Science AND Faith in Middle-earth

[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.

[Lalwendë]

Fordim asks:

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?

The simple answer as I see it (and I'm saying what others have already eloquently expressed), is that of course Middle Earth reflects basic scientific knowledge which we share. This is what makes it a solid, believable world. And of course there is also magic, as this is what makes Middle Earth a fantasy world. Without either of these things then Middle Earth would either be the same as our world, or incomprehensible to a reader.

On the issue of magic/miracle, I do not separate the two. Both suggest occurrences which are unexplainable and unexpected. I also view science and 'faith' as inextricably linked. Both are used to explain and to control the world we live in. Faith was, and still is, used to explain occurrences which humans could not or cannot explain with reason. Many tenets of faith have since been explained by science, and for many, the scientific explanation has now overtaken the 'faith' explanation, e.g. evolution. At the beginning of time, the ability to make fire was seen as divine, and in our time, the ability to communicate with the 'spirits' is taken as divine. Along with this, many would have seen making fire as devilry and many see communicating with spirits as trickery. Who is to say whether the latter 'magic' will one day be explained by science? Even now physicists are working at the outer limits of what most of us can comprehend by experimenting with the nature of time and matter itself. Personally, I hope that scientists will remain unable to explain everything.

With theoretical science, we can see that the area often verges on the mystical itself. Tolkien was not against science, but the application of science, i.e. technology, in a context that is free of considerations of morals or philosophy or 'faith' - not sure how this should really be termed, as faith often means something different to me. Both Gandalf and Saruman possessed knowledge of a suspiciously gunpowder like substance. While Gandalf, operating in the context of not causing others any harm, used it to make fireworks, Saruman, operating without moral considerations, used it to cause damage. We can see in our own world, as each new development in theoretical science gives way to its inevitable application in technology, we are confronted with new moral dilemmas. For example, scientists discovered genetics, which has given way to many morally contentious applications of genetics, e.g. GM crops.

I think Tolkien's message is not that science is wrong, but that the misapplication of technology, in a moral void, is wrong. Both science and faith work together in Middle Earth as this is right. What is totally acceptable about this (unless you side with Sauron!) is that there is no one religion in Middle Earth, but there is a strong, and liberal, moral context.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

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

Then how can I resist?

I agree with Aiwendil concerning the artificiality of distinguishing between the "How’s" and "Why’s". To illustrate the point further, it would be perfectly reasonable to give identical answers to both of the questions: "How does a car work?" and "Why does a car work?" In both cases, the explanation could be given by reference to the technical workings of the vehicle (about which I understand very little). Of course, one might make a distinction by responding to the "Why" with "To get people from A to B". But, even then, there is a rational, scientific answer to both the "How" question and the "Why" question. Science can explain how the car works, but science (in a very broad sense) can also explain why cars are used.

The same applies to evolution. So, the response to "How does evolution work?" might be "Natural selection". And that would be a perfectly reasonable response to the question "Why does evolution work?" too. Or one might make a distinction and answer the latter question with "To ensure the continuance of life" since, if species do not adapt to changing conditions, then they will die out. In both cases, science can provide the (or at least an) answer.

Now, I am not saying that faith cannot provide an explanation of the "Why?". I am simply saying that it does not provide the only explanation. Indeed, both the "How’s" and the "Why’s" can be answered by reference to faith (so the distinction is, again, artificial). However, it seems to me that the key difference between science and faith is that science seeks to explain by reference to objectively verifiable facts (even though those facts may only give rise to a likelihood or even a possibility of the existence of the event which they seek to explain), whereas faith requires no such explanation. Those who hold a particular religious belief do so by virtue of their faith and not by virtue of any objective proof.

So, how does this apply to Middle-earth?

Well, I agree with what has been said previously concerning the necessity of the existence within Middle-earth of scientific laws with which we, the readers, are familiar. This is what makes it a credible world and believable to us as readers. In this regard, I would testify to the usefulness of Karen Wynn Fonstad's Atlas of Middle-earth in highlighting the way in which Tolkien's world corresponds with our understanding of topography and geology, not to mention climatology, biodiversity and demography. And we are only too aware that Tolkien's languages are very much scientifically based.

Tolkien showed his awareness of the need for Middle-earth to work on a scientific, and therefore credible, level in his Letters. In a letter to Naomi Mitchison (Letter #154), he wrote:

Yours is the only comment that I have seen that, besides treating the book as 'literature', at least in intent ... also sees it as an elaborate form of game of inventing a country - an endless one, because even a committee of experts in different branches could not complete the overall picture.

But the game is one which has rules, and it seems that Tolkien considered it important that these should be capable of formulation on a scientific basis:

I am more conscious of my sketchiness in the archaeology and realien [German: "realities, technical facts"] than in the economics: clothes, agricultural implements, metal-working, pottery, architecture and the like. Not to mention music and its apparatus. I am not incapable of or unaware of economic thought; and I think as far as the ‘mortals’ go, Men, Hobbits, and Dwarfs [sic], that the situations are so devised that economic likelihood is there and could be worked out ...

Tolkien goes on to illustrate the point by reference to the capabilities of Gondor and the Shire to support their respective populations in terms of agriculture, industry and trade (for example between Hobbits and the Dwarves of the Blue Mountains).

Later in the same letter, he refers to the transition of the setting for his legendarium from a flat world to a globe:

... an inevitable transition, I suppose, to a modern 'myth-maker' with a mind subjected to the same 'appearances' as ancient men, and partly fed on their myths, but taught that the Earth was round from the earliest years. So deep was the impression made by 'astronomy' on me that I do not think I could deal with or imaginatively conceive a flat world, though a world of static Earth with a Sun going round it seems easier (to fancy if not to reason).

