The Emblems of Religion don't belong ... or do they?

[littlemanpoet]

Tolkien asserted that the emblems of religion don't belong in fantasy.... or something to that effect (I may not have this worded or remembered quite right).

It certainly works very well in LotR. It was one of his primary criticisms of the works of C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams (fellow "inklings").

Do you agree or disagree that the emblems of religion don't belong in fantasy?

What were Tolkien's reasons for discluding them? Which reasons were valid back when he wrote? Are they still valid now?

[Son of Númenor]

Tolkien's assertion about emblems of religion having no place in fantasy could be linked to his dislike for allegory. Fantasy, Tolkien deemed, should have the ultimate purpose of lifting its reader to 'eucatastrophe' -- something along the lines of a state of pure revelation and joy. It would be hard for readers of different faiths to attain such a state with overtly Christian (or Muslim, Jewish, etc.) symbolism penetrating the narrative. I for one agree with Professor Tolkien; if Arwen's banner for Aragorn had a cross emblazoned on it, or if Gondor's seven stars were Stars of David, I think I would be automatically inclined to view Middle-earth as an allegorical rather than a purely fantastic world, and its purpose as evangelical rather than eucatastrophic.

[Formendacil]

Well, another thing to note along these lines is Tolkien's assertion that the LotR was Christian, unconsciously so in the making, consciously so the revision.

How could an epic, purported to be set deep in the years B.C., contain Christian symbolism while still maintaining its cohesiveness with real history?

I admit that this doesn't necessary work for other fantasy stories, but it certainly seems to apply to the Lord of the Rings.

[Lalwendë]

Tolkien said LotR was "a fundamentally Catholic work". And by that I see not that it reproduced the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, for that the reader has to turn to other writers, but it reflects certain parts of that faith - perhaps the Valar/Maiar could be seen as versions of saints or angels in a fundamentally ordered, yet very different universe.

LotR does not deny God, so it is not an atheistic or agnostic work. But is it a secular work? Whether Tolkien wanted to exclude symbols of religion or not, they are still to be found in his work. I think this is due in no small part to the fact that many of those symbols, getting away from the obvious ones such as the crucifix or crescent moon, are ingrained within us; archetypes might be the correct term . As just one example we have the semi-Trickster figures recently discussed. Or a link can be drawn between Galadriel and Brigid, with the significance of water common to both. I think religions take powerful or familiar symbols from the world about us (or from worlds that were once about us) and make use of them; it is inevitable that Tolkien would have unwittingly/unconsciously used some the less obvious symbols.

I can see exactly why Tolkien would not want to include the more overt symbols of religion in his work. He was creating his own world and those symbols would not belong there as this world would need its own significant symbols, such as the Star of Earendil. Any overt images would make his work not fantasy but something different.

[Mithalwen]

While I basically agree with Formendacil, I would make a caveat only because of his choice of vocab.... emblems would be incoherent but symbolism does slip in. However only in that certain things have a certain "obvious" symbolism that have been utilised by Christianity but equally also by other belief systems. For example trees have a role in Christian symbolism but are not an exclusively Christian emblem and so it does not jar that The White Tree is symbolic of the rejuvenation of Gondor. Hope this makes sense - I know what I mean but I am not sure I am conveying it.

[alatar]

If Tolkien were to have placed overt 'emblems of religion' in his works, then he would have to contend with many more problems than just creating a massive fantasy world along with great stories that appear therein. Was the coronation of Aragorn BCE or CE? What religion were the Southrons? Did he portray a particular religion accurately in that there are different versions/sects of Protestantism, Catholicism, Islam, etc?

Would people then see his work as a religious screed - just a cart to carry a religious message and therefore having no value to those not interested in (1) that religion, or (2) any religion? As stated, his intent was not to proselytize - at least overtly - but to entertain. This actually may be a more effective evangelizing method in that more readers are drawn to the works, and those so inclined (or hooked) may read more about Tolkien's life, and also may start looking in to his religious philosophy...

One of the many reasons that I enjoy the Tolkien world is that I can see it as 'history.' If you look at the maps, you can see how we could get to the present day Earth (with some mental gymnastics, of course). Also one assumes that information at the LOTR time was less accurately gathered/archived than when using modern technology. I can fit the 'other history' (some not posting to this site may call it reality ) that I learned in with the Tolkien one as JRRT did not 'timestamp' his by using icons or direct references to real history. It's up to me and my imagination (and culture, I assume) to work out the details...like the Numenorians could have been mistaken for the Phoenicians, and obviously Numenor is Atlantis...

Again, he is leaving the possibility open that what went on in the rest of the world still took place, but in his corner of the world, this is how it was.

[Lindolirian]

The solemn ceremonies on Meneltarma seem to exemplify what ever religious events might take place in Arda. It was a very sacred event, in which no one was permitted to speak (except the King), all wore pure white ceremonial robes and the emissaries of Manwë never failed to appear (that is until the practices were abandoned). Also the Standing Silence, on the surface, is a tribute to the memory of Numenor, but could easily be construed as a memorial to those sacred thanksgivings to Iluvatar. These are some examples of emblems of religion but Tolkien did, however, keep religion and worship in the background in his stories rather than as a driving force as it was in the history of our world.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lindolirian

The solemn ceremonies on Meneltarma seem to exemplify what ever religious events might take place in Arda. It was a very sacred event, in which no one was permitted to speak (except the King), all wore pure white ceremonial robes and the emissaries of Manwë never failed to appear (that is until the practices were abandoned). Also the Standing Silence, on the surface, is a tribute to the memory of Numenor, but could easily be construed as a memorial to those sacred thanksgivings to Iluvatar. These are some examples of emblems of religion but Tolkien did, however, keep religion and worship in the background in his stories rather than as a driving force as it was in the history of our world.

Is it that these remembrances and solemn ceremonies seem right and natural for the characters to do, meaning that they do not seem forced nor unrealistic? Tolkien may have wanted to show that there was some religion in his world, but not one in particular. These examples enhance the story, but are not the story. To leave all religious allusions/examples out may have made the world seem more fantastic than he desired.

