Tolkien's Views on Creation and Evolution

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

I than reread the letters of Tolkien and it seemed he and Lewis were open to and likely accepted at various times the earth was old [not my view]. It seems now to me that they both either old earth creationist, or some form of intelligent design. It is to bad the modern creation movement did not start earlier, I would have like both Lewis and Tolkien's opinions on it, though I think they both may have held this view as well.

Does anyone have information on this subject?

I'm really not more than very casually informed about creationism and its various forms and I'm not too interested either so I don't exactly know where you are coming from. But have you read the later volumes of the History of Middle Earth? If I remember correctly, the 10th one, Morgoth's Ring, includes an ambitious but ultimately futile attempt to rewrite the Silmarillion to be more in sync with scientific facts that were well known in the mid 20th century. Such as the vast timespan geological processes need to form the land, the unlikelihood of plant-life before the sun and not least the silliness of a flat earth.

Tolkien wanted the story to resonate true even to us modern people I believe, that we should be able to imagine the stories to really come out of a mythological past in our world. And that this would be hard if it ignored well known scientific facts such as the above mentioned and others.

The old stories where better and the rewrite-attempt was rightly scrapped but it should make it clear that Tolkien accepted the strong scientific evidence that the Earth was very very old and that the surrounding space is vast and even older. I'd suppose he did believe that God created Man in one way or another.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I'm really not more than very casually informed about creationism and its various forms and I'm not too interested either so I don't exactly know where you are coming from. But have you read the later volumes of the History of Middle Earth? If I remember correctly, the 10th one, Morgoth's Ring, includes an ambitious but ultimately futile attempt to rewrite the Silmarillion to be more in sync with scientific facts that were well known in the mid 20th century. Such as the vast timespan geological processes need to form the land, the unlikelihood of plant-life before the sun and not least the silliness of a flat earth.

Tolkien wanted the story to resonate true even to us modern people I believe, that we should be able to imagine the stories to really come out of a mythological past in our world. And that this would be hard if it ignored well known scientific facts such as the above mentioned and others.

I will be reading morgoths ring [and other home]and full in the coming weeks and months and perhaps that will help me answer this question. As for your "scientific facts" those geological processes do not need millions of years, unless we accept uniformitarnism beliefs about the unobservable [ not replete able demonstrable, not science] past. Instead they can be understood within the young earth/global flood paradigm. Yes god made plants before the sun, there was however light gen 1 3-5. God is able to provide light and keep his creation without the sun witch is a part of creation and not god. In fact when the return of the true king happens it will be as it was before the sun

And there shall be night no more; and they need no light of lamp, neither light of sun; for the Lord God shall give them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
rev 22.5


Just for your info, the catholic church never taught a flat earth and the flat earth society today are evolutionist. But I also must wonder what of the many scientific facts that refute evolution? why dont they count? maybe Tolkien rejected evolution as unscientific as i do. Maybe that is why his world was created. We modern people cannot both accept the discoveries of science and hold on to old and what should be passing away beliefs about the past such as evolution.

Originally Posted by skip spence

The old stories where better and the rewrite-attempt was rightly scrapped but it should make it clear that Tolkien accepted the strong scientific evidence that the Earth was very very old and that the surrounding space is vast and even older. I'd suppose he did believe that God created Man in one way or another.

Perhaps, any evidence tolkien had this view? what strong evidence persuaded him? was he aware of the faults in any claimed evidences and summations? was he aware of the counter arguments? I am unaware if he stated on either side. Maybe he understood creation had to be true or science could not be as his close friend Lewis often argued.




If Evolution Were True Would Science be Possible?

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if*their*thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
-C.S. Lewis (1898–1963),*The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.


Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science. Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident [our brain] to understand another accident the world? Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth. We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly. How do we know our eyes, ears, brain, and memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know. We could be in some matrix world or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]

Science would be impossible unless our memories were giving accurate info as well as our senses such as our eyes and ears . Laws of logic are needed as well. How does matter produce a organism with memory? Or a consciousness. If this comes from mere machines [us] they why would not machines gain consciousnesses? Science needs us to be able to know our senses are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality? Also regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions.

