Science AND Faith in Middle-earth

[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

[davem]

Apart from what’s been said so far, I think we also have to take into account who’s writing the accounts - ie the ‘internal’ authors.

It seems to me that we’ll have a range of approaches in these accounts, & a range of ‘scientific’ theories to account for events. Silmarilli, Palantiri, Elven cloaks, Lembas, etc., will all be developments of Elvish ‘science’, but is Elvish ‘science’ equivalent to human science?

What I mean is, Elvish brains, & therefore Elvish perceptions/experiences may be profoundly different - for instance, they cannot, apparently, distinguish between humans & hobbits! Clearly this is not because they’re blind - they could, obviously, tell that Aragorn was taller than Bilbo. The only explanation for their difficulty in telling the difference between the two must be that they perceive the world differently. Tolkien says they live in both worlds at once; mortals, generally live only in one world - the one we know.

But isn’t science objective; isn’t it about ‘facts’? I think this is the problem.(Let’s put aside for a moment the ‘fact’ that Ainulindale is based on an account given to the Eldar by the Valar)

Its entirely possible that from an Elvish perspective Ainulindale could be literally true, because they experience reality differently from us. Human ‘science’ reconstructs the origin of the universe, based on our science, & comes up with the Big Bang theory; Elvish ‘science’ comes up with Ainulindale.

Its also possible that the reason the Elves can still find the Straight Road is that for them the world is still ‘flat’, or perhaps its the case that in this world the earth is round & in the otherworld its flat. If Elves can exist in both worlds, possibly they can switch ‘frequencies’, like changing channels. Perhaps there are two ‘sciences’ in M-e - a flat earth ‘science’ & a round earth ‘science’.

Mythic worlds tend to be flat - not because of ignorance, but because a flat earth is (potentially) infinite - it can contain anything imaginable - endless forests, purple oceans, green suns, a man in the moon, mountains which reach to the stars. So, because what they (potentially) contain is unlimited, their extent is also unlimited. Round earths, however big, are finite - there is a limit to what they may contain. Flat earths may be ‘unscientific’ but they are magical - you could actually meet [anything there. Basically, science sets limits on how far you can go, how fast, by what means, who you’ll meet, what is (& more importantly) what isn’t possible.

Back to M-e: I’ve seen various maps of M-e by different illustrators, & there are some I have a problem with (some are by Tolkien himself, unfortunately). The problem is these maps show he regions beyond the maps in TH, LotR & TS - some even attempt to show the whole extent of M-e, even to laying out the locations of Aman, & the far eastern regions of M-e. This destroys the magic of possibility by setting limits. A round world is a limited world - but its not simply physically limited its also imaginatively limited.

In short, its not Faerie, because Faerie cannot be fitted within limits. So, Faerie may actually have its own ‘science’ but it will not correspond automatically to our ‘science’. What’s interesting is the way Faerie ‘science’ (magic) seems to work in this world, while our ‘science’ seems not to apply there - Elven cloaks don’t simply camouflage the travellers while they’’re in Lorien, Elven swords don’t simply glow blue while in the otherworld, palantiri work anywhere. It seems that once an otherworld object is created it simply works wherever it is. This would seem to imply that Faerie ‘science’ is more ‘correct’ than our ‘science’.

Lalwende has made some interesting points - wasn’t it the case that for a long time scientists denied the existence of meteorites, reasoning, basically, ‘There are no rocks in the sky, therefore rocks can’t fall out of the sky!’ (Robert Anton Wilson, anyone?).

‘Round world ‘science’ is principally about defining limits, Faerie ‘science’ is without limits, because round worlds are ‘limited’, & Faerie is not.

[Aiwendil]

HerenIstarion:

There are two fallacies here, I think.

