[Aiwendil]

Interesting thread.

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

therefore

3) Middle-earth is not our world.

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

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