Fantasy Morality

[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.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by alatar

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

The only reason for my raising this whole point about "god" was that the writer in the original essay asks the question of how Turin can suffer in a universe that supposedly governed by a benevolent god.

I have, along with the essay writer, assumed that Tolkien's Eru possesses characteristics that are ascribed to the Xtian god by most theologians today - that is, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

I then argued that if this were the case, there are certain logical contradictions inherent in that conception that would apply to Eru. Philosophers like Victor Stenger have made similar arguments about this notion of god in our world. Another elucidation of it can be found here: The Omniscience of God

So if Eru doesn't actually possess any or some of these attributes, (for example, he is not totally omnibenevolent) certain questions are raised about Tolkien's mythos, let alone Tolkien's personal beliefs.

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

Oh I agree, but given that Tolkien himself claimed that Eru was the Xtian god
(in one of the letters, I'll have to find it) I'm just assuming that it was the theologically understood "philosophical" version.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

The only reason for my raising this whole point about "god" was that the writer in the original essay asks the question of how Turin can suffer in a universe that supposedly governed by a benevolent god.

I have, along with the essay writer, assumed that Tolkien's Eru possesses characteristics that are ascribed to the Xtian god by most theologians today - that is, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

Omnibenevolence - Eru "wishes well." Eru created all, even the void. How more benevolent does it have to be? You (a being in ME) exist, and suffering is a part of the cost. To not suffer is to not exist.

Oh I agree, but given that Tolkien himself claimed that Eru was the Xtian god
(in one of the letters, I'll have to find it) I'm just assuming that it was the theologically understood "philosophical" version.

You, me and Tolkien may all talk about the Christian God, and even agree about the definition, but again, we are pretending to know what we and each other are talking about.

But I know what you are saying.

Is your question about Turin just a 'Problem of Evil' for Christians?

Turin, to me, was a jerk, and deserved much of the pain he suffered. His family may not have deserved the suffering - especially his sister - but then again, neither did they deserve the benevolence of the elves.

[Galadriel55]

It's possible that Tolkien's perception of God wasn't "fair and just". He had to leave everything and go to war, just to see all his friends die there. If he created Eru to be a copy of his perception of God, Eru wouldn't be "fair and just" all the time either.

[Galadriel55]

Sorry about double-posting, but I have to say this:

Tumhalad, are you arguing about Turin or about the Christian god? Whatever Eru is, he's the same throughout the legendarium, but the perception of him might be different. If he is or isn't a copy of the Christian god doesn't really matter, does it? (I know I argued a lot about it too. What a waste of posts that was )

[skip spence]

You'd have to be pretty moronic (or ignorant) to suggest that God makes sure individual people get what they deserve (in this world or Middle Earth). In an after-life, who can tell, but in this world we know, lots of wonderful people suffer horrendously and die young while plenty of arseholes live long and prosperous lives.

There's nothing to suggest that JRR Tolkien was moronic or ignorant. However, his tales are very moral ones, and typically the main protagonists actually do get what they deserve in waking life. I also disagree that CoH really differs in this respect from LotR, although the providence seems to be more accentuated in the trilogy. As has been pointed out, Turin gets lots of opportunities to do Right, but he is full of pride - and/or not strong enough to resist Morgoth - and therefore makes the wrong decisions and subsequently pays for it. In contrast, Tuor, his cousin, makes the right decisions and gets the rewards.

As to why this is, I don't know, but it is interesting. There's little doubt in my mind that Tolkien's Eru is a close approximation of his conception of the Christian God. Exactly what that was, I don't know, but based of what I do know, this seems a fair enough assumption and conclusion:

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I have, along with the essay writer, assumed that Tolkien's Eru possesses characteristics that are ascribed to the Xtian god by most theologians today - that is, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

I then argued that if this were the case, there are certain logical contradictions inherent in that conception that would apply to Eru.

I don't know how far you can go with it though. The obvious problem here is that religious beliefs, in the real world, are ultimately based on faith, not rational logics, and believers can therefore disregard any logical discrepancies in the scriptures or practices by referring to god's omnipotence and our own shortcomings of perception. The answer to any query can be reduced to a curt and lazy "God wanted it that way, don't worry!"

As for 'the problem of Evil', this is one of the main themes of Tolkien's work, isn't it? Seems like the good professor has wrestled a lot in his mind with this, from his perspective, difficult problem, and he was no lazy thinker. Surely his thoughts went beyond his fictional universe and into the realm of his personal religious beliefs, and therefore his theological stuff is very interesting to read for an agnostic like myself.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

The only reason for my raising this whole point about "god" was that the writer in the original essay asks the question of how Turin can suffer in a universe that supposedly governed by a benevolent god.

