter, about Jesus or the Buddha. Their purpose is to compel us to act in such a way that we bring out our own heroic potential.

In the course of my studies, I have discovered that the religious quest is not about discovering "the truth" or "the meaning of life" but about living as intensely as possible here and now. The idea not to latch on to some superhuman personality or to "get to heaven" but to discover how to be fully human--hence the images of the perfect or enlightened man, or the deified human being. Archetypal figures such as Muhammad, the Buddha, and Jesus become icons of fulfilled humanity. Gor or Nirvana is not an optional extra, tacked on to our human nature. Men and women have a potential for the divine, and are not complete unless they realise it within themselves.

This is, of course, her personal statement of where she has come on her journey, but it is consistent with much in medieval mystics and, for instance, Buddhism, which does not have a god demanding fealty or imposing creeds. She goes on to explain how this is not "unbridled individualism" (p. 271)--after all, Armstrong spent several years training as a nun. It might be seen as too "liberal" for Tolkien's own faith, but I think that the central tenet for him was his experience of the Mass, when he believed he partook of the divine, and this fits in with Armstrong's explanation I think. So this idea of orthopraxy is not just a modern ethical system. The word has a long tradition in religious studies.

As to what sets up the standard, perhaps that would be the issue of suffering (as it is in Buddhism). When the Numenoreans turned to worshipping Melkor, how did that change their society and behaviour to each other?

Note to Inzil: I cannot recall when I first read The Spiral Staircase, so I cannot remember if it influenced my earlier post about Frodo, but there could well be a consistency in my own journey that's coming out.

EDIT: Thanks, guys, for the props. Good to see many contributing here.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Well, Ilúvatar didn't issue a Torah or some such to His Children. He gave laws (axani) to the Valar which they in turn taught to the Elves (and they in turn to the Númenoreans?), but the majority of Men in Middle-earth received no such instruction.

Right, which is the point I was making somewhere above when I reawakened this sleeping dragon.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

The only way their ethical standards could be derived from Ilúvatar (and not just cultural tradition, like e.g. the warrior ethic of the Rohirrim) would be if he somehow 'programmed' it into them when he made them - which is I think imaginable and would more or less boil down to what we call individual conscience.

The Rohirrim at least were aware of Oromë the Vala, named Béma by them. However, what special significance he might have had to them isn't clear.
As for the 'programming' aspect, I agree with the idea. Not long ago I heard a news story which said that all of us apparently had a "God-gene", something that impelled us to seek understanding of our purpose and predisposed us toward a belief in a Higher Power.
Also, I think there are instances in the books, like Sam's belief that he had 'something to do' before the end of Frodo's quest, or Aragorn's 'heart' telling him to follow the Uruk-hai on an apparently useless pursuit, that speak of inner promptings from an Outside source. Just my opinion, of course.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Yes, the Númenóreans are cum grano salis the Jews of Middle-earth in this respect (also in their language, which has a strong Semitic flavour in my ear). But as you noted yourself earlier, the Elvish 'proxy' worship was acceptable to him as well, and we don't see him getting angry with anybody because they did not worship him in any ritual way. I think what really did the Númenóreans in was turning from non-worship to active Morgoth-idolatry - so it would seem Eru was OK with people not worshipping him as long as they worshipped no false gods in his stead.

If either form of worship was all right though, I still have to wonder why open ceremony as displayed on the Meneltarma was not resumed by the Kingdoms in Exile. Painful memories? Or maybe just a general falling away from the ways of their forebears?

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Pitch got to this before me. Both the Wiki article and Armstrong's discussion explain how the right behaviour matters more than the belief and argue that this is more predominant in Judaism and Islam.

I think that goes back to what Pitch said, about Ilúvatar speaking to the heart. Otherwise, "right" behaviour cannot help being subjective.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

As to what sets up the standard, perhaps that would be the issue of suffering (as it is in Buddhism). When the Numenoreans turned to worshipping Melkor, how did that change their society and behaviour to each other?

All "suffer" in different ways, though. Again, doesn't that make standards of right and wrong subjective, if that's where they come from?

As for the Númenóreans, of course their society deteriorated very quickly once they started the Melkor-worship. They fought and killed one another. None of that induced them as a whole to change, though. Most of them became more and more debased and anti-West as things grew worse around them.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Note to Inzil: I cannot recall when I first read The Spiral Staircase, so I cannot remember if it influenced my earlier post about Frodo, but there could well be a consistency in my own journey that's coming out.

This was a while back, wasn't it? I've had a journey of my own which led to a significant event about 6 weeks ago, so my own perspective may a bit different now, but I think it's fundamentally the same.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Pitch ... It might be seen as too "liberal" for Tolkien's own faith, but I think that the central tenet for him was his experience of the Mass, when he believed he partook of the divine ...

I wondered when the subject of necrophilia and ritual cannibalism would come up in connection with Tolkien's own private magical and/or animist practices. I cannot speak to Tolkien's posthumously published writings (which I have not read) but I have scoured The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings for any evidence of hobbits, dwarves, elves, or men eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a renegade ancestor murdered thousands of years previously for his animist unorthodoxy. Thankfully, I could find no such references.