None of the examples have a direct link to something in my current culture, and when reading them I didn't see any meaning beyond that people in Arda worshipped Iluvatar etc.

The Meneltarma ceremonies were detailed (to me) so that Sauron's debasement of the same could be seen. And the Standing Silence may have been used to show that these men were not common brigands with selfish ends, but noble men with a higher purpose.

[Son of Númenor]

I think that in this case Tolkien was objecting to the use of religious emblems from our own world (crucifixes, etc.) in fantasy, not depictions of religion in general.

Edit: Cross-posted with alatar, who made basically the same distinction.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by alatar

Is it that these remembrances and solemn ceremonies seem right and natural for the characters to do, meaning that they do not seem forced nor unrealistic? Tolkien may have wanted to show that there was some religion in his world, but not one in particular. These examples enhance the story, but are not the story. To leave all religious allusions/examples out may have made the world seem more fantastic than he desired.

-emphasis mine.

Are you suggesting that ceremonies and religions in OUR time and place are forced or unrealistic? Because any religion that takes itself seriously MUST consider its practises, or some portion of them, and CERTAINLY its beliefs, to be natural and unforced.

I doubt that this is what you are suggesting, but it is certainly what you came across as saying on my first reading.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Are you suggesting that ceremonies and religions in OUR time and place are forced or unrealistic? Because any religion that takes itself seriously MUST consider its practises, or some portion of them, and CERTAINLY its beliefs, to be natural and unforced.

I doubt that this is what you are suggesting, but it is certainly what you came across as saying on my first reading.

Sorry for the poor choice of words. What I mean is that some writers/authors with lesser abilities at times feel the need to inject a particular something into a story for whatever reason, and so just slap it in haphazardly. In LOTR it just seems as natural for the Ithilien band to observe the Standing Silence as it is for them to eat and drink - I never felt that that scene was placed in the story so that Tolkien could make some theological point - if it were, then it was cleverly disguised.

Not to stray from the thread, but an example would be PJ's 'fireball of Saruman,' which to me seemed very out of place, out of character, forced, unnatual, etc.

Again apologies, and I will leave the discussion of religions to another forum.

[Imladris]

It certainly works very well in LotR. It was one of his primary criticisms of the works of C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams (fellow "inklings").

Do you agree or disagree that the emblems of religion don't belong in fantasy?

What were Tolkien's reasons for discluding them? Which reasons were valid back when he wrote? Are they still valid now?

By "emblems of religion" I'm assuming you mean emblems of religions such as Christianity, Catholocism, etc If I understand you aright, then I say they have no place in Fantasy or Mythology

The role of mythology is to make things more clear, transpose the abstract into the understandable In a word (or more), I think that fantasy/myth is beyond this world, and the religions of this world

Another reason I think they have no place is because the purpose of myth is to creat a real world I would think that putting a religious symbol would wrench the reader from the suspended state of disbelief back into this world Thus, religious symbols have no place, for they wrench the reader from that other world, back into this world

Edit: However, if I am mistaken in thinking of religion emblems as real religions but rather you mean it in the sense of Faramir and his men in that cave, as long as it is part of the story, and enhances it then it belongs

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Imladris

The role of mythology is to make things more clear, transpose the abstract into the understandable In a word (or more), I think that fantasy/myth is beyond this world, and the religions of this world

Not sure that I agree. I understand what you are saying in that religion is used to make the "abstract" more comprehensible. But on the other hand, religion has its 'fuzzy' areas where some components require faith to fill in gaps in knowledge/facts. Certain things cannot be reduced to cold hard text on a page, but have to be felt, experienced, lived, accepted.

And isn't mythology just another's perspective on one's religion? For example, I've always loved to read Greek/Roman mythology - stories about Zeus, Heracles, et al. Weren't these stories considered at a time to be 'religion?'

Wasn't Tolkien's purpose in writing the Silmarillion etc to create a mythology for Europe? Not sure if there is a church for the same (is it here?), but I like the way Tolkien's religion works.

[Imladris]

Hmmmm how to explain

Originally Posted by alatar

But on the other hand, religion has its 'fuzzy' areas where some components require faith to fill in gaps in knowledge/facts. Certain things cannot be reduced to cold hard text on a page, but have to be felt, experienced, lived, accepted.

According to Tolkien, myth and religion is hopelessly entangled I just think that the reason Tolkien did not put any religious symbol is because of that fact Myth, I think (and I use myth as Tolkien and Lewis understood i), is, in part to help us understand religion and the higher things in life But how can Myth help us understand when it uses the same symbols that may be causing confusion? As I said before, myth is beyond this world, thus the symbols of this world doesn't really have a place in it

I think that is why Till We have Faces is more mythic than say, The Chronicles of Narnia I don't recall any religious symbol (such as Aslan), yet it was by far more powerful than Chronicles of Narnia

And isn't mythology just another's perspective on one's religion? For example, I've always loved to read Greek/Roman mythology - stories about Zeus, Heracles, et al. Weren't these stories considered at a time to be 'religion?'.

I have heard that the people truly did not believe these stories, but made them up to help them understand their world Whether this is true, I do not know

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Imladris

According to Tolkien, myth and religion is hopelessly entangled

I would agree (note that I do not combine myth/religion and fantasy). Would religion be tomorrow's mythology? To me, mythology is stories created from some truth - whether that 'truth' be the creation of the universe or simply a lightning bolt striking a tree - which over time becomes more and more removed from the original revelation/use/purpose. It's the 'telephone game' with one end of the chain way way in the past.

I have heard that the people truly did not believe these stories, but made them up to help them understand their world Whether this is true, I do not know

I would assume that there was some type of 'belief' as there were sacrifices at huge temples with priesthoods regarding the same - but again, this is an assumption.

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks, everyone, for your well considered replies. It's been enjoyable reading.

I for one agree with Professor Tolkien; if Arwen's banner for Aragorn had a cross emblazoned on it, or if Gondor's seven stars were Stars of David, I think I would be automatically inclined to view Middle-earth as an allegorical rather than a purely fantastic world, and its purpose as evangelical rather than eucatastrophic.

