Imagine no religion

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Well, if you wish to taboo my choice of descriptive language, then consider what American philosopher/logician/scientist Charles Sanders Peirce had to say on the subject in his classic essay "How to Make Our Ideas clear" (Popular Science, 1898):

"Consider such a doctrine as transubstantiation. The Protestant churches generally hold that the elements of the sacrament are flesh and blood only in a tropical sense; they nourish our souls as meat and the juice of it would our bodies. But the Catholics maintain that they are literally meat and blood; although they possess all the sensible qualities of wafer-cakes and diluted wine. ... Such beliefs are nothing but self-notifications that we should, upon occasion, act in regard to such things as we believe to be wine according to the qualities that we believe wine to possess. ... and we can consequently mean nothing by wine but what has certain effects, direct or indirect, upon our senses; and to talk of something as having all the sensible characters of wine yet being in reality blood, is senseless jargon."

As you can see, the sectarian Protestant animists do not even agree with the sectarian Catholic animists about what constitutes flesh and blood and what constitutes crackers and grape juice. So, why should non-animists care what confusion reigns among certain -- if not all -- sectarian animist orthodoxies?

I will add to Inziladun that, as a Catholic, I also find your word choice provocative. It's not the discussion of taboo topics, nor even the word-choice surrounding them, but the tone that does it. Of course, this is the internet, and tone is notoriously hard to read here, but I would say that if doesn't wish to accidentally put forth a tone that will be taken poorly, it helps to use another group's self-chosen terminology, as opposed to a deliberately alternative terminology.

That being said, though, while I am irked enough to post, I do find the discovery of someone who takes Catholics beliefs to their full shocking conclusions to be rather refreshing. It's nice to have the gravity of the situation recognised. After all, to quote St. Paul, if we're wrong about all of this, then "we are of all people most to be pitied." (1 Cor 15:19b). Of course, pitying us doesn't call for ridiculing us--at least not to our faces.

Thus, before actually returning to the topic at hand, I'd like to back up Inziladun by saying that it's not the question of "taboo topics" that's being asked, but the question of civility in our discourse on ANY topic. Granted, we're talking about the presence or lack of religion here, so even though it's a discussion of a fictional work, it's going to be hard to go about that without bringing in real-world references. However, since it's a given that religion is right up there with politics for "most incendiary topics known to man," it is to be expected that those participating in those topics will exercise commonsense--and may be even some common manners--in doing so.

And if I may be permitted a moment of caustic sarcasm: "honestly, you didn't think there might actually be one or two Catholics on a forum full of diverse, world-wide members about a book that, containing Catholicism or not, was written by a Catholic in a language spoken by millions of Catholics?"

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

If you would revisit the topic of the thread: namely, "Imagine No Religion," then you would understand comments in this thread that imagine no religion (meaning "animism") in The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. But as to the charge of "ranting" against "Christianity," I'll let the late great historian Barbara Tuchman speak for me:

“With the advent of Christianity, personal responsibility was given back to the external and supernatural, at the command of God and the Devil. Reason returned for a brief brilliant reign in the 18th century, since when Freud has brought us back to Euripides and the controlling power of the dark, buried forces of the soul, which not being subject to the mind are incorrigible by good intentions or rational will.” -- The March of Folly, p. 381

Magic empowers the individual whereas Animism inculcates powerless enfeeblement towards social authority exercised in the name of unseen spooks. Therein lies the reason why I think professor Tolkien gave us Gandalf the Wizard instead of Gandalf the High Priest of Hobbiton.

Firstly, just because other people have seen Christianity in a paradigm that does not acknowledge its claims as healthy, let alone Revealed doesn't mean that you can't bring them up in an abrasive manner.

Secondly, you continue to associate animism directly with religion, or at least you seem to, to me. I am afraid I am going to have side more with Bêthberry, who brings up quite rightly that there are major distinctions between religions--not least regarding the subject of the individual. To look merely at Protestantism vs. Catholicism, it's hardly controversial for me to say that individualism is something that has grown out of Protestant culture, whereas Catholicism has historically tended towards a much stronger focus on the community of believers. However, I don't think you can say that a believing Protestant has much to do with "magic," unless you really change the definition of magic.

In a similar manner, you have brought up magic as empowering individualism before because "Magic empowers the individual whereas Animism inculcates powerless enfeeblement towards social authority exercised in the name of unseen spooks. Therein lies the reason why I think professor Tolkien gave us Gandalf the Wizard instead of Gandalf the High Priest of Hobbiton." If that is the case, however, then it is only powering very selective individuals indeed: Gandalf may be an empowered anti-animist (disregarding the fact that he is canonically an "angel" on a divine mission...), but Frodo Baggins isn't comparably empowered (or Sam, or Pippin, or Lotho, if you don't want me to use the Ring-bearer). In fact, he is pretty much as beholden to Elrond as the magic-wielding lord of Rivendell as he would be if Elrond were the High Priest of the Cult of Ulmo.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Zil

As for the 'programming' aspect, I agree with the idea. Not long ago I heard a news story which said that all of us apparently had a "God-gene", something that impelled us to seek understanding of our purpose and predisposed us toward a belief in a Higher Power.