The gruesome practice of necrophiliac cannibalism, does, though, have an ancient history, far predating its absorption into the animist orthodoxy of Tolkien's own sectarian tradition. As Sir James George Frazer wrote in the concluding paragraph of Chapter 51, "Homeopathic Magic of a Flesh Diet" (http://www.bartleby.com/196/123.html):

“It is now easy to understand why a savage should desire to partake of the flesh of an animal or man whom he regards as divine. By eating the body of the god he shares in the god’s attributes and powers. And when the god is a corn-god, the corn is his proper body; when he is a vine-god, the juice of the grape is his blood; and so by eating the bread and drinking the wine the worshipper partakes of the real body and blood of his god. Thus the drinking of wine in the rites of a vine-god like Dionysus is not an act of revelry, it is a solemn sacrament. Yet a time comes when reasonable men find it hard to understand how any one in his senses can suppose that by eating bread or drinking wine he consumes the body or blood of a deity . 'When we call corn Ceres and wine Bacchus,' says Cicero, 'we use a common figure of speech; but do you imagine that anybody is so insane as to believe that the thing he feeds upon is a god?' "[emphasis added] -- The Golden Bough: a Study in Magic and Religion, p. 578

I love that quote from Cicero, which indicates that even the Roman pagans found some of nascent Christianity's practices disgusting and uncivilized. Worse things awaited mankind, however, as William Butler Yeats said in The Second Coming:

... The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

From what I have read of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (over many decades) it does not appear to me that Professor Tolkien thought it advisable to alienate millions of potential readers by inflicting his own sectarian animist beliefs and practices upon them. Speaking personally, at the first mention of a "Pope" in some Middle-earth version of "Vatican City," I would surely have thrown down the book in question and found something more interesting and entertaining to read.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

I wondered when the subject of necrophilia and ritual cannibalism would come up in connection with Tolkien's own private magical and/or animist practices. I cannot speak to Tolkien's posthumously published writings (which I have not read) but I have scoured The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings for any evidence of hobbits, dwarves, elves, or men eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a renegade ancestor murdered thousands of years previously for his animist unorthodoxy. Thankfully, I could find no such references.

If you can find no parallel in Tolkien's works, why do you discuss that subject?
I will also say that I, as a non-Catholic, find the manner in which you refer to the Mass needlessly provocative.

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

I love that quote from Cicero, which indicates that even the Roman pagans found some of nascent Christianity's practices disgusting and uncivilized. Worse things awaited mankind, however, as William Butler Yeats said in The Second Coming:

... The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

This has nothing to do with the thread topic. One would be tempted to think your sole purpose here is to rant against Christianity. Keep to the subject of the thread, please.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

If you can find no parallel in Tolkien's works, why do you discuss that subject?

Because others in this thread have asserted that such animist parallels exist. What? Have you missed all that?

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I will also say that I, as a non-Catholic, find the manner in which you refer to the Mass needlessly provocative.

Well, if you wish to taboo my choice of descriptive language, then consider what American philosopher/logician/scientist Charles Sanders Peirce had to say on the subject in his classic essay "How to Make Our Ideas clear" (Popular Science, 1898):

"Consider such a doctrine as transubstantiation. The Protestant churches generally hold that the elements of the sacrament are flesh and blood only in a tropical sense; they nourish our souls as meat and the juice of it would our bodies. But the Catholics maintain that they are literally meat and blood; although they possess all the sensible qualities of wafer-cakes and diluted wine. ... Such beliefs are nothing but self-notifications that we should, upon occasion, act in regard to such things as we believe to be wine according to the qualities that we believe wine to possess. ... and we can consequently mean nothing by wine but what has certain effects, direct or indirect, upon our senses; and to talk of something as having all the sensible characters of wine yet being in reality blood, is senseless jargon."

As you can see, the sectarian Protestant animists do not even agree with the sectarian Catholic animists about what constitutes flesh and blood and what constitutes crackers and grape juice. So, why should non-animists care what confusion reigns among certain -- if not all -- sectarian animist orthodoxies?

Originally Posted by Inziladun

This has nothing to do with the thread topic. One would be tempted to think your sole purpose here is to rant against Christianity. Keep to the subject of the thread, please.

If you would revisit the topic of the thread: namely, "Imagine No Religion," then you would understand comments in this thread that imagine no religion (meaning "animism") in The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. But as to the charge of "ranting" against "Christianity," I'll let the late great historian Barbara Tuchman speak for me:

“With the advent of Christianity, personal responsibility was given back to the external and supernatural, at the command of God and the Devil. Reason returned for a brief brilliant reign in the 18th century, since when Freud has brought us back to Euripides and the controlling power of the dark, buried forces of the soul, which not being subject to the mind are incorrigible by good intentions or rational will.” -- The March of Folly, p. 381

Magic empowers the individual whereas Animism inculcates powerless enfeeblement towards social authority exercised in the name of unseen spooks. Therein lies the reason why I think professor Tolkien gave us Gandalf the Wizard instead of Gandalf the High Priest of Hobbiton.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Well, if you wish to taboo my choice of descriptive language, then consider what American philosopher/logician/scientist Charles Sanders Peirce had to say on the subject in his classic essay "How to Make Our Ideas clear" (Popular Science, 1898):

"Consider such a doctrine as transubstantiation. The Protestant churches generally hold that the elements of the sacrament are flesh and blood only in a tropical sense; they nourish our souls as meat and the juice of it would our bodies. But the Catholics maintain that they are literally meat and blood; although they possess all the sensible qualities of wafer-cakes and diluted wine. ... Such beliefs are nothing but self-notifications that we should, upon occasion, act in regard to such things as we believe to be wine according to the qualities that we believe wine to possess. ... and we can consequently mean nothing by wine but what has certain effects, direct or indirect, upon our senses; and to talk of something as having all the sensible characters of wine yet being in reality blood, is senseless jargon."

