Science AND Faith in Middle-earth

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope my Dad will be proud of me for this!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Boromir88]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kransha]

Hybrid, baby, all the way...

*cough*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Boromir88]

I must say you approach this topic wonderfully Kransha.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HerenIstarion]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cheers

[davem]

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

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

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

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

[Boromir88]

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

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

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

Mirror of Galadriel

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

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