Fantasy Morality

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

For the gazilionth time, tumhalad, a christian God also allows suffering. Suffering that is brought upon the people by their own choices. If you want to compare the two, you must consider this.

Wow, glad you have all the answers. The Problem of Evil is a question for the "real" god as well as Tolkien's "sub-created" one. And besides, there is no single view of the Christian god, so speculation as to what he does and does not allow is arbitrary. I'm assuming that Eru corresponds to the mainstream notion of the Christian god: one who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If the "real" god does allow suffering, then he, too, lacks one of these qualities. So your "answer" does not actually negate anything I've said. Why the tone of annoyance?

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

What do you mean by 'undirected'? That there was no power driving Turin to where he got? Please reread all the posts before this one. I remember myself and others addressing this issue many times.

I mean "undirected by providential aid/assistance/guidance". I see nowhere in your answers where you have refuted that contention: the Valar don't count, Melian doesn't count, Ulmo doesn't count. These actors are qualitatively different to the forces behind the scenes operating on the side of Good throughout LoTR.

[Mnemosyne]

Here's the thing, then: if the Christian Bible accepts multiple facets of theodicy, as part of the same moral universe (because all of these different books, even if they have different ideas on the matter, have since been interpreted as revelations of the same, unchanging person), how can you argue that Tolkien's Middle-earth, the texts of which are supposed to have been composed by different people, occupies different moral universes? If anything, it would seem that the apparent contradictions between the tragedy of CoH and the Eucatastrophe of Earendil, make Middle-earth more real than a bunch of books that offer the exact same interpretation of everything.

You simply cannot divorce CoH from the rest of its in-world cultural context, just because Christopher Tolkien decided to publish it separately: it was meant as a tale somewhat apart from the rest of the Sil, but coequal to Beren and Luthien, Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin, and the Voyage of Earendil. All of these were an inherited literary culture for anyone influenced by Elvish culture from the late First Age onward. Argue that it gives a different type of philosophy in Middle-earth if you wish, but to set it in a "moral universe" apart, to argue that reality itself somehow functions completely differently in this tale from any other because Turin's life sucks, throws the whole thing completely out of context. Middle-earth is intentionally philosophically diverse: the Athrabeth gives a completely different, Mannish explanation behind mortality, from the Elvish one, and there's an interesting bit on a group that deliberately turns back from the "Elvish" revelations specifically because there is still suffering in the world.

Finally, the key difference (even beyond the Valar) between the Judeo-Christian God and Eru, lies in the nature of creation itself. In Genesis, we get a world created perfect that was then marred by evil; in the Ainulindale we get evil sung into the very fabric of creation. Tolkien himself, when later reflecting on the way the Silm differs from LotR, referred to Beleriand as "Morgoth's Ring," that is, that Melkor invested so much of his own spirit into Beleriand itself that he was able to control reality--explaining a lot of the "bad luck" things that happen in CoH. This is also why, when the War of Wrath finally happened, Beleriand was sunk under the water--Morgoth had invested so much of his power in it that, in breaking his power, the land itself was broken. This seems to be an inherent part of the metaphysics of Arda, something that can't be fixed without redoing the whole Music (which is, of course, what eventually happens). The point is, this particular problem of evil is existent in the entire Silm-verse (not just CoH!), especially while Morgoth is still incarnate and thus able to work his will actively. Trying to get Eru to remove that instance without breaking the world is tantamount, in my mind, to trying to get him to make a rock so big he can't lift it. There are still logical limitations when an infinite being (and we really don't know whether Eru is infinite or not) operates on a finite scale.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Wow, glad you have all the answers. The Problem of Evil is a question for the "real" god as well as Tolkien's "sub-created" one. And besides, there is no single view of the Christian god, so speculation as to what he does and does not allow is arbitrary. I'm assuming that Eru corresponds to the mainstream notion of the Christian god: one who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If the "real" god does allow suffering, then he, too, lacks one of these qualities. So your "answer" does not actually negate anything I've said. Why the tone of annoyance?

For one thing, because you simply ignored the statements. You said it, I argued, and you repeated it again over and over without paying attention.

You said that Eru is unlike the 'typical' christian God, because he lacks the qualities that God has. Now you say that the Christian God is not a proper God. So what are you trying to prove?