As you can see, the sectarian Protestant animists do not even agree with the sectarian Catholic animists about what constitutes flesh and blood and what constitutes crackers and grape juice. So, why should non-animists care what confusion reigns among certain -- if not all -- sectarian animist orthodoxies?

I will add to Inziladun that, as a Catholic, I also find your word choice provocative. It's not the discussion of taboo topics, nor even the word-choice surrounding them, but the tone that does it. Of course, this is the internet, and tone is notoriously hard to read here, but I would say that if doesn't wish to accidentally put forth a tone that will be taken poorly, it helps to use another group's self-chosen terminology, as opposed to a deliberately alternative terminology.

That being said, though, while I am irked enough to post, I do find the discovery of someone who takes Catholics beliefs to their full shocking conclusions to be rather refreshing. It's nice to have the gravity of the situation recognised. After all, to quote St. Paul, if we're wrong about all of this, then "we are of all people most to be pitied." (1 Cor 15:19b). Of course, pitying us doesn't call for ridiculing us--at least not to our faces.

Thus, before actually returning to the topic at hand, I'd like to back up Inziladun by saying that it's not the question of "taboo topics" that's being asked, but the question of civility in our discourse on ANY topic. Granted, we're talking about the presence or lack of religion here, so even though it's a discussion of a fictional work, it's going to be hard to go about that without bringing in real-world references. However, since it's a given that religion is right up there with politics for "most incendiary topics known to man," it is to be expected that those participating in those topics will exercise commonsense--and may be even some common manners--in doing so.

And if I may be permitted a moment of caustic sarcasm: "honestly, you didn't think there might actually be one or two Catholics on a forum full of diverse, world-wide members about a book that, containing Catholicism or not, was written by a Catholic in a language spoken by millions of Catholics?"

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

If you would revisit the topic of the thread: namely, "Imagine No Religion," then you would understand comments in this thread that imagine no religion (meaning "animism") in The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. But as to the charge of "ranting" against "Christianity," I'll let the late great historian Barbara Tuchman speak for me:

“With the advent of Christianity, personal responsibility was given back to the external and supernatural, at the command of God and the Devil. Reason returned for a brief brilliant reign in the 18th century, since when Freud has brought us back to Euripides and the controlling power of the dark, buried forces of the soul, which not being subject to the mind are incorrigible by good intentions or rational will.” -- The March of Folly, p. 381

Magic empowers the individual whereas Animism inculcates powerless enfeeblement towards social authority exercised in the name of unseen spooks. Therein lies the reason why I think professor Tolkien gave us Gandalf the Wizard instead of Gandalf the High Priest of Hobbiton.

Firstly, just because other people have seen Christianity in a paradigm that does not acknowledge its claims as healthy, let alone Revealed doesn't mean that you can't bring them up in an abrasive manner.

Secondly, you continue to associate animism directly with religion, or at least you seem to, to me. I am afraid I am going to have side more with Bêthberry, who brings up quite rightly that there are major distinctions between religions--not least regarding the subject of the individual. To look merely at Protestantism vs. Catholicism, it's hardly controversial for me to say that individualism is something that has grown out of Protestant culture, whereas Catholicism has historically tended towards a much stronger focus on the community of believers. However, I don't think you can say that a believing Protestant has much to do with "magic," unless you really change the definition of magic.

In a similar manner, you have brought up magic as empowering individualism before because "Magic empowers the individual whereas Animism inculcates powerless enfeeblement towards social authority exercised in the name of unseen spooks. Therein lies the reason why I think professor Tolkien gave us Gandalf the Wizard instead of Gandalf the High Priest of Hobbiton." If that is the case, however, then it is only powering very selective individuals indeed: Gandalf may be an empowered anti-animist (disregarding the fact that he is canonically an "angel" on a divine mission...), but Frodo Baggins isn't comparably empowered (or Sam, or Pippin, or Lotho, if you don't want me to use the Ring-bearer). In fact, he is pretty much as beholden to Elrond as the magic-wielding lord of Rivendell as he would be if Elrond were the High Priest of the Cult of Ulmo.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Zil

As for the 'programming' aspect, I agree with the idea. Not long ago I heard a news story which said that all of us apparently had a "God-gene", something that impelled us to seek understanding of our purpose and predisposed us toward a belief in a Higher Power.

Danger, Will Robinson! I'd be very wary of bringing genetics into this - this looks to me too much of another attempt to misuse 'science' in order to bolster preconcieved beliefs or prejudices (like the Intelligent Design scam or the alleged finding of a gene for homosexuality a decade or two ago). If we think this out, the logical conclusion would have to be that atheism is a genetic defect, wouldn't it, and I don't want to go where that might lead us.

(Also note that in the post you refer to here, I was strictly talking Tolkien, and whether we need resort to divine inspiration to explain ethical standards outside Middle-earth is quite another matter.)

