Can atheists appreciate/understand Lord of the Ring?

[Aganzir]

Yes.

I wonder if English people understand them better than we who are not from England? Do I understand Narn i Chîn Húrin better because I'm Finnish and it's based on the Tale of Kullervo? Does a religious non-Christian understand the books better or worse than a non-religious person raised in a Christian country because they don't share Tolkien's cultural heritage?

Religion/spirituality is just one aspect among many that makes up a person. The fact that somebody doesn't believe in something doesn't mean they're not able to relate to people who do or that they don't understand what religion or belief are about. Many non-religious people I know are very well-versed in different religions; better so than many religious people I know. A non-Christian can know more about the Bible than a Christian - can even have read it more times.

Also, while Tolkien's Legendarium has many Christian elements, it's not an allegory. Therefore understanding shouldn't depend on your own religious background. The depth of the books is not just for understanding, it's for experiencing.

As you keep posting on the Downs, you'll come to find there are many agnostic, atheist and non-religious members (yours truly included). That's what the discussion forum is for - talking about how we understand the books. And as you read these discussions, it's up to you to decide if a non-religious Tolkien enthusiast can fully understand them, or understand them as you do.

[Morthoron]

Tolkien synthesized mythos from Finnish, Icelandic, Germanic, Greek, Anglo-Saxon and biblical sources. As long as you understand the motifs and doctrines Tolkien employed, his Christianity becomes just another myth among many. Which is how I view his tale in its entirety.

In fact, if you view Middle-earth chronologically, from creation through the 1st, 2nd and through the 3rd Age story of The Hobbit, you'll find Christianity superseded by other mythos.

[Zigûr]

I think the issue with this question is that it presupposes some kind of "God-believer" or "atheist" divide with no middle ground. Tolkien was a Catholic. That is a very specific system of beliefs. You might as well ask the same question of "appreciation/understanding" for other denominations of Christianity, let alone other religions and spiritualities.

Can a Hindu appreciate/understand The Lord of the Rings? How about a Buddhist? A Muslim? A Jew? What about an Anglican? An evangelical baptist? etc.

Or, as has been stated, non-spiritual or less spiritual accounts of life: agnosticism and so forth.

The short answer is: yes. I find this quote relevant from Claudio Testi's article "Tolkien's Work: Is it Christian or Pagan? A Proposal for a 'Synthetic' Approach" in Tolkien Studies 10 (2013):

the fundamental catholicity of Tolkien’s work is not to be found in confessional elements related to his Faith, but paradoxically in the quite peculiar non-Christianity of his world, where the most authentic existential and ethical tensions involving the “mere natural” Man are represented.

Testi further argues that Professor Tolkien's work:

is meant neither for a single nation (England) nor a specific religion (be it Christian or Pagan), but for “all of Mankind” capable of sensing with their natural capabilities that beyond the Circles of the World there is “more than memory”

Perhaps an atheist does not believe, or "sense" as Testi would have it, that there is "more than memory" beyond the Circles of the World, but in any event I think that the themes of the work are universal and do not depend on a particular spirituality to be understood. Similarly, I consider the theodicy (and, I suppose, theology) of the narrative to be internally self-consistent, such that while, for example, an education in Christian belief might be useful for interpreting some of the text, no specific real-world belief system has a particular bearing on the "appreciation" or "understanding" of the work.

[Lotrelf]

Being theist does not mean you have to be religious. I'm not "religious" if being religious means belonging to a religion. The better word I use for this is SPRITITUAL. Professor certainly wrote his books for all mankind instead of just religious people. But do all the people understand the books?
I started the thread because my experience with atheists has always been bad, so to speak (and I think most of them are arrogant). They doubt God's existence in real life. How are they going to understand characters that are directly affected by "God" or "Eru"? Would they take him as a "character"? Or as an energy? If they do so(energy thought), why not think this is true in real life as well? Or would they say "in Tolkien's world God existed because he saved the world"?
As Prof. said mercy and pity are in divine nature, it's not only true for LotR but for our real lives too. At times it happens when our previous mercy or pity saves us from a disaster. This is what I call "miracle". Miracles do happen; and they take place because of the "divine intervention" Prof. talks about. I don't say atheists can not understand these words, but can they understand the depth of Frodo's actions that saved the world in this context?

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

I don't say atheists can not understand these words, but can they understand the depth of Frodo's actions that saved the world in this context?

Watch out lest what you say be interpreted as "You choose not to believe in a higher entity, therefore you're too stupid to understand this book." An attitude like that could well be returned with arrogance.

I'd be curious to hear what precisely you mean by "the depth of Frodo's actions" here. You spoke about that and Tom Bombadil's mystery in your first post but I'm not quite sure what you are referring to - there are a gazillion different aspects and ideas and theories to both.

They doubt God's existence in real life. How are they going to understand characters that are directly affected by "God" or "Eru"? Would they take him as a "character"? Or as an energy? If they do so(energy thought), why not think this is true in real life as well?