Well said, Son of Númenor. I think that this was in part Tolkien's criticism of C.S. Lewis's Narnia Chronicles.

How could an epic, purported to be set deep in the years B.C., contain Christian symbolism while still maintaining its cohesiveness with real history?

Formendacil, there is much in Tolkien's Letters that deals directly with this (I looked it up in the index under "Religion".) From Letter 156, discussing Gandalf's return:

...I have purposely kept all allusions to the highest matters down to mere hints, perceptible only by the most attentive, or kept them under unexplained symbolic forms. So God and the 'angelic' gods, the Lords or Powers of the West, only peep through in such places as Gandalf's conversation with Frodo: 'behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker's; or in Faramir's Númenórean grace at dinner.

Elsewhere in the Letters he refers to Númenór as the one place where religious practice was clearly portrayed. As a note to the same Letter 156, Tolkien writes,

The Elves often called on Varda-Elbereth, the Queen of the Blessed Realm, their especial friend; and so does Frodo.

Note that Frodo is the most Elvish of the hobbits. There is an obvious connection between Varda, and Mary the Mother of God.

So the answer to your question, Formendacil, is "very carefully". But there it is: Tolkien pulled it off.

...it is inevitable that Tolkien would have unwittingly/unconsciously used some the less obvious symbols.

I'm sure, Lalwendë, that you must be right. Still, I never cease to be astounded, in reading the Letters, how much is in LotR that Tolkien was quite conscious about including, not least of all, archetypes.

...trees have a role in Christian symbolism but are not an exclusively Christian emblem and so it does not jar that The White Tree is symbolic of the rejuvenation of Gondor.

In reading that book that mentioned the Trickster, Mithalwen, I discovered that the Tree of Life is a common theme throughout mythologies ranging from the Mayan to the Oriental to the Semitic to the northwestern European. I guess that makes it a pretty powerful archetype. Tolkien did love trees, and understood archetypes.

As stated, his intent was not to proselytize - at least overtly - but to entertain. This actually may be a more effective evangelizing method in that more readers are drawn to the works, and those so inclined (or hooked) may read more about Tolkien's life, and also may start looking in to his religious philosophy...

Alatar, you are coming quite close to persuading me.

I would think that putting a religious symbol would wrench the reader from the suspended state of disbelief back into this world.

Thanks, Imladris, for including this concept from a writer's point of view. I certainly appreciate all that has been offered from the valuable readers' points of view, but this was particularly what I needed to be reminded of. Thanks again, Immy.

I think that is why Till We have Faces is more mythic than say, The Chronicles of Narnia I don't recall any religious symbol (such as Aslan), yet it was by far more powerful than Chronicles of Narnia.

I am in agreement, Imladris.

Just to clear up the issue of belief in myths, early folk of every culture did actually believe their myths. It was the growth of abstract thought in each culture (or a more effective religion) that caused doubt regarding the myths; as in, "hey, the world doesn't really work like that; I've found a more empiric explanation; the myth must be wrong". For example, Plato didn't believe the myths were true, but believed they should be taught for their moral value.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LmP

Still, I never cease to be astounded, in reading the Letters, how much is in LotR that Tolkien was quite conscious about including, not least of all, archetypes.

Well, there are 'archetypal images & symbols in Tolkien's work, but I wonder how many were deliberately used, or how conscious Tolkien was of waht he was doing while he was doing it. The letters show he was aware of the symbolism of the work, but often I get the sense that he was only aware of it after the fact - ie, when he had gone back to the books as a reader & critic himself. It seems plain that what he writes in some of the letters is in response to reader's enquiries & its almost as if he is discovering the 'meaning' of the stories & images only then.

Just to clear up the issue of belief in myths, early folk of every culture did actually believe their myths. It was the growth of abstract thought in each culture (or a more effective religion) that caused doubt regarding the myths; as in, "hey, the world doesn't really work like that; I've found a more empiric explanation; the myth must be wrong". For example, Plato didn't believe the myths were true, but believed they should be taught for their moral value.

I'm not sure its as simple as that. There were many reasons for a change in religious belief. Its quite clear that in the 'Dark Ages' the change over from Paganism to Christianity wasn't due to individuals taking such a rational approach. Missionaries 'targetted' the Royal courts because they knew that once they had converted the ruler the people would follow - either out of allegiance or fear of the consequences of not doing so. The 'Pagan' religions were quite as complex & capable of explaining the nature of the world & the human experience as Christianity. The 'explanation' offered by Christianity was hardly more 'empiric' than the ones offered by the Druids, Stoics, Epicureans, Manichaeans. In short, Christianity came to dominate over Paganism not because it offered a 'better' account of the world, but because, after Constantine, it became increasingly dangerous not to be a Christian.

Anyway, to the point of the thread - I think Tolkien was right. The emblems of religion do not belong in fantasy... but 'spiritual' emblems & symbols will inevitably be present. They will be used either intentionally or unconsciously because they are the stuff of Faerie Tale, Legend & Myth. If used deliberately the result will usually feel 'false' - as with the Narnia books, or the fantasies of a Christian proseletizer like Stephen Lawhead. We will feel 'preached at' & look elsewhere. If (as I feel happened in Tolkien's case) the story 'arises' from a place 'external' to the writer's consciousness (either the Collective Unconscious, realm of the Archtypes, or somewhere more mysterious) then the result will feel 'real', because the archetypal/spiritual symbols will 'behave' & 'interact (if you understand me) 'naturally' - ie according to their nature.

Ok, I have to qualify that last statement. Tolkien did 'manipulate' the pure archetypes/symbols that appeared in his works, but certainly not to the degree that the other two writers I mentioned did. I think the difference was that with Tolkien the story with its symbols arose first & he merely 'adapted' it to the extent that he felt necessary such that it would not offend his own religious & moral sensibilities, wheras Lewis & Lawhead (the later in particular) seem to have decided that they would make use of archetypal/spiritual symbols in order to proseletize. They are using the symbols, not letting them 'come through'.