Originally Posted by TMT

Magic empowers the individual whereas Animism inculcates powerless enfeeblement towards social authority exercised in the name of unseen spooks.

So it would seem, working with the distinction as you defined it above (and leaving aside terminological squibbles about your use of animism, which isn't the topic here). But I'm not sure the distinction is as clear-cut as you (or Frazer) would like it to be. Take e.g. a pagan deity like Odin, who was both a patron god of shamanist magic (seiðr) and the highest god of the official religion of the time. Or what do you make of modern Wicca, which combines the practice of magic with ritual worship of the Goddess and God (and, at least in some of its most vociferous writers, strongly emphasizes empowering the individual)?

Keeping to Tolkien, can you really claim that praying to Elbereth enfeebled rather than empowered Sam at Cirith Ungol?

Finally, as an ex-Christian, I'll have to third what Zil and Formy said about word-choice and tone (if you haven't guessed it already). The wonderful thing about this forum is that it unites people coming from vastly different cultural, religious and political backgrounds through our common love for Tolkien's works - not by muddying our differences, but simply by treating each other with respect and empathy (or, as you put it in your first post here, "human brotherhood").

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Danger, Will Robinson! I'd be very wary of bringing genetics into this - this looks to me too much of another attempt to misuse 'science' in order to bolster preconcieved beliefs or prejudices (like the Intelligent Design scam or the alleged finding of a gene for homosexuality a decade or two ago). If we think this out, the logical conclusion would have to be that atheism is a genetic defect, wouldn't it, and I don't want to go where that might lead us.

That was merely an aside that your post reminded me of. I had no intention of holding it up for debate. In retrospect I would not have added that.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Danger, Will Robinson! I'd be very wary of bringing genetics into this - this looks to me too much of another attempt to misuse 'science' in order to bolster preconceived beliefs or prejudices (like the Intelligent Design scam or the alleged finding of a gene for homosexuality a decade or two ago). If we think this out, the logical conclusion would have to be that atheism is a genetic defect, wouldn't it, and I don't want to go where that might lead us.

I grew up Catholic, so am comfortable enough in the Sunday School version of that world view. I'm now more of a secular humanist than anything else. I do sometimes play with the idea of how any human emotion or drive evolved to be of some benefit to the human race. Some drives such as love or mercy might be identified as 'good.' Others such as greed or aggression might be associated with evil. At some point, though, any trait that evolved to become human normal was once beneficial to the species.

When I look back at hunter gatherer cultures, it is easy to see how both the good and the evil drives were advantageous to the spreading of the human race. Showing love and mercy to members of one's own clan or tribe benefits the tribe. Securing resources and driving the other tribe off what was once their land might also be beneficial to one's own tribe.

On the other hand, love drives, or sex drives, can run amok, leading to rape and domestic violence. Selfishness and a desire to gather resource is a force that drives business, but many cultures find it necessary to curb excessive greed and desire to seize land and resources. If we do not enable a competitive energy to make a living, economics doesn't work. Yet these same drives easily become evil in excess.

I'd agree that using genetic pseudo science to advocate this moral system or that is dangerous territory, but we might also strive to understand ourselves. Until we comprehend the demons inside us we're going to have grave difficulties taming them.

Tolkien is hardly unique in using the themes of Good and Evil. I do see considerable evidence that his creations might be 'programmed.' The 'good' races tend towards the sort of friendly emotions that one might share with family and good neighbors. The 'evil' races tend towards anger and aggression, the same sort of feelings Americans of prior generations might have been expected to feel when fighting huns, japs, nazis, redskins, redcoats, reds, rebels or yankees.

Looking at Tolkien's origin stories, sure, it becomes easy to conjecture that Eru and the other singers 'programmed' many races to be inclined towards the good emotions, but Morgoth corrupted and over rode much of this programming with his own. As a story teller, Tolkien gets to say lots of interesting things working from such a premise.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It seems to me that LotR particularly is imbued with what can be called orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. It is historically true that Judaism and Islam have placed greater emphasis on orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy

Ah maybe ít is I who have mixed up the terms, or have been sloppy. Well, I think I thought Christianity was under the greater umbrella of Judaism, and that it consequently also would historically have valued orthopraxy over orthodoxy, which didn't ring true to me. Christianity, or at least not its mayor Churches, historically don't seem to have been happy at all with people following their own creed or lack thereof as long as they act as "good" human beings. On the contrary, pledging allegience to the one and only acceptable creed and partaking in all its rituals seem to have been a requirement for being treated as a good citizen and to have a chance of avoiding the eternal fires.

To be fair, I don't have the impression that the Muslim clerics have been much different in this respect (though perhaps, in the Middle Ages at least, more tolerant of other creeds than their Christian counterparts), and that WiKi article also suggests that the orthopraxy of Islam really could be held to be "orthodoxy applied to practice" since "the practice is held to come from doctrine [ie the faith in and obiedience to Allah]". A similar argument could be held to be true for Judaism, apparently. And frankly, the exploits of the Jews as depicted in the first testament doesn't exactly argue for a people (and religion) that are tolerant of peoples of another creed. These fellows they simply chop the head off, no questions asked. Things have changed since then, of course, but the point remains.

