Can atheists appreciate/understand Lord of the Ring?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by jallanite

The Lord of the Rings is obviously a fictional work. Manwë and Varda never existed, ever. The earth was never flat. Gandalf never existed. Hairy-footed hobbits never existed. Númenor never existed. Ents never existed. None of these things has any connection to Christianity.

I don't think anyone would dispute that.

Originally Posted by jallanite

But anyone who attempts to read The Lord of the Rings as though it were real is badly misreading it. Tolkien in his essay “On Fairy Stories” makes it clear that fairy tales, attract, to those who find them attractive, by their very unreality. The story The Juniper Tree is, according to Tolkien, an amazing tale. I agree. But it is not in the least realistic. Nor is it any kind of allegory. It is pure fantasy.

Of course LOTR is a fantasy, and I have never met anyone who arose in the morning and went to the local tall hill to worship Eru Ilúvatar. But that is not to say that there cannot exist ideals and characters in the books that could have a particular resonance for a reader, whether they see the works from a Christian perspective, or not. The freedom to interpret a work as one reads is of vital importance, and why would anyone bother to read any work of fiction, if they were told they must limit themselves in what they take from it?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

The freedom to interpret a work as one reads is of vital importance, and why would anyone bother to read any work of fiction, if they were told they must limit themselves in what they take from it?

Do you mean that there is no point in reading anything in any fiction if one must in any way limit oneself? I am unaware that I am in any way limiting your freedom. Believe whatever you wish. And allow me the same privilege to disbelieve in Bilbo Baggins, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, and Peter Pan.

I strongly believe that one should not take Ents, or Hobbits, or Elves as factual. Why should this bother you? Is it ok to believe that Goldberry is really the Virgin Mary?

Believe whatever you wish. I have no power to limit your beliefs.

[Nogrod]

Even if I agree with the contents of your burst Jallanite, I would suggest we'd do well to steer this discussion back to those dimensions we can have an enlightened exchange of ideas on. I mean this atheism / theism and real / not real - POV gets us nowhere but into arguments which heat up unnecessarily...

I was kind of intrigued by the idea that if you were a devout Catholic, would you then enjoy or "understand" the work more deeply?

The former of course means something like an old time Catholic aka. agreeing with and believing in most of the prof's world-view from which he wrote his work - unlike many modern-day "true-Christians" who have all these frivolous ideas that they have the "fundamentals" of Christianity right when they have ultra-liberal and over-individualistic beliefs which people of the past, like the prof. or people in the Middle-ages, would have abhorred!

But would fex. Formendacil have a deeper understanding of the books as he is both a theologian and a firm Catholic?


In literary-studies the POV of the author has been held to be the key to understanding any work for a long time - with some marked counter-trends of course (which should not be passed with just a shrug as they have good points)... but just taken at the face-value it looks "natural" to say that you understand a work when you understand what the author was trying to say.

And if the author has a deeply religious world-view - even if he tries to keep that at bay or thinks he's looking at things from a wider perspective, from something like a shared human mythological POV in the first place - wouldn't that apply then? That someone sharing some of the basic metaphysical views with Tolkien would be more deeply moved or would feel the story more "deeply" in comparison to someone who only "knows" the theological and mythical aspects referred to in the books, even iof that was a result of decades of intensive humanistic studies?

So does sharing beliefs with the author add something to the experience, or to the understanding of a work?

To me that is a perplexing question as I have always thought I have a deep understanding of Tolkien's world just because I know a lot of different religions (and their theological schisms & their history), myths, general history of ideas & philosophy etc. But would it be different if I also believed in those things?

[jallanite]

I’m not sure what a devout Catholic is any more. But devout Catholics are under no compulsion or necessity to believe in Valar, Elves, Númenoreans, Hobbits, Trolls, Balrogs, or Tom Tombadil. Indeed the default pure Catholic position seems to me to be not to believe in any of them.

This is where Lotrelf’s position seems to me to be odd. Why should Christians have a better understanding of Tolkien than non-Christians, when much of The Lord of the Rings tells of things not believed by either Christians or non-Christians very much or at all? The events in the story are supposed to have occurred ages before the Virgin May or Jesus Christ were born or prophesied.

And that also is recognized by the author as nonsense. The religion practiced by Men and Hobbits is deliberately kept vague. No-one goes regularly to church or to temple.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by jallanite

devout Catholics are under no compulsion or necessity to believe in Valar, Elves, Númenoreans, Hobbits, Trolls, Balrogs, or Tom Tombadil. Indeed the default pure Catholic position seems to me to be not to believe in any of them.

Of course. And I can't see sense in anyone trying to argue that they should.

But if you think of concepts like providence, grace, forgiveness... it's not hard to find these key-concepts of Christianity embedded in the books as some of it's central motives.

Because I have read about them I can see them in the books and even grasp something of how they work there, but if I also believed in them (if they were part of my metaphysical identity), would I then also "feel" them more deeply (or at least differently) while reading the books?

[Tar-Verimuchli]

This is my first post on an interesting topic. I'm about as hard/strong/positive atheist as is possible and I have no problem understanding or appreciating Tolkien. There seems an obvious difference between understanding an ideology and believing it. Most atheists in my experience have a pretty good understanding of the dominant faith in their culture as they really need to understand it to reject it rather than take a neutral agnostic position. Besides, there are obvious differences, e.g. God moves in mysterious ways but Eru mainly uses eagles.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by Tar-Verimuchli

God moves in mysterious ways but Eru mainly uses eagles.

Hey, I've seen that bumper sticker!

[Tar-Verimuchli]

Originally Posted by IxnaY AintsaY

Hey, I've seen that bumper sticker!

This one is better.