Yet the universe is understandable, we assume the universe is logical and orderly as it obeys mathematical laws. That is how we can make predictions. Freedom to chose and consider various options free will not deterministic “dance to the sound of our genes” as Richard Dawkins described it. In fact if evolution is true evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them. evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.


But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature. I would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible. so that we were able to do repeatable* lab experiments etc. That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ears are accurately giving us the correct information, information to be able to do science in the first place. If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.



I would however love to invite you to such a debate on the age of the earth. I have on many forums debated this very issue and would love to with you. PM me if you are inters ted and we can on another forum.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science. Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations.

Might I suggest you keep your debates to strictly Tolkien and not to the larger evolution v. creationism quagmire? I am sure flat-earthers and people who rule their lives by the zodiac all believe fervently in their certain idiosyncratic dogma, but it has no place here.

This topic, much like politics or religion in general, can lead to some rather ugly outcomes. Please refrain. Thank you in advance.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Might I suggest you keep your debates to strictly Tolkien and not to the larger evolution v. creationism quagmire? I am sure flat-earthers and people who rule their lives by the zodiac all believe fervently in their certain idiosyncratic dogma, but it has no place here.

This topic, much like politics or religion in general, can lead to some rather ugly outcomes. Please refrain. Thank you in advance.

I will do. However when you attempted to do the same against creation, i thought it ok i respond. I also have no issues with your holding onto your beliefs as determined as a flat earther regardless of science. I also did not even bring up creation vs evolution stuff besides one example that tolkien and lewis used and were aware of. I do however enjoy that discussion but as you said this is a Tolkien forum, I shall stay to topic.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

I will do. However when you attempted to do the same against creation, i thought it ok i respond. I also have no issues with your holding onto your beliefs as determined as a flat earther regardless of science. I also did not even bring up creation vs evolution stuff besides one example that tolkien and lewis used and were aware of. I do however enjoy that discussion but as you said this is a Tolkien forum, I shall stay to topic.

Dude, lose the dogma. I said no such thing about being against creation, other than not believing it personally. I merely pointed out your artificial constraints on what Tolkien was writing limits the overall effect, which is a synthesis of many myths, not an adherence to one. Tolkien once floated the idea of creating a "Mythology for England", which is why many sections of The Silmarillion that I pointed out are not Christian at all, but all wound together brilliantly to make a greater whole. What made Tolkien's work great is that any symbology was subsumed in the text. As he stated himself, "the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."

Not overt, not proselytizing. I would not have continued to read it for nearly 5 decades if I felt I was being preached to. Like on this thread, for instance.

And with that, I will post on this thread no more. There is nothing mirthful here that should be in the "Middle-earth Mirth" part of the forum.

[Huinesoron]

Request: Is it possible to move this thread to The Books or Novices and Newcomers? It seems like it would fit better there.

Opening Disclaimer: The original question was what Tolkien believed about the creation of the Earth. A second question of how closely he matched his writings to that belief. Actual discussion of the truth or otherwise of these beliefs isn't relevant, and I for one won't be addressing it.

With that said:

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

I will do. However when you attempted to do the same against creation, i thought it ok i respond.

R.R.J. Tolkien, I think you're confusing Morthoron with skip spence here. Skip was also mostly just stating what Tolkien did and felt, rather than their own beliefs; while this did slip over into an assertion ('strong scientific evidence'), the majority of what they said was just a summary of Tolkien's thoughts as seen in Myths Transformed (which is indeed in Morgoth's Ring).

Okay, moving on, I've been rooting through Letters to see what I can find.

Letter 96

Letter 96, as quoted at length by R.R.J., is very clear that Tolkien believed in a literal Fall of Man, and in a historic 'Edenic state' for humanity. Whether this was a garden at the source of four rivers where the first two humans lived in harmony with the animals, or an innocent 'childhood' in the East African Rift Valley (per Legate), isn't strictly clear from the letter; however, Tolkien definitely comes across as thinking the Genesis account is a myth based on a distant reality.