Because Tolkien's work is fiction. I don't see why enjoying, say, the Ainulindalë should suddenly make one believe in something similar in real life.

I actually do see Eru as a character, but mainly for narrative purposes. He's sort of the personification of the Secret Fire, which, then, is the "energy" you speak about (and which for example the Ainur channel in their work). It's hard to explain a god, isn't it?

[Nogrod]

I think we might actually have a really interesting question here.

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

I don't say atheists can not understand these words, but can they understand the depth

Okay, I edited the specific example out from the end of the quote to kind of stress what I think is interesting here.

So. If we have a piece of fiction and in there a fictional reality where some divine forces (internal to that fictious world) are at play, but which at the same time refer to actual religious or spiritual views held by some people in the Real World outside that work of fiction, is it then so, that those people who hold those beliefs in the Real Life kind of "get more" from that fiction than those who do not actually believe in those views?

I mean it is easy to say that if a fiction is written based on a particular world-view then the one who knows and understands the world-view in depth has better chances of understanding what the author has possibly meant and probably has a "deeper understanding" of the work than one who doesn't know much about the world-view in question.

But that's something based on knowledge, not on faith or personal belief.

I have always thought of myself as an enlightened reader of Tolkien's work because of my pretty extensive studies on humanities (like philosophy, literature, different mythologies, religions, general history of ideas, cultural anthropology and Christian religion - it's history, different doxa, sociology, psychology... - etc.). So I can see where Tolkien uses fex. the idea of providence, or where he gets inspired or plays with the ideas of grace, forgiveness, faith, sacrifice... and what is the status of these ideas in different versions of Christian belief - and how Tolkien kind of sides with certain interpretations and ignores some others - and oftentimes blends and sets them up side by side with many pagan beliefs and...

But how does my reading or understanding of Tolkien differ from the reading by someone who actually believes in some of the metaphysical views Tolkien uses as the basis of his story in real life?

That might indeed be a question worth pondering.

My first reaction would be that the experiences between a believer and non-believer would be different indeed. But if we have fex. a believer with only shallow understanding of the issues s/he believes in and a non-believer who has a thorough understanding of them, which one of them would then have the desired or "deep" understanding (it looks like you think there is a desired way to understand LotR)?

Or is it reasonable in a first place to put different readings of a work on a scale where some are worthy of praise or desirable and others are not?

Well. These are interesting questions...

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Watch out lest what you say be interpreted as "You choose not to believe in a higher entity, therefore you're too stupid to understand this book." An attitude like that could well be returned with arrogance.

That post of mine was not about the books; but in general. I see people in general who are atheists are very rude and arrogant. I've had many debates with folks who don't believe in God. This is where the "arrogant" thought came to me from.

I'd be curious to hear what precisely you mean by "the depth of Frodo's actions" here. You spoke about that and Tom Bombadil's mystery in your first post but I'm not quite sure what you are referring to - there are a gazillion different aspects and ideas and theories to both.

By the actions of Frodo I meant that there's more divinity in the scene than any direct action. Frodo destroys the Ring not by himself but by mercy and pity: that's in the divine nature. So, how does an atheist see this? As a moral failure? Misadventure of Gollum? I'd like to know that.
I gave Tom Bombadil's example to say that there's a lot about the books and characters that most can not interprete on their own. Many say whatever the interpretation of his character is done is false. Some see him as Evil. Some see him as Eru. So, in simple words: It is not easy to get all the facts just like that. And be it theist of atheist, we all find it hard to get many things about the book. Even those who are reading the books for decades. If there's another theory, please let me know.

Because Tolkien's work is fiction. I don't see why enjoying, say, the Ainulindal�0Š5 should suddenly make one believe in something similar in real life.

I didn't say if one would start believing in God after reading The Silm. I meant that can they really understand the meaning of it? May be they can. I'm proved wrong. *shrugs*

I actually do see Eru as a character, but mainly for narrative purposes. He's sort of the personification of the Secret Fire, which, then, is the "energy" you speak about (and which for example the Ainur channel in their work). It's hard to explain a god, isn't it?

So do I. Eru is a fictional character but with lots of(or almost) real life values. We expect him to be perfect. Is he? He created both good and evil. Like in our world. Things in the fiction of Prof. Tolkien and in our real world are not too different. That's the reason I believed that atheists can't understand or appreciate the books.

[Mithalwen]

I have found many Christians rude and arrogant...even back in the day when I counted myself as a believer and was thus ashamed by the association. Nothing like an unshakeable bdlief in being right and righteous to make someone totally obnoxious in my experience.