So, 'scientific reality' would not allow Tolkien to set his legendarium on a flat world, even though it would have presented a more suitable setting for it (a point which Aiwendil made earlier).

Similarly, in a draft of a letter to Peter Hastings (Letter #153), he wrote:

I suppose that actually the chief difficulties that I have involved myself in are scientific and biological - which worry me just as much as the theological and metaphysical ... Elves and Men are evidently in biological terms one race, or they could not breed and produce fertile offspring ...

Interestingly, he went on to make the point that, although his world should be scientifically credible, its science need not correspond precisely with the facts of our world:

But since some have held that the rate of longevity is a biological characteristic, within limits of variation, you could not have Elves in a sense 'immortal' - not eternal, but not dying by 'old age' - and Men mortal, more or less as they now seem to be in this Primary World - and yet sufficiently akin. I might answer that this 'biology' is only a theory, that modern 'gerontology', or whatever they call it, finds 'ageing' rather more mysterious, and less clearly inevitable in bodies of human structure. But I should actually answer: I do not care. This is biological dictum in my imaginary world. It is only (as yet) an incompletely imagined world, a rudimentary 'secondary'; but if it pleased the Creator to give it (in a corrected form) Reality on any plane, then you would have to enter it and begin studying its different biology, that is all.

Mischievously, he provides a possible 'Primary World' explanation for Elves' longevity, but points out that the biology of the ‘Secondary World’ can still be ‘real’ (in a scientific sense) even though it might not correspond with our understanding of the science.

The basis of this thread is the relationship between science and a magical world such as Middle-earth. Clearly, Middle-earth contains creatures, objects and forces which are not, in scientific terms, in existence in our world. As has been pointed out, this is precisely what makes it fantasy. But these extracts suggest to me that Tolkien’s approach was to create a world which is, to a significant degree, scientifically credible by reference to the rules of our ‘Primary World’ (in terms of topography, climate, geography etc), but which, where it varies from those rules, is also scientifically credible by reference to its own internal rules (the essence of a modern ‘myth-maker?). In other words, from the perspective of the reader, everything within Middle-earth is scientifically provable within the context of that world. So, it is a fact that Eru exists and that Arda was created in the manner set out in the Ainulindalë. Similarly, ‘magic’ exists and Elves are immortal (as long as Arda remains in being). As has been suggested previously on this thread, it would, I think, be possible to come up with a theory as to “How” (or “Why”) ‘magic’ works in Middle-earth, just as Tolkien suggests that it would be possible to come up with a theory to explain Elven longevity.

So how does faith come into it?

Well, I think that there are two levels on which one can (and should) address this. First, there is the faith of the good characters within the story. For most, there is no guarantee that Eru exists. Some (such as Hobbits) don’t even have any clear conception of what He is. And yet they have faith that there is, ultimately, a source of Good within Eä and that it will prevail, and they act accordingly (ie on the basis of their faith rather than science or objectively provable facts). Even those who are aware of Eru’s existence (as a fact) must rely on their faith that His Will will prevail. They have no guarantee that it will.

Which brings me to the second level, which concerns the faith of the reader. Those who have religious beliefs may (and surely almost certainly will) find the faith shown by the good characters to be applicable to, and reinforcing of, their own faith. And this ‘faith-within-the-story’ can touch even those who do not have strong religious convictions, if they are sufficiently receptive to it, in the sense of ‘enchantment’ (or ‘faerie’ or ‘synchronicity’, call it what you will ) that it brings.

But, in both cases, I would suggest that this is only possible through the combination within the story of scientific reality (in our real world terms) and ‘fantasy’ or ’magic’ which is nevertheless internally credible. Take the scientific reality away and the ‘magic’, along with the story, loses its credibility. But take the ‘magic’ away, and the faith becomes grounded in reality and thus adds nothing to what we have already (ie it has no 'added value'.

Does that make any sense at all?

[HerenIstarion]

Aiwendil, agreeing up to a point, I will risk going a bit off the Tolkien track and elaborate on 'why'-s and 'how'-s a bit more.

Indeed, 'why'-s and 'how'-s are interchangeable, unless you reach the ultimate end (or beginning). In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded is the funniest explanation of the origins ot our world I’ve ever heard (by Terry Pratchett), and, even if modern M-theory of 11 dimensional membranes hitting each other and causing Big Bang may explain ‘how’ the world came about, it does not tell me ‘why’ there were such membranes in the first place.

So, questions of ‘why this three is growing’ type may be answered by both faith and science, and even ‘why the universe is like to what it is’ as well, But to simpify it other way round, all the ‘why’-s science gives answer to, can be viewed as ‘how’’s as well - 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" = the spectral line we get if x is added up to y and z = how.

But there is a question where ‘how’ given by science does not equal ‘why’. That’d be the question of.

"why does the world exist?" "Because God exists, and God wants the world to exist".

You give me my sword here. For you pose the question, answer as I would have answered it in case I needed “why” type of answer and than shift on to give an example of ‘how’ question of starshine – that is, the ‘how’ particular part of the world, not the world as a whol.,

True, the ‘because’ given by faith to that last question is not based on emirical fact, and can not be viewed as valid in case one counts only answers backed up by empirical data as valid. But given that faith is just about relying on authority without sufficient data, we are in a deadlock here – unless either of us changes position, i.e., I agree that only empirical proof is valid, or you agree that there is no need for the proof to be backed up by empirical data, we don’t agree

On to ME now. Agreeing with much of SpM-s excellent post, I’ll risk saying that ME (at least Hither Lands, as in Aman there are folks who have empirical back up to their trust in Eru), given its ‘internal lows’ = Primary World on the moral plane, in case of faith and science relationship.

On that last paragraph I'll have to elaborate later, though - too much on my hands right now