Letter 153

Letter 153 is a response to a Catholic reader arguing that many things Tolkien did were theologically unsound. It actually has very little bearing on the questions at hand, but does contain this:

I am not a metaphysician; but I should have thought it a curious metaphysic – there is not one but many, indeed potentially innumerable ones – that declared the channels known (in such a finite comer as we have any inkling of) to have been used, are the only possible ones, or efficacious, or possibly acceptable to and by Him!

The specific reference here is reincarnation, but I find it interesting that Tolkien appears at least open to the possibility that there is other intelligent life in the universe than humanity. Still not strictly relevant, but interesting.

Letter 169

As for the shape of the world of the Third Age, I am afraid that was devised 'dramatically' rather than geologically, or paleontologically. I do sometimes wish that I had made some sort of agreement between the imaginations or theories of the geologists and my map a little more possible.

It surprises me just how scathing Tolkien can be about scientific theories, while at the same time accepting them. This comment is typical: he simultaneously refers to them as 'imaginations', while saying he wishes he'd adhered more closely to them!

Letter 211

[quote]Pterodactyl. Yes and no. I did not intend the steed of the Witch-King to be what is now called a 'pterodactyl', and often is drawn (with rather less shadowy evidence than lies behind many monsters of the new and fascinating semi-scientific mythology of the 'Prehistoric'). But obviously it is pterodactylic and owes much to the new mythology, and its description even provides a sort of way in which it could be a last survivor of older geological eras.5[/]quote]

We encounter again Tolkien's use of the word 'myth' to describe events he believe happened, but were not recorded directly (same usage as for Genesis). This is proof that he was dubious of the specific science of paleontology - but also that he accepted the reality of 'older geological ages' from which a pterosaur-like creature could have sprung. This is similar to the 'elephant of prehistoric size' in Letters 64, though of course the mammoth is much more recent (there were extant mammoths 4000 years ago, which is well into actual, written historical time!).

Letter 324

Owing to the prominence of Ethiopia in the Italian war Gondar may have been one such element. But no more than say Gondwana-land (that rare venture of geology into poetry).

I think this goes a long way towards explaining what's up with Tolkien's viewpoint: he was, first and foremost, a literary thinker. His own writings were 'sub-creations'; any account of pre-history was 'mythology', whether scientific or religious; and the most interesting thing about ancient super-continents was the 'poetry' of their names.

Myths Transformed

The major changes Tolkien wanted to make during the 'Myths Transformed' period, late in his life, were: removing the flat earth period; making the sun (and moon) older than Middle-earth; moving the Awakening of Men back to around the time of the Awakening of the Elves (so that Melkor could corrupt them in person); making Melkor more of an immanent force for evil in the world, and less a single figure; dramatically lengthening the timeline.

On this last point: Tolkien lengthened a Valian Year from ~10 solar years to precisely 144, multiplying the age of Middle-earth by nearly 15. If we assume the timeline here was still valid, then the two Awakenings would have taken place some 650,000 years after Creation. It was then some 72,000 years to the Return of the Noldor, and (from other sources) a good 13,000 years from then to the present day.

Under Tolkien's late ideas, then, Middle-earth is 'now' around 750 thousand years old, and the 'Edenic state' of mankind lies nearly 100,000 years in the past.

I remember that the round-earth, old-sun changes were made to accord with the facts of the Real World (I think at the same time he made the Earth orbit the Sun, rather than the reverse); I don't remember whether the age change was stated to be for the same reason.

The Silmarillion - Nordic or Christian?

Both, obviously. ^_^

Unlike Lewis in The Magician's Nephew, Tolkien never set out to write an allegory for Genesis, or for any other part of the Bible. There are Christian themes and images in Middle-earth - a great many of them, as R.R.J. cites. There are also a lot of Norse themes and images: Tolkien mentions that Smaug is based on Fafnir (Letters 122), that the Dagor Dagorath is more like Ragnarök than 'anything else' (Letters 131), the name and character of Frodo (Letters 168), that Tom Bombadil makes use of some Nibelung material (Letters 237 & 240), Mirkwood (Letters 289), the dwarves (Letters 297)... I'm sure there are many more.

