Science AND Faith in Middle-earth

[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”

[Bêthberry]

Well, I was going to stay on the sidelines and watch you boys play in centre court, but I guess I will lob a few observations of my own out anyway.

posted by davem:
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 behi
d 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.

I'm not sure that this is not a self-contradiction, that davem here expects eternity to manifest itself with the same physical characteristics or effects as temporality does. However, my point really has to do with this idea that miracles imply some kind of doing away with the rules of ordinary or normal physics, a suspension of the laws of the natural world. I would argue instead that miracles involve a new way of seeing, of understanding. Something new opens up in the perceiver, a spiritual insight, rather than a breaking of the rules of creation.

This, at least, was the interpretation offerred some years ago when I had a similar discussion with the people I taught with at a Catholic college. In fact, many of my colleagues laughed at the idea that a miracle had to defy physical laws--laughed at it as childish. (Note, this was their opinion.) The meaning of the Flood was not that God will never seek retribution but that, essentially, He decides never again to intervene physically in creation. "We are on our own and must make our own efforts to understand" would be their way of saying what the rainbow means.

Thus, the crucial importance of Paul's blindness on the road to Damascus. Blindness and sight become metaphor for seeing and understanding and knowing. This is what miracle entails: enlightenment. I would argue that this is also what Tolkien means by eucatastrophe: a sudden moment of clear perception into the heart of the matter. (I almost said simply "matter' but decided that pun would be out of place.) This is why Tolkien ends "On Fairy Stories" as he does: the Christian is still to make his way in the world, which has not changed. But the person has.

It is possible that I have just here said the same thing as HerenIstarion:

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.

davem's point about the geography of Middle-earth is a good one, though, I think. Anyone who has read Fonstad's [i]Atlas of Middle-earth[/b] can see just how clearly and precisely and purposefully Tolkien described the lay of the land. Natural history!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Some very interesting responses so far. All I have to add at the moment is a thought that the discussion to this point has brought to me. I tend to think of things in terms of experiential reason: that is, I place my faith in the physical explainable (if not yet explained) phenomena of this world.

Tolkien went to great lengths to created M-e as an earlier 'version' of our own world -- so for that to to work, then the physical laws that govern our existence must also operate in M-e: this is why, I think, Tolkien works very hard to undo the 'unknowable mystery' of magic and the magical. It's a simple syllogism:

1) there is no magic in our world
2) M-E is our world

therefore

3) there is no magic in M-E

What there is instead is providence/miracles/Eru -- again, we have these in our world (according to Tolkien and like minded people), so the continuity is the same.

I think what we have with Tolkien's world is something like this: magic and science are not compatible -- either phenomena are explainable by reason or they are not; science and faith are compatible insofar as the things of this world (Rings of Power, Mirrors of Galadriel, Elven eyes) are explainable by reason (if not understandable to everyone), but there are things not of this world that we must take on faith alone (Eru, Providence, etc).

To return to my first point: I take my starting point of all knowledge to be the phenomena of this world, and place my faith in their explainability (call me a cock-eyed phenomenologist, but there you go). For someone like me, then, to "write off" the Mirror or Balrogs or Gandalf's "word of Command" as magic is to set an insupperable barrier between myself and Middle-earth. Again, another syllogism:

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

therefore

3) Middle-earth is not our world.

This is why I have to see the events and characters of M-e as working within a scientific (that is, explainable/rational) framework. The irony for a person such as myself is that as soon as I see magic in Middle-earth, the 'magic' of the narrative disappears. The miraculous, sure, I can live with miracles (Gollum's fall at the Crack of Doom; the coming of the Eagles), but no magic please. . .

[HerenIstarion]

Is there magic out there?


This thread certainly smells like to C-thread, you know?

Let us have a nomenclature defined, than:

What do you call magic, in the first place? If you follow etymology (useful thing, I always say), it is Middle English magique, from Middle French, from Latin magice, from Greek magikE, feminine of magikos Magian, magical, from magos magus, sorcerer, of Iranian origin; akin to Old Persian magus sorcerer

Now old Persian Magus is paralleled in my own Georgian by mogvi, which is usually meant to term the Three Wise Men (yes, the same to come to see new-born Christ, them) – or, sighted people, or wise men. Malbeth the Seer is a better candidate for such a role than anyone esle

But the meanings modern society associates with word magic are:

1. a.: The use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations
2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell

Now, if we use these definitions, there is indeed no magic in ME. All abilities anybody displays are natural to them. Unnatural (mark you, ‘un’, not ‘super’) abilities are displayed by Nazgul, who were turned into what they are by Sauron using, again, his own natural abilities.

And nature is neutral (up to a point, it is tainted by Morgoth, so the whole world is fallen). It can be used either way, more easily to the good, for so it was in the beginning, but to the bad too, for it was poisoned by Melkor.

And it is to be remembered that term ‘magic’ is used by ignorant characters like Sam (who may be is similar situation as I’m with my monitor) Claims to label abilities of the kind ‘magic’ are always turned down by more wise characters.

Now miracle is supernatural – i.e. coming from outside after the system was created and locked. It is supernatural, and natural at the same time – following the rules of Nature it is fitted into. Another clumsy analogue – miracle is a car joining the main race in the middle of the route, not from the start – once it is on the road, it fits in with other cars. But miracles I can remember of are only four I listed above.

Links that may be interesting

Evil Things (page 3)
Acceptance of Mythology
Magic in Middle-Earth

[davem]

Ok, I'm not wishing to imply that a 'miraculous' event doesn't involve 'natural' phenomena, merely that there will be a spiritual dimension to it which will be percieved in some way by an observer, & that will inspire the true eucatastrophic feeling - ie, a purely 'natural' event, an accident, a fluke, won't. Eucatastrophe requires the supernatural dimension/intervention. That supernatural dimension may not be blatant, it may be ignorable - it may even not be percievable by some of those who witness the event (if they are not sufficiently 'spiritually aware'), but if that supernatural/Divine element is not present then no-one will have the eucatasatrophic experience.

In short, the eucatastrophic experience is an 'inner' response to an 'outer' phenomenon ('inner'=within the world, 'outer' = external to the world). Its a response to the Divine, & the Divine must be present to inspire it.

[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.