The result of this is that those symbols fail to work on us on any deep level, because the 'symbols' have become merely 'signs', the parable merely 'allegory'. What I mean by that is that symbols are (as Jung pointed out) alive with meaning, which cannot be fully or cmpletely expressed. They are effectively like 'windows' onto a deeper reality (or a deeper experience of this reality), whereas 'signs' merely 'signify' something specific - A=B. Thus 'Aslan is Christ disguised in such a way as to make him understandable to children. Gandalf, on the other hand - & especially in LotR, where we are not given an account of his back story - is a figure of mystery. Aslan is a 'sign', Gandalf is a 'symbol'.

So, I see two reasons for Tolkien being right here. One, that (as has been stated) overt use of the emblems of any current or known religious tradition would pull us out of the secondary world into the primary one & 'break the spell', & two, that such overt usage would turn the 'emblems' used from symbols to signs, & make the work into an obvious allegory, rather than a 'parable'.

Or something like that.......

[littlemanpoet]

Just for the sake of discussion, I'm preparing to plasy "Lewis and Lawhead Advocate"; I'm not ready yet.

But there is one point of contention that I'd like to pursue right now.

I'm not sure its as simple as that.

Missionaries 'targetted' the Royal courts because they knew that once they had converted the ruler the people would follow - either out of allegiance or fear of the consequences of not doing so. The 'Pagan' religions were quite as complex & capable of explaining the nature of the world & the human experience as Christianity. The 'explanation' offered by Christianity was hardly more 'empiric' than the ones offered by the Druids, Stoics, Epicureans, Manichaeans. In short, Christianity came to dominate over Paganism not because it offered a 'better' account of the world, but because, after Constantine, it became increasingly dangerous not to be a Christian.

Nor is it quite as simple as that.

In many of the instances of mass conversion, missionaries cut down the sacred oaks of a given folk; think "Tree of Life" here; or a sacred grove, pool, what have you. When the missionaries were not struck down dead on the spot by the tribes' gods/goddesses, the folk became convinced that this new religion was more powerful than their old one. That's empirical. Now, we moderns may look back at that and be convinced that the missionaries were just as superstitious to think that God was protecting them from being killed by the "demons" that the folk worshipped. Maybe we'd be right to think that, but maybe not. Many things that happen today cannot be explained by our natural laws.

Thanks, davem, for your succinct summary of the two main threads of argument in support of Tolkien's strategy of keeping overt religious emblems out of LotR.

[davem]

This may seem off-topic, but give me time...

Originally Posted by LmP

Many things that happen today cannot be explained by our natural laws.

Indeed. But many things happen today, & always have happened, which cannot be accounted for by Christianity (or by pre-Christian philosophies), because that's not the point of Christianity. As I understand it, Christianity was not meant to be a substitute for science & explain the way the universe works.

As for your example, I have to make the point that, apart from the missionaries' acts of cutting down the trees being a vicious & mean minded act of vandalism (one might even liken it to the behaviour of orcs!) it was not simply designed to show that their God was more powerful than the spirits of the Land the people had 'worshipped' from the first-time, but rather to break the people's spirit.

Basically, what the 'missionaries' did in 'Dark Age' Europe was no different to what White European's did to the native peoples of Australia & the Americas. You do away with a people's Tradition by shattering their world view, not by peacably offering a superior one. And this can be shown by the fact that as the 'missionaries' power (ie the power of the authoritarian Church) failed those peoples have returned to their old ways. This was simply inevitable because a people's native beliefs & worldview is not the product of rational analysis, only lasting until a 'better' one comes along, but grows out of their relationship/psycho-spiritual with their native Land & the spirits of that Land.

This brings us back to Tolkien's point. The 'emblems of religion' are manifestations of specific cultures & their understanding of the Divine. So, to use the emblems of primary world religions in a secondary world setting would quite simply 'shatter' the secondary 'reality' the author has attempted to create. This is because the peoples of the secondary world would have developed their own traditions which would be unique to them, & not simply some 'disguised' (ie allegorised) version of primary world traditions.

Lewis & Lawhead don't convince (me, at least) in that they do precisely that. Certainly Lawhead's 'Song of Albion' & his 'Arthurian' cycle deliberately twist & misrepresent British Tradition to the extent that only someone with absolutely no knowledge of that Tradition could take them in any way seriously.

Finally, none of the above should be taken as an attack on Christianity as a spiritual path, only on the 'political' church instigated by Constantine.

[Lathriel]

I don't think religion belongs in fantasy unless it is used deliberatly by the author in order to make a point about society. For example to state the overly obvious, Pullman with his trilogy His dark materials.

Otherwise I think authors should not include religion,or if they do want to include some sort of religion they should make up one of their own.

As for Tolkien, some symbols in LOTR could be seen as religious but they could also come from the myths or legends Tolkien was so crazy about. Indeed myths/legends are really close to religion because some of the missionaries (in the dark ages)would combine pagan beliefs with christian ones just so that they could get more people interested and thus convert more of them. So some symbols have stayed the same or their meaning is closely related.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Many things that happen today cannot be explained by our natural laws.

One word - "Yet." Note that I do not intend to insult or to be impolite, but just want to share my thoughts.

Originally Posted by Lathriel

Otherwise I think authors should not include religion,or if they do want to include some sort of religion they should make up one of their own.

I think that there are some...for lack of a better word...archetypes that can safely be used as they transcend specific religions/cultures. The "flood of Noah" would be one such example. Many cultures not considered "children of Abraham" have a story regarding a large flood in their history/mythology/belief system. Tolkien added one with Numenor, whether inadvertently or not. It might be safe to choose from the species memories, and I wonder if the archetypes that work well as described above are these.

[littlemanpoet]

One word - "Yet."

You may not know that you've challenged me onto one of my favorite hobby horses.

I usually think scientifically. I appreciate the scientific method and all that has resulted from its use. I do not, however, expect the processes of scientific thought (observation, setting up experiments, hypothesis, deduction, induction, empirical evidence tabulated) to reveal all mysteries, just give it enough time. The realm of science is the material world. It is "at sea" in terms of the soul, the spirit, and other such unquantifiable entities. Or do you doubt the existence of the soul or spirit because science can't verify them?

I wonder if the archetypes that work well as described above are these.