In any case, if you say that LotR is inbued with an orthopraxy, that the right behaviour is what matters, not one's allegiance or creed - and here I would agree - I will argue that it is not the same kind of orthopraxy that these real world religious leaders have preached throughout history. In Islam or Judaism the right behaviour may be what's most important, but what constitutes the right behaviour is decided by the clerics (or, allegedly, God, through the clerics).

In Middle Earth, apparently, there are no clerics and there are no holy books. There are some instances and suggestions of deities or demi-deities communicating directly with people or characters, but these are exceptions surely. Who then is to decide what is right or wrong? The people are rather left to decide among themselves, aren't they?

So: Imagine no (organized) religion!

In a way, this seems to be what Tolkien's done.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by skip spence

In any case, if you say that LotR is inbued with an orthopraxy, that the right behaviour is what matters, not one's allegiance or creed - and here I would agree - I will argue that it is not the same kind of orthopraxy that these real world religious leaders have preached throughout history. In Islam or Judaism the right behaviour may be what's most important, but what constitutes the right behaviour is decided by the clerics (or, allegedly, God, through the clerics).

There might be another perspective on this. Religious scholars have recently began using computers to do language analysis of the Bible and other ancient works. One goal is to figure out who wrote what. One perspective that came out of this is that the Bible mixed together two distinct traditions.

The story telling tradition would deal with Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son, with David slaying Goliath, with water being turned to wine. The priestly tradition dealt with rules, with keeping holy the lord's day, not eating pork, and not coveting one's neighbor's wife. There was conjecture that the story telling tradition was more rural and informal, while the priestly tradition was more urban and concerned with consolidation of authority.

This might illustrate the nature of 'organized religion,' such as it is, in Tolkien's works. There is an abundance of tales which present moral decisions and show the implications of making the incorrect choice. There is no priest class deriving rules from these stories and trying to make sure the rules are followed.

Which might be another perspective on the Orthopraxy / Orthodoxy distinction.

[Bêthberry]

I'm like the White Rabbit, always late to the debate. Sorry, RL kept me mostly absent from the net yesterday.

Let me start by saying that I have neg repped a post up here, not because I object to the ideas but because I object to the gratuitous attempt to insult other people's ideas. To take up the point of Tolkien's experience of the Mass and see if it appears anywhere in the text (something I did not do) is legitimate, but it does not require one quote refutations of the Mass, particularly those that rather arrogantly assume their own superiority--they can have no bearing on Tolkien's experience and so really are irrelevant to the discussion. It's not like Tolkien would have thought, hey, these folks are right, so I'll just omit it from the story. I smell someone who wishes to bait us rather than engage in legitimate discussion, which is what Skip has done. And if this is an unfair characterisation of TMT, then I would of course apologise. But communities have standards of respect and tone and that's important here on the Downs. And for the record, I'm not Catholic.

I also want to make a short reply to something Inzil commented on:

Originally Posted by Inzil

I think that goes back to what Pitch said, about Ilúvatar speaking to the heart. Otherwise, "right" behaviour cannot help being subjective.

I think that raising the issue of subjectivity is not helpful, for several reasons, metaphysically, epistemologically, logically because "subjective" is not necessarily always defined as the opposite of "objective." For instance, I can have a headache, which is felt only by me and so thus could be said to be subjective, but that does not make the headache any less real. Also, it is possible to say that, given there is widespread agreement between people and cultures about what is a good person and what is morally problematic, that such "subjective" explanations become in effect an objective standard without resort to a deity. I don't want to ramble at length other than to say that I think the objective/subjective road is not an authoritative one.

Originally Posted by Skip

In any case, if you say that LotR is inbued with an orthopraxy, that the right behaviour is what matters, not one's allegiance or creed - and here I would agree - I will argue that it is not the same kind of orthopraxy that these real world religious leaders have preached throughout history. In Islam or Judaism the right behaviour may be what's most important, but what constitutes the right behaviour is decided by the clerics (or, allegedly, God, through the clerics).

I offerred orthopraxy as an example of one way of thinking about spirituality which might be applicable to LotR. It is a term which I think offers something valuable. To analyse it in other religions would be, I think, outside the scope of this thread (and of the Downs), so I'll just say I agree with your first sentence here. I meant simply that the term and its understanding is not some post-modern or new age fandangle.

Originally Posted by Skip

In Middle Earth, apparently, there are no clerics and there are no holy books. There are some instances and suggestions of deities or demi-deities communicating directly with people or characters, but these are exceptions surely. Who then is to decide what is right or wrong? The people are rather left to decide among themselves, aren't they?

Originally Posted by blantyr

The story telling tradition would deal with Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son, with David slaying Goliath, with water being turned to wine. The priestly tradition dealt with rules, with keeping holy the lord's day, not eating pork, and not coveting one's neighbor's wife. There was conjecture that the story telling tradition was more rural and informal, while the priestly tradition was more urban and concerned with consolidation of authority.

This might illustrate the nature of 'organized religion,' such as it is, in Tolkien's works. There is an abundance of tales which present moral decisions and show the implications of making the incorrect choice. There is no priest class deriving rules from these stories and trying to make sure the rules are followed.

This reminds me of a point which Christopher Tolkien made about his father's work--a point also discussed at length by the scholar Tom Shippey. I'm not sure how applicable it is to this discussion, but it might be. It is the point about the 'impression of depth', of time and ages past and ofthe power of suggestion.