Perhaps the most relevant quote I've found on this matter is Tolkien's comments on Hitler, in Letter 45:

I have spent most of my life, since I was your age, studying Germanic matters (in the general sense that includes England and Scandinavia). There is a great deal more force (and truth) than ignorant people imagine in the 'Germanic' ideal. I was much attracted by it as an undergraduate (when Hitler was, I suppose, dabbling in paint, and had not heard of it), in reaction against the 'Classics'. You have to understand the good in things, to detect the real evil. But no one ever calls on me to 'broadcast', or do a postscript! Yet I suppose I know better than most what is the truth about this 'Nordic' nonsense. Anyway, I have in this War a burning private grudge – which would probably make me a better soldier at 49 than I was at 22: against that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf Hitler (for the odd thing about demonic inspiration and impetus is that it in no way enhances the purely intellectual stature: it chiefly affects the mere will). Ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light. Nowhere, incidentally, was it nobler than in England, nor more early sanctified and Christianized. ....

The 'northern spirit', and the Nordic tales, were noble, and worthy of a lifetime of study. Per Letters 15, the very existence of the Silmarillion lent the later stories a 'northern atmosphere'. And Tolkien felt that they could only be improved by being 'sanctified and Christianised'.

Thus the Valar, Norse-style gods in all but name, are viewed through a lens of Christianity, and become angels; the invocations to Elbereth have resonances with Catholic prayers to the saints or indeed Mary to intercede on their behalf; and Gandalf is simultaneously an 'Odinic wanderer' and an angel in the style of Raphael, who met Tobiah on the road and travelled with him.

Tolkien's work doesn't set up a 'Christian good, Pagan bad' dichotomy; rather, it takes both bodies of mythology as sources, and blends them together with linguistics and his own imaginings. It's true that you're more likely to find 'bad' Nordic themes than Christian ones, but there are also many 'good' Nordic-inspired ideas in Middle-earth. Tolkien took it all and cooked up something truly unique, that - as Morthoron said - can be appreciated by anyone, Christian or otherwise.

hS

PS: That said, I find this quote very baffling:

Originally Posted by Birzer

...[Gandalf's] staff apparently having the same power as that possessed by Moses.

Staffs associated with Moses have the following powers: turning into snakes, producing water by hitting rocks (which Moses was punished for!), parting oceans, sprouting into trees, and securing victory over enemy armies.

Gandalf's staff... does none of these, nor anything like them. Unless the point Birzer is making is 'neither staff has any actual power, because it all comes from God', I'm not at all sure what he's trying to say.

hS

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Huh, you people have certainly been busy. I will just remark one thing, rather regarding the "generic methodology" used on this thread (which I think basically everyone agrees on, only somehow I think there was a seed of danger of people misunderstanding each other):

The question is (Huneisoron clarified it pretty well just above, I'd say) what were Tolkien's views of creation/evolution, then that's pretty simple and clear topic and let's stick to that.

I absolutely agree with Morth's contribution regarding the various influences, but I think it does not actually have anything to do with the question posed. The fact whether Tolkien used myths from here or there as inspiration for his Legendarium says nothing about his personal beliefs regarding the real-world age of the Earth etc.

Funnily enough, I think what Morth said was a good response to what R.J.J. wrote AFTER Morth's post, in his post about the Christian influences. As far as I am concerned, it looks to me like these posts should have been posted in reverse order. Then they would both make sense. Otherwise, what R.J.J. said is as much off-topic as Morth's. I mean, it may be enlightening for someone who doesn't know about Tolkien's background that much and so on, but it really doesn't also contribute to the question about Tolkien's stance on the evolution etc. question.

And most of all, we are talking about Tolkien's, let's say, scientific belief, right? We are not talking about his faith or anything. He was a Catholic, we know that, that could give us some generic area to operate in. But the basic idea is to try to reconstruct what he was thinking based on letters and other remarks. (And I think you folks have pretty much accomplished that.) Am I right?

All in all, I would 100% back up Huneisoron's opening disclaimer above as being the standard for this discussion, as well as moving this topic into a different sub-forum. Any related, but different discussions can have their own thread, if it came to that.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Request: Is it possible to move this thread to The Books or Novices and Newcomers? It seems like it would fit better there.

Opening Disclaimer: The original question was what Tolkien believed about the creation of the Earth. A second question of how closely he matched his writings to that belief. Actual discussion of the truth or otherwise of these beliefs isn't relevant, and I for one won't be addressing it.