If the popularity and staying power of Tolkien is any indication, I think the answer to your question is a resounding "YES".

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

You may not know that you've challenged me onto one of my favorite hobby horses.

Same here - same horse, different color.

I usually think scientifically. I appreciate the scientific method and all that has resulted from its use. I do not, however, expect the processes of scientific thought (observation, setting up experiments, hypothesis, deduction, induction, empirical evidence tabulated) to reveal all mysteries, just give it enough time.

Why not? Besides the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle thing, I think that we will know more about 'mysteries' 100 years from now than we know today. Surely some things may be trivial to 'investigate,' like just why did Tolkien choose to have Gandalf as a grey wizard, but I assume that given time, we will have a much more detailed explanation about the bigger issues. That being said, this is not to say that we will not be finding more mysteries along the way.

Newtonian physics at one time was the end-all, be-all, then someone, not satisfied with that, just had to keep looking and now we have quantum physics, which is a really odd and mysterious place in itself. It would be important to note that this person/people lacked cable TV and access to this forum, and so obviously had too much time on his/her hands. And you know what the Devil does with that...

The realm of science is the material world. It is "at sea" in terms of the soul, the spirit, and other such unquantifiable entities. Or do you doubt the existence of the soul or spirit because science can't verify them?

Yes. It's sad in some ways, but for me this is where the data points. Can't help it, but was born a skeptic. Show me evidence that a soul or spirit exists - at what wavelength does it exist? We can see heat, spectra of light, other radiation, gamma rays from when the universe exploded at the beginning of time, weigh an electron (I think), detect subatomic quarks, yet the soul still eludes us. Note that I am always open to new evidence and arguments, as this is what science is all about, but I will always need to 'see to believe' - and I'll still have some doubts.

[littlemanpoet]

Show me evidence that a soul or spirit exists - at what wavelength does it exist?

Sorry, can't help you there, since the soul and spirit are immaterial, outside of the whole evidence thing. Do you doubt the existence of love? mercy? justice? These also are immaterial, and the "evidence" for them can be explained by other factors every bit as easily as with soul and spirit.

[Formendacil]

To take this slightly away from its religious mysteries overtones, has it occurred to you, Alatar, that even if science solves some of today's mysteries, that this will only open up new questions?

Isn't that the nature of mysteries? You solve one, and discover three more? Science will NEVER be done explaining away the mysteries of this universe because every new discovery will reveal more mysteries.

And as far as spiritual matters go though, I doubt that science can ever be brought to bear on them. Some things are a matter of faith and NOT a matter of matter. "Logic", that is the scientific process, may possibly be applicable, but I rather suspect that the central core of religion will retain many of its mysteries.

[Lalwendë]

alatar is right to say that quantum physics is a very strange area of science, bordering at times on the issues which religion also tries to approach; and it takes a great 'leap of faith' to attempt to understand some of the concepts involved. The language used by quantum physicists is in itself mystical; the Walls of the Universe is a phrase I particularly like. Theoretical science is probably best expressed in the language of maths, which brings the circle back around to mystical concepts in belief involving numbers and combinations of letters. The two, science and religion, are man's attempt to explain what is around us (and what is behind and before us...and what is not around us). I do not separate the two, as I do not think they always negate each other.

To look at a well known example, scientific theories such as Darwin's are not necessarily compatible with religious theories of creationism, but they have caused us to re-examine religious texts; in this case, the six days of creation are interpreted as six ages of creation. To some, it may be wrong to re-examine a religious text, but consider the amount of scholarship over the 2000 years of Christianity, and it is impossible that re-examination could not have happened many times in those years. The Christianity we have today is a result of 2000 years of thought and without that scholarship it is likely that the religion would have become stilted and eventually died out.

What I am trying to say is that religions do not stand still, just as science does not stand still. Both have much in common, and we need both. Even the atheist has a belief.

My take on this comes from my own viewpoint as someone who never could accept the rules, regulations and dogmas of one particular religion, and who finds all religions equal.

I think that despite the seeming worship of pragmatism in the world today, we all know or hope that there is more to life. We can find that through science and exploring the far reaches of the universe, and equally we can find it through prayer.

[alatar]

Thanks all for the replies.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Sorry, can't help you there, since the soul and spirit are immaterial, outside of the whole evidence thing. Do you doubt the existence of love? mercy? justice? These also are immaterial, and the "evidence" for them can be explained by other factors every bit as easily as with soul and spirit.

I do not doubt that they exist, but each can be reduced to biology.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

To take this slightly away from its religious mysteries overtones, has it occurred to you, Alatar, that even if science solves some of today's mysteries, that this will only open up new questions?

Agree - as I had previously stated. And if they ever 'wrap it all up,' there still remains the question regarding balrog wings...

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Isn't that the nature of mysteries? You solve one, and discover three more? Science will NEVER be done explaining away the mysteries of this universe because every new discovery will reveal more mysteries.

And as far as spiritual matters go though, I doubt that science can ever be brought to bear on them. Some things are a matter of faith and NOT a matter of matter. "Logic", that is the scientific process, may possibly be applicable, but I rather suspect that the central core of religion will retain many of its mysteries

Agree. Religion can hold to its mysteries as long as it likes. Recently I've read that 'belief' and 'faith' actually impart a survival advantage, and so what's not to like about that?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The two, science and religion, are man's attempt to explain what is around us (and what is behind and before us...and what is not around us). I do not separate the two, as I do not think they always negate each other.

One of the big differences between the two is that one can be used to predict the future with some degree of certainty. If you or I perform an experiment under the same conditions, we will obtain the same results with a probabilty that is more than chance. If we perform the experiment 100 times, we have an idea how many times the experiment would behave as expected.

However, if you and I were to perform the same ritual (or pray, or whatever the equivalent would be), we have no reason to believe that we can get the same result. Also, multiple attempts do not increase the possibility of success more than random chance would indicate.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

To look at a well known example, scientific theories such as Darwin's are not necessarily compatible with religious theories of creationism, but they have caused us to re-examine religious texts; in this case, the six days of creation are interpreted as six ages of creation. To some, it may be wrong to re-examine a religious text, but consider the amount of scholarship over the 2000 years of Christianity, and it is impossible that re-examination could not have happened many times in those years. The Christianity we have today is a result of 2000 years of thought and without that scholarship it is likely that the religion would have become stilted and eventually died out.