I don't want to turn this into a discussion about religion, but I think these two bits are important:
The Christian-Judean God: Gives punishment of suffering to those who choose to do wrong. Doesn't randomly make people suffer.

IN ME: People suffer because of their own choices. (Specifically about Turin: his choices bring about Morgoth's curse - not Morgoth. He chooses to ignore wise advice, chooses to be proud and arrogant, etc)

Also, I think that Mnemy has a good point when she compares the differences of the creation of the world.

I mean "undirected by providential aid/assistance/guidance". I see nowhere in your answers where you have refuted that contention: the Valar don't count, Melian doesn't count, Ulmo doesn't count. These actors are qualitatively different to the forces behind the scenes operating on the side of Good throughout LoTR.

In LOTR the consequences also depend on the choice of the person. Gandalf said that "Frodo was meant to have the Ring". But did Frodo carry it because Gandalf told him to do it? No. It's because Frodo chose to follow what Gandalf said. Just like Turin chose not to follow what Melian said.

Frodo was "meant to have it" by fate, not Gandalf or Valar or whatever (and saying that, he finds out from Gandalf that he's meant to have it, but maybe not to carry it all the way.). It's the same fate that does wonders in The Sil and COH, both happy and sad. I mentioned already that Earendil and Elwing, refugees from different kingdoms, somehow just met up and saved the world. Another example is how the Silmarilli randomly ended up creating a balance between the sky, the water, and the ground/fire.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

For one thing, because you simply ignored the statements. You said it, I argued, and you repeated it again over and over without paying attention.

In your humble opinion.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

You said that Eru is unlike the 'typical' christian God, because he lacks the qualities that God has. Now you say that the Christian God is not a proper God. So what are you trying to prove?

I said I'm assuming Eru has the characteristics of the mainstream view of the Christian god. Got it?

I have subsequently argued that there is no one version of the Christian god (how could there be), but that Eru pertains the most widely accepted general view of the Christian god, i.e, one with the omni-characteristics.

Why don't you read my posts more carefully: I did not say that "Eru is unlike the 'typical...god because the lacks the qualities that God has"

I argued that if we assume he has these characteristics, then it follows that he is subject to the same kinds of logical contradictions that the Christian god is.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I don't want to turn this into a discussion about religion, but I think these two bits are important:
The Christian-Judean God: Gives punishment of suffering to those who choose to do wrong. Doesn't randomly make people suffer.

That's one theological view. The Book of Job presents another wholly different one. How are you to know the "truth"? What's your methodology?

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

In LOTR the consequences also depend on the choice of the person. Gandalf said that "Frodo was meant to have the Ring". But did Frodo carry it because Gandalf told him to do it? No. It's because Frodo chose to follow what Gandalf said. Just like Turin chose not to follow what Melian said.

So what? I agree insofar as its relevant. I'm not talking about choices, I'm talking about providence!

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Frodo was "meant to have it" by fate, not Gandalf or Valar or whatever (and saying that, he finds out from Gandalf that he's meant to have it, but maybe not to carry it all the way.). It's the same fate that does wonders in The Sil and COH, both happy and sad. I mentioned already that Earendil and Elwing, refugees from different kingdoms, somehow just met up and saved the world. Another example is how the Silmarilli randomly ended up creating a balance between the sky, the water, and the ground/fire.

I'm sorry, this is getting tiresome. What you say is all very interesting, but none of it really refutes what I say, and just brings up so many more questions than answers.

So - this "fate" is not actually benevolent?
I'm not talking about Earendil - perhaps he is spurred on by the same kind of benevolent providentiality in LoTR? So what? It's not there in CoH.
A balance? That's very poetic - hardly evidence of divine intervention.

A la Mnemosyne:

Some people (believers) interpret the Bible as though it is singly revalatory - but so what? I certainly don't. There are far too many contradictions and competing "moral universes" as you say. Just because some people interpret it that way doesn't mean I do, probably because for me the Bible represents the literature of an ancient people, not a divinely inspired set of scriptures. I can tolerate disunity within the Bible.

