Science AND Faith in Middle-earth

[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.

[HerenIstarion]

Again, not generally disagreeing with previous post, I should comment a bit on the following:

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

Which reminds me of certain discussion we had with davem (btw, Evil Things)

If push comes to show, I fear 'real' miracles can be explained scientifically. What miracles per se do we meet in ME, as far as I may recall, are

1. Numenor catastrophe (the only one textually backed up as Eru's intervention)
2. Gandalf resurrection
3. Bilbo finding a ring
4. Gollum falling down with a ring

Scientific explanation:

1. Vulcanic erruption/earthquake
2. Clinic death/hallucination
3. Chance/coincidence
4. Chance/exaltation-hunger-dangerous place exposure mixt

Or, to put another wording around it, Eru is not breaking His own rules. If direct intervention it must be, it works along same pattern as 'natural' events would do.

[davem]

Well, ok, that explains the how (the 'science') but not the 'why'.

The difficulty I have with the oft-quoted theory that 'magic' is simply misunderstood technology is that that argument keeps the explanation within the world, & provides no opportunity for external intervnetion, which effectively denies the possibility of eucatastrophe, which involves a 'breaking in' of an external 'force'. Technology ('science') by its very nature is something that worldly beings develop to understand/manipulate the world - hence the Ring is technological, but so are the Palantiri, & (for all she may wish to distinguish what Elves do from what the enemy does) so is Galadriel's mirror - of course, there is a difference in the intent behind them. None of those things (or elven swords, etc) are 'miraculous'. We could say that the Silmarils, containing the Holy Light & being hallowed by Varda, are miraculous, or at least have a miraculous dimension or aspect.

The question is, then, whether the sudden 'uplift' we experience at our hero's last minute escape can be called 'eucatastrophic', or whether any rescue effected by technology (however wonderful that technology may appear) can be either.

My own sense is that Tolkien had a specific understanding of the eucatastrophic experience - it isn't something purely emotional - it must have a spiritual dimension. The most overwhelming feeling of relief & victory within the world is not eucatastrophic unless there is also a sense of 'eternity', of something greater breaking in.

Back to the main topic, though. There is a wonderful essay, A Physics of Middle-earth, in the 1992 Centenary Collection, which explores the scientific explanations of various M-e phenomena, pointing out, among other things, that if Legolas had been able to give a detailed description of Eomer's eored at a distance of five leagues, using only visible light, 'he would have been a bug-eyed monster, to the extent of having eyes on stalks in order to fit in a human sized face'. The authors go on:

Assuming resolution of half a metre at fifteen miles, & a roughly human sized pupil, we find that Elves' visible spectrumextends to about 170mm, or 2000THz.

& they speculate that Elvescoulld see well at least into the ultra-violet - All that is requiired, therefore, is for Elven lenses to transmit high-energy electro-magnetic waves.

They further speculate that in order for Legolas to be able to instantly calculate from that distance that there were 105 riders is not entirely unusual in humans, as some autistic savants can do such things.

There's much more in the essay - specualtions on Galadriel's Mirror (multiple universes theory), Palantiri, etc.

(The geology also seems to be accurate - see Karen Wynn-Fonstad's Atlas of Middle-earth)

[HerenIstarion]

it isn't something purely emotional - it must have a spiritual dimension

Total agreement again

I fear you did not follow me, or I failed to bring it across. I did not argue that miracles are not miracles. I was trying to say that miracles can be explained in a cientific way, as they follow the pattern the world itself follows. And it is not surprising – source of miracles and the world being the same. To use a crude analogy, BW is a creator of this site. In creating it, he used some scripts or whatever, to make it look like it does. Now, if he wishes to add something, he ‘directly intervenes’ using similar scripts he used when he was creating the site in the first place, and lo! We have something new which was never there before, and call it a miracle. But the patter BW followed is similar in both cases.

Spiritual dimension, whatever that may be, allows the viewer to appreciate miracle as miracles. Suppose someone on Elendil's ship were 'unbeliever' and meteorologist. Said someone would have epxlained drowning of the isle by tides, moon, earthquake etc. And the neat thing is, such a miraculous event could have been explained in that way too!

As for science and magic, I put them on the same shelf for the sameness of their goals - both seek to manipulate the world. And they can be mistaken for each other by ignorant. Per instance I don't know how my monitor works, I can say it is science, but it would not change my ignorance or the efficiency of its working processes if I label the principle behind its operation magic.

The difference is in using ‘naked’ technology by Sauron as opposed to Galadriel, who combines it with Estel – the principle I would call a religion of ME, and with readiness to give up power which science/magic gave her, “diminish and remain Galadriel”