Changing inspired scriptures/beliefs derived from the same could be a slippery slope - where do you stop? And how do you 'test' revelations? Evolution would be thrown out if the data indicated - surely it would take some large evidence, but eventually it would be done. For religion, what evidence would be used to convince those who require none?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

What I am trying to say is that religions do not stand still, just as science does not stand still. Both have much in common, and we need both. Even the atheist has a belief.

Agreed - though some may not admit that a particular religion has changed, or should I say 'evolved?'

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think that despite the seeming worship of pragmatism in the world today, we all know or hope that there is more to life. We can find that through science and exploring the far reaches of the universe, and equally we can find it through prayer.

Nice thought. Wish I could get as wild about science as some seem to be about their religion.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by alatar

Nice thought. Wish I could get as wild about science as some seem to be about their religion.

Try a little astronomy - if that doesn't blow your mind, I don't know what will ... and it is still a field where and enthusiastic amateur can make a difference, and you could put the elvish names on your star chart

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Try a little astronomy - if that doesn't blow your mind, I don't know what will ... and it is still a field where and enthusiastic amateur can make a difference, and you could put the elvish names on your star chart

Nice suggestion - and my son just got a telescope. My children awe me, as to them everything is new and magical. However, sometimes their behavior has me reconsidering the doctrine of 'original sin'...

[littlemanpoet]

It has been said (I forget who by) that the doctrine of "original sin" is the most empirically supported: observe your children; read the daily paper; etc.

[littlemanpoet]

So, I see two reasons for Tolkien being right here. One, that (as has been stated) overt use of the emblems of any current or known religious tradition would pull us out of the secondary world into the primary one & 'break the spell',

- davem

But would it necessarily break the spell? ....as in an if-then cause and effect? It seems to me it would depend on how the things was brought off. Say, for example that one is reading or writing a "transitional" fantasy; that is, one that starts in the primary world (at least as evoked in the feigned reality) and moves into a secondary world. Let us suppose that emblems of religion are explored as they funciton both in the primary and secondary worlds. Does this break the spell? Or rather, does it weave a different kind of enchantment? I think it may do the latter, if brought off well. Now, this does not account for reader taste. If, say, a christian emblem is used, and an atheist simply cannot abide it, then it's not going to work for that atheist. But what if the chrisitan emblem is brought off well and the atheist is open minded enough to appreciate the art as presented, to see where it leads? Am I dreaming up impossibilities, or is it not a matter of expertise in terms of the art?

& two, that such overt usage would turn the 'emblems' used from symbols to signs, & make the work into an obvious allegory, rather than a 'parable'.

- davem

Now, this one seems a little easier to answer than the former. Assuming an expertly done work of fiction,, it seems to me that the use of religious emblems from the primary world is no more (and no less) prone to mis-allegorization than is LotR. I have read much of Stephen Lawhead, especially his Arthurian series. It is, I admit, hit or miss in terms of craft, but the better crafted the work is, the more it seems to me that Lawhead has done admirably. I am more convinced of this after having read Leonard Tolstoy's In Search of Merlin, the knowledge of which Lawhead has apparently made great use of in his Merlin, which I think may be the best of the series. Lawhead's Albion series is better than his Arthur series, and it is even more clearly theist (if not christian) than his Arthur series. It is, by the way, a "transitional" fantasy, whereas the Arthur series is "in the deeps of time" as it were, and is thus an "over there" fantasy (there's a better word but I can't think of it right now).

I don't for a minute believe that I've proven anything with the above "devil's advocate" answers, but I wanted to raise the remonstrations since everybody seems to be agreed that primary world religious emblems don't belong in fantasy.

[Lalwendë]

Something just occurred to me about religion and fantasy. What about Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials? This is obviously full of religious elements, and features major figures from Christianity, including archangels and God. There is even a representation of the papacy in the form of the magisterium. The one aspect I cannot recall, is any use of the symbol of Christianity, the cross. So, he makes great use of religious icons, but not of the most important symbol of that religion.

I'm not sure if I can think of what this means, but I thought it was worth bringing into the discussion. Of course, some might argue that HDM is not even fantasy (I would argue that it is). But taking the position that it is fantasy, does the inclusion of so many icons actually work? And does the omission of overt use of the symbol of the cross make it work?

[davem]

Originally Posted by LmP

Say, for example that one is reading or writing a "transitional" fantasy; that is, one that starts in the primary world (at least as evoked in the feigned reality) and moves into a secondary world.

It could work if a Christian from this world entered a non-Christian secondary world. But the secondary world would have to retain its autonomy, & not serve merely to promote the author's Christianity, by having all the characters of the secondary world come to see the 'error of their ways' & convert. The central character's religion could be explored in perhaps profound ways, & maybe his faith would be deepened by his experiences there, but the inhabitants of the secondary world, not living in a world that had known the Incarnation (though perhaps having had some other kind of divine intervention) could not believably 'convert' to a religion which had developed in another 'reality'. Primary & secondary realities would follow their own rules & have their own paths. Otherwise the Secondary reality would become in the end no more than a poor copy of the primary.

This is what occurs in Lawhead's Song of Albion trilogy. The 'Ancient Britain' Lawhead gives us is deeply innaccurate. The ancient Celts were not monothiests but polytheists, & their supreme deity was the Goddess Don or Danu. Basically, Lawhead attempts to present a real cultural/historical period as being something we know it wasn't. My experience all through reading this work was that it was 'wrong' - ie, that Lawhead was lying to me, & lies will break the spell of faerie more effectively than the appearance of primary world religious images would.

Originally Posted by Lalwende

The one aspect I cannot recall, is any use of the symbol of Christianity, the cross. So, he makes great use of religious icons, but not of the most important symbol of that religion.

The absence of the Cross (specifically what it symbolises) is one of the greatest failings of HDM. Pullman plays us false in presenting the work as an attack on 'organised religion' (by which he of course means Christianity) but fails to grapple with the central & supremely profound 'symbol' of that religion - the Cross.