And likewise I agree: Middle-earth is made more real by its competing implicit cosmologies.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I said I'm assuming Eru has the characteristics of the mainstream view of the Christian god.

It is a logical assumption, given that Tolkien was a devout Catholic.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I argued that if we assume he has these characteristics, then it follows that he is subject to the same kinds of logical contradictions that the Christian god is.

First off (and I have no intention of debating the matter with you here), it is by no means a universally accepted conclusion that the Christian God exhibits "logical contradictions". That is your interpretation. You're entitled to it, but don't expect everyone to agree.

As far as Eru Ilúvatar is concerned, you've got a bee in your bonnet because you don't see Divine Providence holding Túrin's hand and pointing him in the right direction. Why? Is it the duty of the Creator to yank someone back every time they get close to the brink of disaster through their own doing? No. The One may give someone signs to guide him, but it is incumbent on the individual to recognize them, and to alter his behavior accordingly. That is free will.
I would argue also that Túrin did have experiences which should have turned him away from his path. What of the tremendous good fortune that Nellas happened to be watching when Saeros attacked him first? That "chance" happening completely cleared him of wrongdoing in Doriath. When he was told by Beleg he would be welcomed back there, he spurned the offer, saying

'I will not pass into Doriath, and make use of Thingol's leave and pardon.'

CoH

That choice eventually led him to Nargothrond. Gelmir and Arminas were sent to Orodreth by Círdan to bear the warning of Ulmo there, telling them to shut the doors and stop drawing attention to themselves. Did Túrin listen?

'What does Círdan know of our wars, who dwell nigh to the Enemy? Let the mariner look to his ships!'

CoH

Arminas explicitly rebuked Túrin, giving a very accurate judgement of him.

'But you, it seems, will take counsel with your own wisdom, or with your sword only; and you speak haughtily.'

CoH

And what happened? Nargothrond was taken by Morgoth's forces, and all Túrin's pride was in vain. So Túrin never had any guidance, then?

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

So - this "fate" is not actually benevolent?

"Fate" is only so when speaking of what the Creator already knows his Children are going to do. Having knowledge of their actions and not interfering in them is merely another allowance of their freedom to act, for good or evil. If you don't think that's fair, or right, again, you're entitled to your opinion.

Look, in LOTR Frodo and Company have Gandalf to advise them, but in the end it doesn't make a difference that he was a Maia. Those that he advised, with the possible exception of Aragorn, didn't know he had any "inside information". They used their own wisdom to make their decision to listen to him.
Also, Frodo wasn't "fated" to be the Ring-bearer: he was the chosen instrument for the task, but he still had the free will to refuse. That is made clear to him by Gandalf:

'And now', said the wizard, 'the decision lies with you.'

LOTR The Shadow of the Past

And again by Elrond at his Council:

'But it is a heavy burden. So heavy that none could lay it on another. I do not lay it on you.'

The Council of Elrond

If Frodo had refused the Ring, I feel certain "fate" would have been altered, and the One would have found another means to accomplish Sauron's defeat.

So you see, "fate" is only a constant in the context of our own actions. I don't believe Túrin was "fated" to have the life he did, just as Frodo was not inexorably locked into going to Mordor with the Ring. Choices are the genesis of "fate".

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Zil pretty much said it all.

About the "views" on God: it doesn't matter what we believe in. What Tolkien believed in is what you're really looking at, and we don't know for sure (although we can guess).

Ye-es– but, in far as M-e "is" the real world, it's meant to be taking place in an (unspecified) pre-Christian era. This is quite an important point– however it applies to the entire Legendarium, not just CoH, and may explain why, for my money, there is remakably little direct intervention by Eru in any of the stories, barring of course the Akallabêth– which is arguably the real odd one out on tumhalad's terms.

On that note– look, I have tried to keep out of this latest round of tumhalad vs the world, but I'm just going to make a general comment here:

The basic problem, I think, tumhalad, is that your case rests on a set of assumptions (bolstered up with a few extra "rules" you've thrown in on the way) that apparently are so self-evident to you that you've never really felt any need to prove them. The result has been a rather depressing amount of circularity, both in the argument itself ("CoH is different in a metaphysical sense because its metaphysics are different"), and in the discussion, which just keeps looping back to the start. I mean, by this stage it's practically become a standard procedure: you make your assertion, other people dispute it, there's a bit of back-and-forth... and then you make the same assertion again.

