Science AND Faith in Middle-earth

[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!