Nowhere in Pullman's universes is the idea of the Incarnation of God dealt with. His 'God' is an external being who never got his hands dirty, or suffered with His children. The Cross is the great symbol of divine love & suffering. Pullman actually creates a false god, an 'Aunt Sally' & proceeds to throw stones at it. The core of Christianity is never presented, let alone dealt with. The Incarnation of God is the one thing, the one idea, that has to be confronted in a work like HDM if it is to claim any validity as Art. Pullman fails to deal with, or rather he runs away from, the blood & the pain & the dirt. Tolkien doesn't, neither does Lewis (nor does Lawhead for all his proselytising).

Now, this is not a matter of whether the Christian story is literally true - the parables of the Prodigal Son & the Good Samaritan are true despite the fact that they are not accounts of actual events in early first centruy Palestine. What Pullman fails to confront & therefore the reason his work fails to grip & hold the reader on the deepest & most profound level, is the idea of the Incarnation. What he does is pretend the idea, not just the event itself never was.
He simply picks out the aspects of Christianity that he can easily trash & proceeds to do so while at the same time pretending (to us & possibly also to himself) that the aspects of Christianity he cannot so trash do not exist. Worst of both worlds, if you like...

[bilbo_baggins]

To add a brief comment to this interesting thread...

You could say that Tolkien's work, mainly the LoTR deal with the Universal religion. It presents, in a manner most persuasive, that the characters must win the battle for the sake of good, which is being trampled on. Whether Tolkien, I, or anyone reading this post believes that one particular religion is the Universal Religion is not a matter that is supposed to be discussed. But the need for it is almost the whole premise from which Tolkien draws his eucatastrophic fantasy. (The other part is wrapping up the mystery of the special ring Bilbo found in tH)

This need for man to have a good side to fight for, and a bad side to possibly succumb to, is the plot of LoTR.

"Yes. It's sad in some ways, but for me this is where the data points."
-alatar

To make a brief response to alatar, on this hobby-horse, you might just question where the data that is pointing comes from. How do you know your eyes can see everything there is to see? How do you know that your ears hear all there is to hear? How do you know anything? You have faith in your scientific data, but that faith is a large leap from nihilism to Scientology (the *theory* that the Scientific theory is correct).

Sorry about jumping a few tracks there.

That's all

b_b

[alatar]

Originally Posted by bilbo_baggins

To make a brief response to alatar, on this hobby-horse, you might just question where the data that is pointing comes from. How do you know your eyes can see everything there is to see? How do you know that your ears hear all there is to hear? How do you know anything? You have faith in your scientific data, but that faith is a large leap from nihilism to Scientology (the *theory* that the Scientific theory is correct).

The theory that the 'theory of science' is correct is open to debate, and scientists continually question whether they are fooling themselves. As humans it's hard/impossible to be 100% objective or remove oneself from the environment/nature to truly observe a thing. As stated, Heisenberg (and Einstein) knew this.

Being a scientist/skeptic makes you a bit suspicious and you start questioning everything.

It seems to me that the first commandment of some religions is 'thou shall not question.' Purported evidence is anecdotal, untestable and unreliable. There are just places you don't go, don't ponder, etc. One might say that having incontrovertible evidence would take away the need for faith, but I would counter that if my eternal existance hinged on that evidence then a benevolent Creator would be a little more forgiving and obvious.

At least Tolkien's 'religion' makes sense to me.

Yes, it's true that I have faith in science. When I want to know the date of the next solar eclipse, I consult NASA, not entrails. If NASA is using entrails, that's fine as long as they are 100% accurate (with error rate).

I know what works for me - the evidence supports what I see, hear and know.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[bilbo_baggins]

Originally Posted by alatar

I know what works for me - the evidence supports what I see, hear and know.

That is where you confuse me, alatar. You say the evidence supports what you see hear and know yet the evidence comes from so much assumption that you see hear and know correctly. How do you know that know?

As I am willing to allow a little of my own thought creep into the possibility that I see something on a computer screen, which I assume does exist, I am putting a lot of faith into something that doesn't demand my faith. Why do you put faith in yourself?

Throughout history, if you can believe that it happened, it has never been proven that another sentient mind can exist. You cannot prove even the fact that your eyes present evidence to you, not to mention that another creature like yourself exists, not to even dream of mentioning that the Tolkien books we cherish so much are actually printed pieces of Literature.

[QUOTE=alatar] It seems to me that the first commandment of some religions is 'thou shall not question.' [\QUOTE]

So glossing over the fact, briefly, that you can allow things to seem like something to you, you have just stated that religion is something akin to a unquestioning, unseeking, irrefutable dogma forced by some heirarchy.

In some cases you are true. But I do hope you realize that the major religions do no such thing. They ask you to make assumptions just like the ones you do to allow yourself to believe science works. They ask you only to make an exploratory step.



To retrieve the theme of the thread, I for one believe that Tolkien uses his religious emblems/symbols to allow the reader to make a 'jump of assumption', just as one does to allow eucatastrophe to set in. The jump I speak of, however, lets the reader think there is something worth fighting for. Remeber Sam and Frodo in TTT? Frodo is despondent and believes that there is no point. Sam cheers him up. We should make an assumption and let Tolkien take us away.

b_b

[alatar]

Originally Posted by bilbo_baggins

That is where you confuse me, alatar. You say the evidence supports what you see hear and know yet the evidence comes from so much assumption that you see hear and know correctly. How do you know that know?

I'm also a pragmatist, and so avoid the wondering whether I am a butterfly imagining that I'm a human posting to a Tolkien-lover's forum. Time is short...

And granted, I do make assumptions and accept certain data/evidence by faith - again, time is short and I'm not exactly sure how one goes about verifying that water really is comprised of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms.

Coming from a Christian upbringing, I have looked for evidence that confirms some of the more miraculous claims, and have (1) not found any and (2) have found more secular explanations regarding them. Occam's razor says that I should choose the simpler explanation, and so I do.