With that said:

R.R.J. Tolkien, I think you're confusing Morthoron with skip spence here. Skip was also mostly just stating what Tolkien did and felt, rather than their own beliefs; while this did slip over into an assertion ('strong scientific evidence'), the majority of what they said was just a summary of Tolkien's thoughts as seen in Myths Transformed (which is indeed in Morgoth's Ring).

Thanks for the correction and i did apologize to Morthoron, good catch sir thanks.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Okay, moving on, I've been rooting through Letters to see what I can find.

Letter 96

Letter 96, as quoted at length by R.R.J., is very clear that Tolkien believed in a literal Fall of Man, and in a historic 'Edenic state' for humanity. Whether this was a garden at the source of four rivers where the first two humans lived in harmony with the animals, or an innocent 'childhood' in the East African Rift Valley (per Legate), isn't strictly clear from the letter; however, Tolkien definitely comes across as thinking the Genesis account is a myth based on a distant reality.

He was answering a question to his son about the reality of the garden and fall as many had rejected it, Tolkien stated he did believe this "myth" [so called] and that from the christian biblical perspective. I think that is clear from the letter. However this does not make him a young earth creationist as another poster pointed out.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Letter 153

Letter 153 is a response to a Catholic reader arguing that many things Tolkien did were theologically unsound. It actually has very little bearing on the questions at hand, but does contain this:



The specific reference here is reincarnation, but I find it interesting that Tolkien appears at least open to the possibility that there is other intelligent life in the universe than humanity. Still not strictly relevant, but interesting.

I think this has nothing to do with life outside of the universe, but reincarnation of a hypothetical created being by god.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Letter 169



It surprises me just how scathing Tolkien can be about scientific theories, while at the same time accepting them. This comment is typical: he simultaneously refers to them as 'imaginations', while saying he wishes he'd adhered more closely to them!

Agreed, just the reason I wish a in depth book was written on the subject. I think he might have been saying the "imaginations or theories of the geologists" [evolution long ages] is just that, but that he wanted his middle earth in the third age to match more closely the accepted geography of the past by the majority of geologist.

[QUOTE=Huinesoron;711709]
Letter 211

Pterodactyl. Yes and no. I did not intend the steed of the Witch-King to be what is now called a 'pterodactyl', and often is drawn (with rather less shadowy evidence than lies behind many monsters of the new and fascinating semi-scientific mythology of the 'Prehistoric'). But obviously it is pterodactylic and owes much to the new mythology, and its description even provides a sort of way in which it could be a last survivor of older geological eras.5[/]quote]

We encounter again Tolkien's use of the word 'myth' to describe events he believe happened, but were not recorded directly (same usage as for Genesis). This is proof that he was dubious of the specific science of paleontology - but also that he accepted the reality of 'older geological ages' from which a pterosaur-like creature could have sprung. This is similar to the 'elephant of prehistoric size' in Letters 64, though of course the mammoth is much more recent (there were extant mammoths 4000 years ago, which is well into actual, written historical time!).

Agreed this is why i am confused on the issue. He says "semi-scientific mythology of the 'Prehistoric'" and yet seems to accept old ages. This is why i think he was likely some form of old earth creationist. Of course the evolution interpretation could be the "mythology" while the prehsitoric, could be the ages, thus a old earth creationist. Wish I could ask him.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Letter 324



I think this goes a long way towards explaining what's up with Tolkien's viewpoint: he was, first and foremost, a literary thinker. His own writings were 'sub-creations'; any account of pre-history was 'mythology', whether scientific or religious; and the most interesting thing about ancient super-continents was the 'poetry' of their names.

Nice.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Myths Transformed

The major changes Tolkien wanted to make during the 'Myths Transformed' period, late in his life, were: removing the flat earth period; making the sun (and moon) older than Middle-earth; moving the Awakening of Men back to around the time of the Awakening of the Elves (so that Melkor could corrupt them in person); making Melkor more of an immanent force for evil in the world, and less a single figure; dramatically lengthening the timeline.