I mean, look, of course you're entitled to your own views– but clearly you want to promote them to others as well. This is what, the third thread you've started on the same subject? The fourth? Okay, well, it should be clear now that, no matter how compelling you find your arguments, other people aren't "getting" them, and it doesn't seem they're going to "get" them in future. Isn't it about time you either agreed to disagree, or else tried a different tack?

If this sounds harsh, I'm sorry. It really is not my intention to pick on you this time.

EDIT:X'd with alatar.

[alatar]

Note that I'm not taking 'sides,' as no one is quite on my side...

[Galadriel55]

Zil pretty much said it all.

About the "views" on God: it doesn't matter what we believe in. What Tolkien believed in is what you're really looking at, and we don't know for sure (although we can guess).

Also, you might see flaws in the "christian God", but other people might not. Tolkien may be one of the latter. Personally, I don't see how letting people make their own choices is a flaw. You learn from mistakes. God 'wants' us to learn.

[alatar]

Very interesting discussion. My three cents:

- Eru isn't the Christian God, as there is no Christ in ME. I think that that's significant, not me just being silly.

- People use the word 'god' like they know what they are talking about. Think about that we can see, via the Hubble telescope - galaxies smashing together! The universe is at least 13 billion light years across. Any god worth its salt is bigger than these. And yet we speak of omni---. Methink that our conceptions of god are merely 'human to some exponential power,' which is not even a jot or tittle compared to a real god.

- Assume you are Eru, up posting on the Barrow Downs about Turin. You - you - decide to begin typing. Your hands respond without you barely even considering them. The muscles within your hands are doing what they need to do to flex your fingers just so. The cells that make up these muscles are interacting with their neighbors to move each strand of muscle in the right way (and may I never see another myosin protein). The molecules within these cells (and there's quite a few) do the jobs that are their nature, whether metabolizing ATP or sending waste products out the cell membrane. These molecules aren't actually typing, and are not aware that they are typing, but without them, no words appear in your post.

Those molecules are made of atoms, and those are made up of sub-atomic particles with names that put the lie to the notion that scientists aren't funny. At this level, you don't even know 'where' or 'when' a particle is, and there's even the probability that particle is an anti-particle, or somewhere it should never be, or even moving backward in time.

Yet these words appear.

Eru, or god, might be like that, and his free will creations just a bunch of quarks, bosons and prideful humans.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by alatar

Very interesting discussion. My three cents:

- Eru isn't the Christian God, as there is no Christ in ME. I think that that's significant, not me just being silly.

Okay, but does he possess the attributes of the traditional Christian god or not? Is he omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? If you say no, then how can we understand Eru? What kind of god is he, really?

Originally Posted by alatar

- People use the word 'god' like they know what they are talking about. Think about that we can see, via the Hubble telescope - galaxies smashing together! The universe is at least 13 billion light years across. Any god worth its salt is bigger than these. And yet we speak of omni---. Methink that our conceptions of god are merely 'human to some exponential power,' which is not even a jot or tittle compared to a real god.

I have no idea what "god" may or may not be. Personally, I see no reason to believe in any supernatural claims. What I'm interested in is how Tolkien depicted Eru, given that he was a Catholic writer, and whether his depiction of Eru takes from the Xtian god as traditionally understood.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Okay, but does he possess the attributes of the traditional Christian god or not? Is he omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? If you say no, then how can we understand Eru? What kind of god is he, really?

Maybe. I would say 'yes,' 'yes, and 'possibly,' as I'm not exactly sure whose benevolence we are discussing.

I have no idea what "god" may or may not be. Personally, I see no reason to believe in any supernatural claims. What I'm interested in is how Tolkien depicted Eru, given that he was a Catholic writer, and whether his depiction of Eru takes from the Xtian god as traditionally understood.

Understood. What I think may be an issue is that two Christians, rubbing shoulders for 50 years in the same church may not have the same conception of god. We can take some good guesses about what the Professor thought, but I suspect even his writings, as even they *really* don't depict with a 100% certainty what was in his head - there's always some loss in the translation.