[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?