Originally Posted by JRRT, letter dated 20 Sept 1963

Part of the attraction of The L.R. is, I think, due to the glimpses of a large history in the background: an attraction like that of viewing far off an unvisited island, or seeing the towers of a distant city gleaming in a sunlit mist.

Originally Posted by JRRT, letter quote by CT, BoLT foreward, p. 3

A story must be told or there'll be no story, yet it is the untold stories that are the most moving. I think you are moved by Celebrimbor because it conveys a sudden sense of endless untold stories: mountains seen far away, never to be climbed, distant trees (like Niggle's) never to be approached. . .

What I am wondering about--and it is just a suggestion as I am still mulling it over--is whether this is a crucial aesthetic motive for Tolkien's attitude towards religion in LotR. I am like Skip in that I greatly appreciate the lack of allegory or explicit references to religion in LotR--that is one reason why I don't enjoy C.S. Lewis' Narnia (I don't like being hit on the head). I suppose it's in the nature of the fan dance just to suggest and this is the power of any religious element in LotR. To formalise it would be to destroy this attraction of glimpse which some can see.

So, having been interrupted by two telephone calls while writing this, I must close.

[Puddleglum]

Originally Posted by skip spence

In Middle Earth, apparently, there are no clerics and there are no holy books. There are some instances and suggestions of deities or demi-deities communicating directly with people or characters, but these are exceptions surely. Who then is to decide what is right or wrong? The people are rather left to decide among themselves, aren't they?

I think, in Tolkien's M.E., it depends on whether the question is asking:

• Do people get to establish the standards of good/evel by their own choices (ie, if I decide it's right, then it is)? <or>
• Do people get to decide what they will do - hoping they are making the right decision (ie, even if I make my best guess, I may still be doing evil)?

Eomer asked Aragorn at one time (rough quote) "How shall a man decide what is right to do?" And Aragorn responded, "As he ever has, Good and Evil do not change from one time to another, nor are they one thing among elves and another among men."

I think that, IN TOLKIEN'S CREATION, any discussion of good and evil begins with Eru and his "Mighty Theme" (cf Music of the Ainur). That which followed the Theme is good and that which goes off on it's own is evil. For creatures to decide, ages later, what specific deeds are good & evil is sometimes hard (like, should Eomer give horses to Aragorn in violation of his king's commands) - but at no time, IMO, does the individual get to choose what the standard of Good is, only whether to take actions that BELIEVE are good (or evil).

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Puddleglum

...at no time, IMO, does the individual get to choose what the standard of Good is, only whether to take actions that BELIEVE are good (or evil).

No, you are certainly right about that. In Arda there is Good and there is Bad, and these are objective qualities. But what I meant I suppose is that its inhabitants instinctively seem to be able to tell good from bad without any help from clerics or holy books that establish a moral standard, and without any threat of condemnation or eternal punishment in the afterlife, without any promise of a Heaven free from pain. Sure, one might presume that there is judgement in the Halls of Mandos for all the speaking people but among the living (excluding the Eldar and those associated with them) there doesn't seem to be any awareness of this and no traditions that speak of God or the Halls of Mandos and what lies beyond. If a Hobbit is doing his or her best to be a good person, that Hobbit does it with an internal motivation, and not to please Eru and book a seat in heaven. Much like a secular humanist, wouldn't you say?

[Almesiva Moonshadow]

No religion means no cruch on Sunday so...YAAAAY!

[blantyr]

They might not have priests, but there are a lot of cultures in Middle Earth with minstrels and songs. When Frodo and Sam woke in Ithilin, one of the first major tasks was writing the tale of nine fingered Frodo and the Ring of doom. When Frodo stopped in Rivendell, there was the Hall of Fire. When the Fellowship reached Lorien they had the elves singing songs of the late Mithrandir. Even in the Wild between Bree and Rivendell, Sam knew a few verses telling the story of Gil Galad.

I'd suggest that histories are told in song. Part of the role of the song is to illustrate good and evil. What choices must a hero face, and what have been the consequences in the past?

There is a large difference between a minstrel and a priest. Yet, if there is some universal agreement on the nature of good and evil, a tradition of story telling in song, in keeping alive lessons learned from past mistakes, might well be present.

[Morthoron]

The power of song is very evident throughout Middle-earth history. Or perhaps the better term is "songs of power", which is evidently a theme that intrigued Tolkien. We're' not talking merely singing, but a method used to summon power by beings with innate power themselves, or lesser beings that use an agent in combination with song (Frodo with the phial of Galadrial or Aragorn with athelas).

From the Music of the Ainur, to the battle of Finrod and Sauron, to Luthien and Morgoth, songs of power weaved a spell throughout Arda.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

From the Music of the Ainur, to the battle of Finrod and Sauron, to Luthien and Morgoth, songs of power weaved a spell throughout Arda.

Let us not forget old Tom Bombadil who taught the hobbits a "rhyme" with which to summon him for aid and his weapon against the Barrow Wight, a song. Goldberry's singing also seems to bring a golden light around the hobbits on their arrival at the doorstep to the House of Bombadil.

Note: This is not to resurrect the "Bombadil is Eru" argument.