Looking deeper, I have tried to figure out 'how it all works.' In Tolkien's world it would seem that you just show up, choose sides (unless you're an orc, but that's a whole other thread ), and live your life accordingly. Be good, honest and merciful and you will go one way. It probably helps to acknowledge Iluvatar now and again, but if memory serves, no one in LOTR stops to do this. Our world is not so plain and simple.

As I am willing to allow a little of my own thought creep into the possibility that I see something on a computer screen, which I assume does exist, I am putting a lot of faith into something that doesn't demand my faith. Why do you put faith in yourself?

I do, but I also know that (1) I am probably fooling myself and (2) that I can be fooled just like anyone else. So there's always questions...

So glossing over the fact, briefly, that you can allow things to seem like something to you, you have just stated that religion is something akin to a unquestioning, unseeking, irrefutable dogma forced by some heirarchy.

I can easily believe that my experiences are limited and therefore somewhat skewed, yet at some point (an assumption) I think you are discouraged from noticing that the emperor has no clothes.

In some cases you are true. But I do hope you realize that the major religions do no such thing. They ask you to make assumptions just like the ones you do to allow yourself to believe science works. They ask you only to make an exploratory step.

I have seen it otherwise, but again my experience may be limited.

To retrieve the theme of the thread, I for one believe that Tolkien uses his religious emblems/symbols to allow the reader to make a 'jump of assumption', just as one does to allow eucatastrophe to set in. The jump I speak of, however, lets the reader think there is something worth fighting for. Remeber Sam and Frodo in TTT? Frodo is despondent and believes that there is no point. Sam cheers him up. We should make an assumption and let Tolkien take us away.

I found Tolkien's allusions great as you needn't be a member of any religion to appreciate his works. When Sam talks about the stars being out of reach of the darkness (or something like that), I feel as he does and I assume as any religious person reading the same.

[bilbo_baggins]

[QUOTE=alatar]I'm also a pragmatist, and so avoid the wondering whether I am a butterfly imagining that I'm a human posting to a Tolkien-lover's forum. Time is short...

And granted, I do make assumptions and accept certain data/evidence by faith - again, time is short and I'm not exactly sure how one goes about verifying that water really is comprised of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms. [\QUOTE]

Why is time short? As one of your admired scientists proclaimed, "Time is relative, and no man can understand it."

Truly, you make a comment and assume that Time is short. But why? Is it not of the utmost importance that your very view on whether time is short be reconciled to yourself? Do you really believe that everything one has told you concerning findings is accurate?

You mock me when you depict yourself an imagining butterfly. Who is to say you really exist? Do you reconcile yourself to the fate that your eyes see something, and therefore you are there? Or hear yourself speaking, and therefore you must be able to communicate? Do you find a piece of evidence as Chicken Little did, and proclaim with all self-sincerity that the sky is falling? Or that there is no God?

All thought and all reason points to the simple fact that an outside intelligence acts and makes us assume that we ourselves exist, and not only that, but that our fellow man exists. And that Time is slipping by. That there is learning that has been made by great men of olden days.

So, not to attempt to strike an enemy that seems fallen, but could very well be standing, I will say this.

For man to have survived the trials of life, and survived the five or six thousand years we all agree have occured, then there must have been someway to have foreknowledge of what paths to take, and what trains of thought to wander, and what ideas to defend. How did our ancestors make themselves self-aware if not by God? How did they assume that their neighbors were real if someone didn't tell them. I can recall to mind a little girl asking her father if the animals in the zoo were really there. Or a little boy asking why the sky is blue.

The questions of the ancients had answers and ours do too.

A world cannot exist without such answers, and so Tolkien included them in his work. LoTR was really just a great big answer to historical legend.

b_b

[alatar]

Originally Posted by bilbo_baggins

Why is time short? As one of your admired scientists proclaimed, "Time is relative, and no man can understand it."

Sorry that you've so misunderstood me. Time is short as I have a life that involves three little children who continually are increasing local entropy .

Truly, you make a comment and assume that Time is short. But why? Is it not of the utmost importance that your very view on whether time is short be reconciled to yourself? Do you really believe that everything one has told you concerning findings is accurate?

Nope; thought that I stated that.

You mock me when you depict yourself an imagining butterfly. Who is to say you really exist? Do you reconcile yourself to the fate that your eyes see something, and therefore you are there? Or hear yourself speaking, and therefore you must be able to communicate? Do you find a piece of evidence as Chicken Little did, and proclaim with all self-sincerity that the sky is falling? Or that there is no God?

My intent was never to mock you, and apologies if it seemed that way . I was actually quoting an old friend who always said the same. And not sure about the rest of that, but absence of evidence is not evidence.

All thought and all reason points to the simple fact that an outside intelligence acts and makes us assume that we ourselves exist, and not only that, but that our fellow man exists. And that Time is slipping by. That there is learning that has been made by great men of olden days.

If you believe so. I agree that we all stand on the shoulders of giants.

For man to have survived the trials of life, and survived the five or six thousand years we all agree have occured, then there must have been someway to have foreknowledge of what paths to take, and what trains of thought to wander, and what ideas to defend. How did our ancestors make themselves self-aware if not by God? How did they assume that their neighbors were real if someone didn't tell them. I can recall to mind a little girl asking her father if the animals in the zoo were really there. Or a little boy asking why the sky is blue.

Not exactly sure what you mean, but my presumption is that we evolved to be as we are now. Those that made poor choices did not continue into the next generation. As stated recently, there is information regarding how a belief system imparts a survival advantage.

Maybe we'd better wander back on topic as I would assume that you and I will not agree. Thanks for your replies.

[bilbo_baggins]

Originally Posted by alatar

--- but absence of evidence is not evidence.

Technically, alatar, absence of evidence is evidence that the argument built on the first evidence is partially illogical.

I hope your kids are doing well.

The emblems of religion belong, and not only that, but are necessary for the survival of a realistic story.

The emblems of religion help the story's character seem more life-like as they attempt to fill the gap in their soul. The aching desire to fulfill one's dreams cannot be separated from reality. So, therefore, to keep a story to its truest sense, one must at least have emblems of religion.

b_b