Lots of great posts since my last foray here [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Thenamir, you make a valid point about how, in the context of LotR, free will can be considered valid as an outcome of an initial creation. I still think the notion of omniscience is problematic, even in this context, of which more later - but I take your point. Later, in relation to redemption, you say -
Quote:
|
Think of this: which is the more serious crime, punching one of your peers, or punching a policeman? Is it considered a greater crime for someone to murder a co-worker or the leader of their country? Insofar as the victim is higher in lawful authority over the perpetrator, even so is a crime against that authority more serious. It follows logically that if a Being is infinitely high in authority over a subordinate, a crime against that Being would be infinite in its seriousness and require an infinite punishment.
|
Now, I would argue that your analogy doesn't work. A law that places a higher value on the life of one victim over another is unjust. Is it a worse crime to murder a rich and powerful man than a poor beggar? Surely not, if one's laws are intended to reflect the sanctity of life itself. One can reasonably discriminate in terms of the intention behind a murder - from self-defence to terrorism, and so on. And it is no doubt true that in today's world, lives are valued like commodities. But your constitution has some well-intentioned words about "all men being equal", which I would suggest is a more inspiring template.
However, I can accept in a fairly pragmatic way that, in a divinely created world, one who attempts to destroy the creator is going to get a pretty big slap [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
In relation to redemption, you and others are positing that the favourable judgement of the lawgiver/creator is the only way in which individual redemption can be achieved. My question would be, is that the case even if in deed AND in thought AND intention, the wrongdoer is contrite, remorseful and repentant? If so, does that square with the notion of forgiveness?
Aiwendil, my knowledge of quantum mechanics is limited to say the least. Schrodinger's Cat seems like a modern version of Xeno's Arrow, more of a semantic duality based on the protocol of scientific statements ... and the last piece I read on the wave/particle duality seemed to give credence to teleological hypotheses - but at any rate, the more uncertainty the better, as far I can see [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].
Accepting the rejection of causal determinism at face value (you've got quantum mechanics, I'm still relying on Hume's rather older refutation) presents us with a different problem - the notion of omniscience itself. Is it feasible that the Divine will, or first cause, can indeed have foreknowledge of infinite chains of variability? And I think we may be raising the same question here - if so, does not that first cause bear some responsibility for Evil? The parent-child analogy is unsatisfactory here ... no parent would allow their child to burn down the neighbourhood, just because they knew that in a few years the descendants and relatives of the victims would get their own back. And this, the conundrum that Tolkien himself identified as a recurrent theme (Evil arising from apparent Good), is an aspect of ongoing theological debate, and, in individual cases, crises of faith.
I do not believe it is resolved in a neat way by Tolkien, or that even a working definition of free will is acceptable if we also assume omniscience. But I don't think this particular issue is some flaw in Tolkien's writing, or even his own theology. His work touches on these profound themes from a perspective of traditional faith, in which there is an inference of mystery and the unknowable in human terms.
However, I do think that these narrative involvements with ultimate divinity and cosmogony make The Silmarillion a different piece of work from Lord of the Rings. However one reads Tolkien's contextual notes into LotR and incorporates the short chronology of events into his wider mythos, it seems to me that the morality fable in LotR is more self-sufficient, a narrative integral to meaning and vice versa. Perhaps this explains its appeal ... but of course this is only one humble opinion, and indeed it is probably unfair to consider The Silmarillion as a work completed to the author's satisfaction. No doubt there was more to come [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Peace.
Kalessin
[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]