It is knowledge that is the key to understanding not belief.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

Being theist does not mean you have to be religious. I'm not "religious" if being religious means belonging to a religion. The better word I use for this is SPRITITUAL. Professor certainly wrote his books for all mankind instead of just religious people. But do all the people understand the books?
I started the thread because my experience with atheists has always been bad, so to speak (and I think most of them are arrogant). They doubt God's existence in real life. How are they going to understand characters that are directly affected by "God" or "Eru"? Would they take him as a "character"? Or as an energy? If they do so(energy thought), why not think this is true in real life as well? Or would they say "in Tolkien's world God existed because he saved the world"?
As Prof. said mercy and pity are in divine nature, it's not only true for LotR but for our real lives too. At times it happens when our previous mercy or pity saves us from a disaster. This is what I call "miracle". Miracles do happen; and they take place because of the "divine intervention" Prof. talks about. I don't say atheists can not understand these words, but can they understand the depth of Frodo's actions that saved the world in this context?

I am an atheist. I more than likely understand the context Tolkien wrote in better than you do. No, I take that back: I am certain I understand the context of Tolkien's entire corpus better than you do. So please, don't preach to the rest of us.

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I am an atheist. I more than likely understand the context Tolkien wrote in better than you do. No, I take that back: I am certain I understand the context of Tolkien's entire corpus better than you do. So please, don't preach to the rest of us.

Obviously you do. I didn't deny the fact. My post was not meant to offend you or anyone. No, it wasn't. This thread I started to know the fact, more than discussing it. And I do not think you have any problem if I put up the questions to you or anyone here. I thank you for clarifying this misconception of mine.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

I started the thread because my experience with atheists has always been bad, so to speak (and I think most of them are arrogant).

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I have found many Christians rude and arrogant.

Originally Posted by Andsigil

I've found the same thing about the current, strident crop of atheists lately. What a coincidence, yes?

I would argue that the important thing to realise is that people are not strident or arrogant or what have you because of their beliefs but because of their personalities. Being a Christian, an atheist, of any other belief or ideology does not make one arrogant, in my opinion, but arrogant people will use those things as a bludgeon to try to quash differing opinions or points of view which threaten their own self-image. For this reason I would argue that we ought to avoid generalisations wherever possible.

Returning to Professor Tolkien's work more specifically, I find the question of a generalised spirituality, setting any specifically Catholic doctrine aside, to not be irreconcilable with a non-spiritual view of the world. What are the most spiritual elements of the text, then?

1) The idea that there are 'divine' forces at work in the world: Eru, the Valar etc. I think even in a non-spiritual sense it is possible to appreciate the idea that human power has severe limitations in the grand scope of time and space, and that history is complex and rife with the unexpected, that evil will not always triumph and so on.

2) Mercy, pity and self-sacrifice: I don't think compassion and altruism need to be considered 'divine' traits but that from a non-spiritual point of view they can derive from a recognition of weakness and suffering in others as we ourselves are weak and suffer. Ultimately I would link this back again, I suppose, to a recognition of human limitations.

I am neither a religious nor a spiritual person. I don't know for sure what I would classify myself as: I'm not overly keen on "labeling" myself in any sense. Lately in fact thoughts have been troubling me when I consider Professor Tolkien's faith and the "catholicity" of his work and whether I'm to any extent a hypocrite for appreciating it as I do. I think the internal consistency of the narrative helps a great deal, however, what with the account of Eru, the Valar, the Ainulindalë and so forth, and again the recognition that the themes of the work, in my opinion, have great relevance to human life regardless of beliefs.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

Being theist does not mean you have to be religious. I'm not "religious" if being religious means belonging to a religion. The better word I use for this is SPRITITUAL.

You stole my thought, Lotrelf. I was just catching up on this thread and thinking that it's more about the spitiruality of the person than his religious denomination.

I'm not an atheist, but I don't assign myself to any religious dimension. I have more than slightly visible paganistic tendencies, or pantheistic maybe, or panentheistic, or whatever they call it, except that I'm neither really. I've been educated in two different monotheistic systems of belief, but at a certain point I decided that it's not so much that religion is rubbish and therefore God doesn't exist as organized (and especially monotheistic) religion is unappealing to me and therefore I don't like it. And, now that I think of it, around the same age I stopped liking the beginning-of-The-Sil backdrop - the more organized "theology" of the legendarium. Yeah, I don't appreciate it enough, most likely. However, I can't appreciate more the more mysterious references to the more obscure "fate" in LOTR. (And I've always loved the First Age tragedies, they remain amazing no matter what )

So can I appreciate LOTR? (hint: if you answer "no" to this question, you will suffer a slow and painful... lecture ). I can understand the relationship of Eru-Valar-World, but it doesn't feel right, or maybe doesn't appeal to me. I can still put myself in that perspective's shoes, though.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I'm not an atheist, but I don't assign myself to any religious dimension. I have more than slightly paganistic tedencies....

Good lord! G55 eats Christian babies!

Just when you think you know someone, they get all pagan on you.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Good lord! G55 eats Christian babies!

They're best stewed with some spices and vegetables, if you have some at hand. The whole trick is not to put too much pepper.




EDIT: well, crap, I've just wasted my 6000th post on this joke. After WEEKS of making sure I don't miss the anniversary. Blargh!

EDIT2: On a second thought, what better way to spend an anniversary post?