The "benevolent" Christian god allows suffering in the "real world", so you and your befuddled essay-friend are, in the usual circumlocutionary manner, barking up the wrong tree. If one follows Christian dogma, the "real world" is transitory, and only a waystation for a greater kingdom. Turin, and the mortal race as a whole, had a separate destiny after death that the Elves knew nothing about. So, if one were following the Christian dogma, then Turin suffering due to the choices he made via free will, is completely within the dictates of the Christian ethos -- or mythos, depending on your religiosity or lack thereof. So, by questioning the nature of Eru, are you not questioning the contradictory nature of the bible itself?

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I have, along with the essay writer, assumed that Tolkien's Eru possesses characteristics that are ascribed to the Xtian god by most theologians today - that is, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

There is no contrary indication that, like the god of the bible, Eru could exhibit "omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence" while allowing Turin to suffer for the choices he made out of his own free will.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I then argued that if this were the case, there are certain logical contradictions inherent in that conception that would apply to Eru.

Again, you don't believe in Christian dogma. That's fine, neither do I. What's your point?

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

So if Eru doesn't actually possess any or some of these attributes, (for example, he is not totally omnibenevolent) certain questions are raised about Tolkien's mythos, let alone Tolkien's personal beliefs.

Are there certain questions raised about Tolkien's mythos or his personal beliefs? I am sure, given your constant harping on the subject, that it is your life's dream to find such inconsistencies, but you continue to ignore the story in its entirety; therefore, the substance of your arguments are flawed. For instance, there is certainly a contradictory nature in Yahweh of the Old Testament, compared to the "new age" enlightened god of the New Testament, yet Christians as a whole accept the disparate nature of the old and new god. However, when reading the Silmarillion (and by extension the CoH, which is merely a lengthy extension of the Silm) one cannot help but see echoes of the antedeluvian Old Testament resonating throughout the series of interrelated tales. Interrelated and resonant but not an exact simile, in order to create a whole new mythos, not merely parroting the old.

But to question Tolkien's personal beliefs just because he created a separate mythos to lend credence to a fantasy world is absurd on the part of the essayist. Tolkien was a great synthesizer of real world mythos, whether it came from the Kalevala (and many of the major plot points of CoH are derived from this Finnish tale), the Völuspá, or the bible, for that matter. Does the Silmarillion have an inner consistency? Yes, I think very much so, and CoH, which is a part of the Silmarillion from a historical and literary standpoint, follows in the manner that Tolkien mapped out the 1st Age. In his letters, Tolkien states several times that Eru is "remote", both from Elves and Men, and even the Valar in the 1st Age, but that does not mean he is not omnipresent, merely that he has unfolded the "world that is" and allowed for the story to develop as it was conceived in the Ainulindalë.

Does it conflict with the ethos of LotR? No, I do not see any conflict. And that is where we disagree, even though you keep trotting out the same tired series of arguments over several threads. Repeating yourself does not enhance your points, it merely emphasizes that you have an agenda that is neither supported by reading Tolkien's corpus, nor is it accepted by most of the readers who have replied to you here or in the endless stream of like posts that you pile in ponderous mounds in an effort to buttress your precarious position.

[alatar]

What was Eru's message? Harmonize.

This, to me, translates into living in accord with others. We today in RL think the same, and have laws (whether God-given or society-evolved) that show us what 'good' conduct is.

You know, thou shalt not murder, steal, etc.

Why? Because as individuals, we are vulnerable. I think about this every time I'm sent somewhere alone where everyone speaks a foreign tongue. I spend days 'inside my own head,' and it isn't fun. Add to this, having one to watch one's back, help gathering food, maintaining shelter, raising a family, caring for the tribe.

Our survivability increases with numbers, but so does the possibility of conflict. And so some basic rules.

In the beginning, all were in harmony, then Melkor, and a few others like him, decided that his part was more important than the survival of the group. Sure, he might gain, but the group lost (and some even grew silent). Eru raised up other themes to counter this 'it's all about me-ism' of Melkor's. In the end, Melkor never finds the Imperishable Flame, as he's too self-centered, and ends in the Void. Those that follow Eru, live in accord, find something more at the end of the music.

Turin and Tuor: Turin, though never as selfish as Melkor, makes life all about himself, whereas Tuor follows another tune, and brings about a better day for many.

And in LotR, isn't not all about Frodo, or Aragorn, or Gandalf, but their selfless relationships with others (Sam, Faramir, Eomer, the Fellowship, etc).

Okay, so that was a little rambling.