[Puddleglum]

Originally Posted by skip spence

No, you are certainly right about that. In Arda there is Good and there is Bad, and these are objective qualities. But what I meant I suppose is that its inhabitants instinctively seem to be able to tell good from bad without any help from clerics or holy books that establish a moral standard...

I think I see your point, but do have a couple of observations about it.
First, it may not be easy to distinguish (whether in Arda or in our world) between an understanding of "good" that is instinctive vs an understanding that is taught.

The peoples of the West (whether Numenorean or other) had a long history of teaching derived from the Valar - both via the Noldor and via Maia sent among the Edain at the end of the First age. Tho possibly garbled with time, that was still handed down and taught over the years. And they retained contacts with the Eldar even into the Third Age - which would help reduce the level of "garblege". The peoples of the East & South had a long history of servitude to Sauron coloring their beliefs of good and bad.

Second, even with that, and with the limited records we have, the inhabitants of Arda are frequently choosing "bad" - suggesting their "instincts" may not be all that much different from ours. For example (just to list a few)...

• Elves: Thingol locks up his daughter in a treehouse rather than let her elope.
• Elves: Turgon grows so proud he refuses the direct advice of a Vala and dooms his people to death and destruction.
• Elves: Celebrimbor leads a coup in Eregion to supplant Galadriel & Celeborn and place his guild in charge.
• Elves: Galadriel & Celeborn ban all Dwarves from Lorien for hundreds of years even tho Dwarves were as much victims of the Balrog as Elves.
• Dwarves: Sneaky murder of Thngol, lying about it and leading an army to sack Menegroth.
• Dwarves: Some (of all races, incl Dwarves) fought WITH Sauron at the end of the 2nd Age.
• Dwarves: Greed of Thorin willing to have a war rather than be generous with his wealth after fall of Smaug.
• Ents: Skinbark refused to participate in defeating Saruman.
• Ents/Huorns: Per Treebeard "there are dales in this land where the Darkness has never been lifted".
• Men: It is said that well nigh all the peoples of the east & south were under Sauron's sway - and worshiped him as a god.
• Men: Castamir usurped the throne of Eldacar leading tot he Civil War of the kin-strife.
• Men: Servants of Denethor were so confused about "what was right" they got into a fight in the Hallows leading to the volient killing of some (by Beregond).
• Men: The rebellion of Numenor.
• Men: The pride of Aldarion & Erendis leading to their estrangement and Ancalime growing up with a rather jaundiced view of men - leading to her own final marriage (simply to deny the throne to one she didn't like).
• Hobbits: Lobellia S.B. stealing silver spoons from Bilbo (and trying to steal things from Frodo after Bilbo leaves).
• Hobbits: Ted Sandyman going over to the ruffian's side and helping to pollute "The Water".

That Hobbits seem to have fewer bad examples may be due less to instinct than to their more insular (and less stressful) situation - at least at the times the records deal with leading up to the War of the Ring.

A rough parallel might be to consider how a small, rural, mid-western, U.S. prairie town of 1100 is likely to have less crime & delinquency per-capita than, say, the Inner City of Los Angeles or New York. In the smaller setting, everyone pretty much knows everyone and, if someone starts to go off the path, there is tremendous pressure to bring them back.
But that is less a matter of instinct about what is "good" than pressure to conform to the local "standard" - whatever it is.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The power of song is very evident throughout Middle-earth history. Or perhaps the better term is "songs of power", which is evidently a theme that intrigued Tolkien...

From the Music of the Ainur, to the battle of Finrod and Sauron, to Luthien and Morgoth, songs of power weaved a spell throughout Arda.

I do not in the least doubt or intend to diminish the role of song in projecting magic. Many of the greatest spell casters in the histories are singers rather than users of words and gestures.

Still, an ordinary minstrel, a singer of tales with no occult abilities worth mentioning, has a role in keeping alive myth and perpetuating moral standards. When Frodo and Sam awoke in Ithilin after Mount Doom, one of the first things on the agenda was singing the tale of nine fingered Frodo and his ring. Sam in the Wild between Bree and Rivendell sang a bit of the tale of Gil Galad. Then there was the Hall of Fire. One has song for the telling of tales as well as song for the projection of power.

I have an impression that the free peoples of the Third Age were much less likely to muck things up than their First or Second Age counterparts. An awful lot of the First and Second Age stories were tragedies. The Great in their greed, arrogance and pride were apt to muck things up big time, often involving everyone in loss and sorrow.

Perhaps some of the 'goodness' in the free peoples was 'programming,' the creators who sang them into being in the First Music made them to be decent people. If part of the tradition of goodness is taught, I would not underestimate the histories told in song or perhaps epic poetry that kept old traditions alive and reminds folks of what can happen if the wrong choices are made.

In many real world cultures, it is up to the priests to keep the old tales alive and make sure the moral lessons aren't lost. In Middle Earth, while there is no organized church hierarchy or codified clerical laws, the singers might be doing some part of what the priests might do in different sort of culture.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by me

I still can't get past the Númenóreans, and their simple form of formalised "worship" with the Meneltarma ceremonies. Moreover, that form of worship seemed to be acceptable to Ilúvatar, while it lasted. Favour was shown to the Men of Númenor, and they lived under the protection of the Valar. After the Kings hardened their hearts and stopped the custom, things went downhill for Númenor very quickly.