Danger, Will Robinson! I'd be very wary of bringing genetics into this - this looks to me too much of another attempt to misuse 'science' in order to bolster preconcieved beliefs or prejudices (like the Intelligent Design scam or the alleged finding of a gene for homosexuality a decade or two ago). If we think this out, the logical conclusion would have to be that atheism is a genetic defect, wouldn't it, and I don't want to go where that might lead us.

(Also note that in the post you refer to here, I was strictly talking Tolkien, and whether we need resort to divine inspiration to explain ethical standards outside Middle-earth is quite another matter.)

Originally Posted by TMT

Magic empowers the individual whereas Animism inculcates powerless enfeeblement towards social authority exercised in the name of unseen spooks.

So it would seem, working with the distinction as you defined it above (and leaving aside terminological squibbles about your use of animism, which isn't the topic here). But I'm not sure the distinction is as clear-cut as you (or Frazer) would like it to be. Take e.g. a pagan deity like Odin, who was both a patron god of shamanist magic (seiðr) and the highest god of the official religion of the time. Or what do you make of modern Wicca, which combines the practice of magic with ritual worship of the Goddess and God (and, at least in some of its most vociferous writers, strongly emphasizes empowering the individual)?

Keeping to Tolkien, can you really claim that praying to Elbereth enfeebled rather than empowered Sam at Cirith Ungol?

Finally, as an ex-Christian, I'll have to third what Zil and Formy said about word-choice and tone (if you haven't guessed it already). The wonderful thing about this forum is that it unites people coming from vastly different cultural, religious and political backgrounds through our common love for Tolkien's works - not by muddying our differences, but simply by treating each other with respect and empathy (or, as you put it in your first post here, "human brotherhood").

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Danger, Will Robinson! I'd be very wary of bringing genetics into this - this looks to me too much of another attempt to misuse 'science' in order to bolster preconcieved beliefs or prejudices (like the Intelligent Design scam or the alleged finding of a gene for homosexuality a decade or two ago). If we think this out, the logical conclusion would have to be that atheism is a genetic defect, wouldn't it, and I don't want to go where that might lead us.

That was merely an aside that your post reminded me of. I had no intention of holding it up for debate. In retrospect I would not have added that.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Danger, Will Robinson! I'd be very wary of bringing genetics into this - this looks to me too much of another attempt to misuse 'science' in order to bolster preconceived beliefs or prejudices (like the Intelligent Design scam or the alleged finding of a gene for homosexuality a decade or two ago). If we think this out, the logical conclusion would have to be that atheism is a genetic defect, wouldn't it, and I don't want to go where that might lead us.

I grew up Catholic, so am comfortable enough in the Sunday School version of that world view. I'm now more of a secular humanist than anything else. I do sometimes play with the idea of how any human emotion or drive evolved to be of some benefit to the human race. Some drives such as love or mercy might be identified as 'good.' Others such as greed or aggression might be associated with evil. At some point, though, any trait that evolved to become human normal was once beneficial to the species.

When I look back at hunter gatherer cultures, it is easy to see how both the good and the evil drives were advantageous to the spreading of the human race. Showing love and mercy to members of one's own clan or tribe benefits the tribe. Securing resources and driving the other tribe off what was once their land might also be beneficial to one's own tribe.

On the other hand, love drives, or sex drives, can run amok, leading to rape and domestic violence. Selfishness and a desire to gather resource is a force that drives business, but many cultures find it necessary to curb excessive greed and desire to seize land and resources. If we do not enable a competitive energy to make a living, economics doesn't work. Yet these same drives easily become evil in excess.

I'd agree that using genetic pseudo science to advocate this moral system or that is dangerous territory, but we might also strive to understand ourselves. Until we comprehend the demons inside us we're going to have grave difficulties taming them.

Tolkien is hardly unique in using the themes of Good and Evil. I do see considerable evidence that his creations might be 'programmed.' The 'good' races tend towards the sort of friendly emotions that one might share with family and good neighbors. The 'evil' races tend towards anger and aggression, the same sort of feelings Americans of prior generations might have been expected to feel when fighting huns, japs, nazis, redskins, redcoats, reds, rebels or yankees.

Looking at Tolkien's origin stories, sure, it becomes easy to conjecture that Eru and the other singers 'programmed' many races to be inclined towards the good emotions, but Morgoth corrupted and over rode much of this programming with his own. As a story teller, Tolkien gets to say lots of interesting things working from such a premise.