On this last point: Tolkien lengthened a Valian Year from ~10 solar years to precisely 144, multiplying the age of Middle-earth by nearly 15. If we assume the timeline here was still valid, then the two Awakenings would have taken place some 650,000 years after Creation. It was then some 72,000 years to the Return of the Noldor, and (from other sources) a good 13,000 years from then to the present day.

Under Tolkien's late ideas, then, Middle-earth is 'now' around 750 thousand years old, and the 'Edenic state' of mankind lies nearly 100,000 years in the past.

I remember that the round-earth, old-sun changes were made to accord with the facts of the Real World (I think at the same time he made the Earth orbit the Sun, rather than the reverse); I don't remember whether the age change was stated to be for the same reason.

Interesting, I cannot comment until i have read it but thanks.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

The Silmarillion - Nordic or Christian?

Both, obviously. ^_^

Unlike Lewis in The Magician's Nephew, Tolkien never set out to write an allegory for Genesis, or for any other part of the Bible. There are Christian themes and images in Middle-earth - a great many of them, as R.R.J. cites. There are also a lot of Norse themes and images: Tolkien mentions that Smaug is based on Fafnir (Letters 122), that the Dagor Dagorath is more like Ragnarök than 'anything else' (Letters 131), the name and character of Frodo (Letters 168), that Tom Bombadil makes use of some Nibelung material (Letters 237 & 240), Mirkwood (Letters 289), the dwarves (Letters 297)... I'm sure there are many more.

Perhaps the most relevant quote I've found on this matter is Tolkien's comments on Hitler, in Letter 45:



The 'northern spirit', and the Nordic tales, were noble, and worthy of a lifetime of study. Per Letters 15, the very existence of the Silmarillion lent the later stories a 'northern atmosphere'. And Tolkien felt that they could only be improved by being 'sanctified and Christianised'.

Thus the Valar, Norse-style gods in all but name, are viewed through a lens of Christianity, and become angels; the invocations to Elbereth have resonances with Catholic prayers to the saints or indeed Mary to intercede on their behalf; and Gandalf is simultaneously an 'Odinic wanderer' and an angel in the style of Raphael, who met Tobiah on the road and travelled with him.

Tolkien's work doesn't set up a 'Christian good, Pagan bad' dichotomy; rather, it takes both bodies of mythology as sources, and blends them together with linguistics and his own imaginings. It's true that you're more likely to find 'bad' Nordic themes than Christian ones, but there are also many 'good' Nordic-inspired ideas in Middle-earth. Tolkien took it all and cooked up something truly unique, that - as Morthoron said - can be appreciated by anyone, Christian or otherwise.

hS

PS: That said, I find this quote very baffling:

I think you are spot on sir, good post.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Staffs associated with Moses have the following powers: turning into snakes, producing water by hitting rocks (which Moses was punished for!), parting oceans, sprouting into trees, and securing victory over enemy armies.

Gandalf's staff... does none of these, nor anything like them. Unless the point Birzer is making is 'neither staff has any actual power, because it all comes from God', I'm not at all sure what he's trying to say.

hS

Good question. I think as you stated, the power originates from eru and not from magic spells. I have not read that in awhile.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Dude, lose the dogma. I said no such thing about being against creation, other than not believing it personally. I merely pointed out your artificial constraints on what Tolkien was writing limits the overall effect, which is a synthesis of many myths, not an adherence to one. Tolkien once floated the idea of creating a "Mythology for England", which is why many sections of The Silmarillion that I pointed out are not Christian at all, but all wound together brilliantly to make a greater whole. What made Tolkien's work great is that any symbology was subsumed in the text. As he stated himself, "the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."

Not overt, not proselytizing. I would not have continued to read it for nearly 5 decades if I felt I was being preached to. Like on this thread, for instance.

And with that, I will post on this thread no more. There is nothing mirthful here that should be in the "Middle-earth Mirth" part of the forum.

Mothoron, my sincere apologies, I have mistook you for another poster as was pointed out to me. You have made great comments i hope you dont leave on my account.

I would disagree the sillmarillion had nothing christian as i would say it clearly does especially on creation and the fall. But yes nowhere is it preaching Christianity he did not intended it to as maybe Lewis did. This thread is on his beliefs on creation and evolution.