First, the how/why issue. You say that this:

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

. . . is the answer to a "why" question but not a "how" question. Yet it would be just as satisfactory an answer to the question "how did the world come to exist?" And the answer about spectral lines would be just as satisfactory an answer to the question "why are there spectral lines here?" as "how do the spectral lines come about?" The two questions have the same logical structure - each asks for a fact or set of facts which, together with certain premises, implies the conclusion. Now, if one wants to use a convention where questions relating to certain subject matter are designated "why" questions and others "how" questions, that's fine, but the difference is then an arbitrary one and, I think, not one supported by the connotations of natural language. In any case, the point is that there is no subset of such questions which science, in principle, is not concerned with, except insofar as the empirical confirmation criterion restricts the kinds of answers it gives.

The second fallacy is the "first cause" fallacy. The root of this mistake is the assumption that for every fact, there is some unique other fact or set of facts that explain (i.e. logically imply it). This leads people like Aquinas to conclude the existence of God, since some fact is thought to be needed to explain the basic physical laws. But the assumption is incoherent, since, just as the theist asks for an explanation of the basic physical laws and posits God to provide it, one could go further and ask for an explanation of God, then for an explanation of that explanation, and so on ad infinitum. Now there is a tradition of theist claims to the effect that the God explanation is special in such a way that it does not require a further explanation, or that it explains itself. The validity of such a claim is where the argument would lie if we were to continue down this road (which it's probably best we don't do). Let me just point out, though, that the difficulty for the theist here is that he or she needs to alter the assumption that "for every fact, there is some explanation" in such a way that it would logically still require an explanation to exist for basic physical laws but not for the existence of God.

Putting that aside, I think that the correct thing to say about first causes is simply that they are not required, logically. There is no theorem that states that for every fact there is a unique, non-circular explanation.

Of course, the mere logic of the situation, even if it shows that the first cause argument cannot prove the existence of God, certainly does nothing to disprove the existence of God. And fortunately so, or else in my view the facts about Middle-earth would be not only fictional but logically incoherent. I do not think that they are. They are different facts than the ones that are true in the real world, but (except for contradictions among different incarnations of the legends) they do cohere.

Davem wrote:

Mythic worlds tend to be flat - not because of ignorance, but because a flat earth is (potentially) infinite - it can contain anything imaginable - endless forests, purple oceans, green suns, a man in the moon, mountains which reach to the stars.

some even attempt to show the whole extent of M-e, even to laying out the locations of Aman, & the far eastern regions of M-e. This destroys the magic of possibility by setting limits.

In short, its not Faerie, because Faerie cannot be fitted within limits.

You make a good point about flat worlds. But the fact is that in no version of the mythology was Arda ever intended not to be finite. As I argued in the canonicity thread, Arda is not Faerie. "Faerie" is not a single, well-defined place, real or imaginary - it's a network of images, associations, archetypes, etc. Middle-earth, on the other hand, is a well-defined (excepting the ambiguity resulting from the multitude of versions) imaginary place. It would be a wholly different mythology if Arda were literally infinite in extent.

[HerenIstarion]

there is a tradition of theist claims to the effect that the God explanation is special in such a way that it does not require a further explanation, or that it explains itself. The validity of such a claim is where the argument would lie if we were to continue down this road

True, I can't empirically 'prove' the validity of that last argument, I have only circumstantial evidence to provide you with, but that will bring us off Tolkien allright (even if I hold that it really explains itself). But really it's a draw, so let's call it quits. Anyways, it was flattering to be termed 'intelligent philosopher' up there. My cheeks are still glowing

But back to ME, again

What I was trying to say is that for elves and men, who haven't got direct experience of Eru (i.e. haven't got empiric data backing up His existence), the situation of 'faith vs science' is morally equal to that of our Primary World. And, risking repeating myself, in that respect, Good vs Evil is also opposition of societies where Faith and Science (or estel and magic) are harmonized (case 1 - Free People) and where Science is not even in conflict with Faith, but it's only Science and no Faith at all (or no estel but magic only)(Case 2 Sauron)

Things like longevity of elven life, their good sight (even if it really were ultraviolet) etc etc are not really 'magic' or 'miracle' - they are facts coherent inside ME and therefore natural (and so 'scientifically' explainable)

Why I equal magic to science (or technology) in ME's case, I've already explained. For more, see Post #54 of the Acceptance of Mythology thread

cheers