I find it neat the way topics here can sit at the back of one's mind dormant, only to resurface months, even years later when one reads the books again.

I had the thought that even though the Elves only pray to the Valar, as with the plea of Fingon to Manwë when trying to rescue Maedhros:

'O King to whom all birds are dear, speed now this feathered shaft, and recall some pity for the Noldor in their time of need!'

the Númenóreans prayed to both the Valar (specifically Uinen the wife of Ossë) and Eru Ilúvatar.

Prayers to Uinen were not on the same level as the ritualized worship of Eru though. I wonder if that was not due to specific design of the Valar. Perhaps they feared (as proved true) that Men would more easily fall under the sway of whatever 'angelic' beings that walked the earth (Sauron, and Balrogs?) and thus be led astray.
Formal worship of the One would hopefully serve to keep them focused as well on the afterlife that awaited them, instead of becoming obsessed with having more life within the world, bound to it, as the Valar and Elves were.
That is to say that it seems now that the singular worship of Eru by Númenor was tied into both their greatness among mortals, which allowed them something of a taste of Eldar life, with its accompanying potential for envy, and their inherent remaining mortality, which did not allow them the luxury of holding fast to the world.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

There are a lot of passages in LotR where it says that something has happened because it was "meant" to happen. I reread Mt. Doom last night in hopes that I could find a passage where Sam looks to the skies in Mordor and sees one star. He said something that might have referenced Eru, but I didn't find the passage, and I started doubting as to whether or not that actually happened, or if I combined a movie and book moment in my mind. I mention this because even in that one chapter I noticed Sam thinking that something was "meant" to be. If a series of events happens that is attributed to fate, in my mind that is equating those events to be "from God" in some way or another. While the peoples in Middle-earth (the exception being the kings of Numenor) never did seem to go to church, they did talk an awful lot about "luck," fate," and being "meant" to have or to do something. That points, to me, to some higher power at work. That if the characters themselves are only vaguely aware or believe that there are some higher powers working for them, they do appreciate it, and at least mention it. In Mt. Doom, Sam thinks to himself that he has found an incredible stroke of luck when he finds a road in Mordor leading to Orodruin (that the narrator is quick to point out is Sauron's personal road from Barad-dur to the mountain, but Sam does not know this). Sam and Frodo take this road all the way to the mountain. Sam distinctly mumbles to himself about how they were "meant" to find this road and take it. Another example would be Gandalf telling Frodo that he and Bilbo were "meant" to find the Ring, but not by Sauron. That leads me to believe that either Eru or the Valar moved their hands in some way to lead Bilbo to find the Ring in Gollum's keeping.

I hope I did not ramble. I rarely post on the books forum, so my serious posting mode is a bit rusty.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Formal worship of the One would hopefully serve to keep them focused as well on the afterlife that awaited them, instead of becoming obsessed with having more life within the world, bound to it, as the Valar and Elves were.
That is to say that it seems now that the singular worship of Eru by Númenor was tied into both their greatness among mortals, which allowed them something of a taste of Eldar life, with its accompanying potential for envy, and their inherent remaining mortality, which did not allow them the luxury of holding fast to the world.

Note however that the (public) worship of Eru was restricted to the King alone, on certain specified days; invoking the Almighty was simply Not Done except by the highest, on the highest occasions. It is said in Cirion and Eorl that the very act of naming The One hallowed the sdummit of Halifirien from thenceforward, and it was an act that astounded all present- even though Cirion legally had all th powers of the Kings, this was one none of his predecessors had ever presumed to exercise.

[Puddleglum]

Originally Posted by TheGreatElvenWarrior

I reread Mt. Doom last night in hopes that I could find a passage where Sam looks to the skies in Mordor and sees one star. He said something that might have referenced Eru, but I didn't find the passage

It's there. It's in the preceding chapter "The Land of Shadow"

Originally Posted by Land of Shadow

Far above the Ephel Dúath in the West the night-sky was still dim and pale. There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.

His song in the tower had been defiance, rather than hope, for then he had been thinking about himself. Now his own fate, even his master's ceased to trouble him. He crawled back into the thicket, laid himself at Frodo's side, and cast himself at once into a deep and untroubled sleep.

Like most else in LOTR, explicit reference to Eru is minimal or omitted. Tolkien wrote once to the effect that this was intentional. That the, if you will, "religious" elements were subsumed into the story itself, rather than stated explicitly. Thus, the characters do not (except only rarely) refer to Eru but the story is predicated upon both his presence and his sovereignty over the unfolding story.

Hence, Sam's returned hope is based upon his recognition that for all his seeming power and menace and bluster, Sauron is (in the end) futile and passing. It is hard, often, to grasp such a thought in the middle of such travails (which is one reason why few characters "do" grasp it - even for a moment), but it serves to express (I believe) Tolkien's hope - not only for the story of LOTR, but also, by extension, for our times - that when the story has finally reached the end all the pains and loss will be redressed and seen as no more than growing pains - as a rock climber forgets all his/her scrapes and bruises for joy of the view seen once the cliff top has been reached.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by Puddleglum

It's there. It's in the preceding chapter "The Land of Shadow"

Thank you for finding that. I was lost when trying to look for it, and now I think that is exactly the passage I was thinking of.