Can atheists appreciate/understand Lord of the Ring?

[Lotrelf]

Being theist does not mean you have to be religious. I'm not "religious" if being religious means belonging to a religion. The better word I use for this is SPRITITUAL. Professor certainly wrote his books for all mankind instead of just religious people. But do all the people understand the books?
I started the thread because my experience with atheists has always been bad, so to speak (and I think most of them are arrogant). They doubt God's existence in real life. How are they going to understand characters that are directly affected by "God" or "Eru"? Would they take him as a "character"? Or as an energy? If they do so(energy thought), why not think this is true in real life as well? Or would they say "in Tolkien's world God existed because he saved the world"?
As Prof. said mercy and pity are in divine nature, it's not only true for LotR but for our real lives too. At times it happens when our previous mercy or pity saves us from a disaster. This is what I call "miracle". Miracles do happen; and they take place because of the "divine intervention" Prof. talks about. I don't say atheists can not understand these words, but can they understand the depth of Frodo's actions that saved the world in this context?

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

I don't say atheists can not understand these words, but can they understand the depth of Frodo's actions that saved the world in this context?

Watch out lest what you say be interpreted as "You choose not to believe in a higher entity, therefore you're too stupid to understand this book." An attitude like that could well be returned with arrogance.

I'd be curious to hear what precisely you mean by "the depth of Frodo's actions" here. You spoke about that and Tom Bombadil's mystery in your first post but I'm not quite sure what you are referring to - there are a gazillion different aspects and ideas and theories to both.

They doubt God's existence in real life. How are they going to understand characters that are directly affected by "God" or "Eru"? Would they take him as a "character"? Or as an energy? If they do so(energy thought), why not think this is true in real life as well?

Because Tolkien's work is fiction. I don't see why enjoying, say, the Ainulindalë should suddenly make one believe in something similar in real life.

I actually do see Eru as a character, but mainly for narrative purposes. He's sort of the personification of the Secret Fire, which, then, is the "energy" you speak about (and which for example the Ainur channel in their work). It's hard to explain a god, isn't it?

[Nogrod]

I think we might actually have a really interesting question here.

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

I don't say atheists can not understand these words, but can they understand the depth

Okay, I edited the specific example out from the end of the quote to kind of stress what I think is interesting here.

So. If we have a piece of fiction and in there a fictional reality where some divine forces (internal to that fictious world) are at play, but which at the same time refer to actual religious or spiritual views held by some people in the Real World outside that work of fiction, is it then so, that those people who hold those beliefs in the Real Life kind of "get more" from that fiction than those who do not actually believe in those views?

I mean it is easy to say that if a fiction is written based on a particular world-view then the one who knows and understands the world-view in depth has better chances of understanding what the author has possibly meant and probably has a "deeper understanding" of the work than one who doesn't know much about the world-view in question.

But that's something based on knowledge, not on faith or personal belief.

I have always thought of myself as an enlightened reader of Tolkien's work because of my pretty extensive studies on humanities (like philosophy, literature, different mythologies, religions, general history of ideas, cultural anthropology and Christian religion - it's history, different doxa, sociology, psychology... - etc.). So I can see where Tolkien uses fex. the idea of providence, or where he gets inspired or plays with the ideas of grace, forgiveness, faith, sacrifice... and what is the status of these ideas in different versions of Christian belief - and how Tolkien kind of sides with certain interpretations and ignores some others - and oftentimes blends and sets them up side by side with many pagan beliefs and...

But how does my reading or understanding of Tolkien differ from the reading by someone who actually believes in some of the metaphysical views Tolkien uses as the basis of his story in real life?

That might indeed be a question worth pondering.

My first reaction would be that the experiences between a believer and non-believer would be different indeed. But if we have fex. a believer with only shallow understanding of the issues s/he believes in and a non-believer who has a thorough understanding of them, which one of them would then have the desired or "deep" understanding (it looks like you think there is a desired way to understand LotR)?

Or is it reasonable in a first place to put different readings of a work on a scale where some are worthy of praise or desirable and others are not?

Well. These are interesting questions...

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Watch out lest what you say be interpreted as "You choose not to believe in a higher entity, therefore you're too stupid to understand this book." An attitude like that could well be returned with arrogance.

That post of mine was not about the books; but in general. I see people in general who are atheists are very rude and arrogant. I've had many debates with folks who don't believe in God. This is where the "arrogant" thought came to me from.

I'd be curious to hear what precisely you mean by "the depth of Frodo's actions" here. You spoke about that and Tom Bombadil's mystery in your first post but I'm not quite sure what you are referring to - there are a gazillion different aspects and ideas and theories to both.

By the actions of Frodo I meant that there's more divinity in the scene than any direct action. Frodo destroys the Ring not by himself but by mercy and pity: that's in the divine nature. So, how does an atheist see this? As a moral failure? Misadventure of Gollum? I'd like to know that.
I gave Tom Bombadil's example to say that there's a lot about the books and characters that most can not interprete on their own. Many say whatever the interpretation of his character is done is false. Some see him as Evil. Some see him as Eru. So, in simple words: It is not easy to get all the facts just like that. And be it theist of atheist, we all find it hard to get many things about the book. Even those who are reading the books for decades. If there's another theory, please let me know.

Because Tolkien's work is fiction. I don't see why enjoying, say, the Ainulindal�0Š5 should suddenly make one believe in something similar in real life.

I didn't say if one would start believing in God after reading The Silm. I meant that can they really understand the meaning of it? May be they can. I'm proved wrong. *shrugs*

I actually do see Eru as a character, but mainly for narrative purposes. He's sort of the personification of the Secret Fire, which, then, is the "energy" you speak about (and which for example the Ainur channel in their work). It's hard to explain a god, isn't it?

So do I. Eru is a fictional character but with lots of(or almost) real life values. We expect him to be perfect. Is he? He created both good and evil. Like in our world. Things in the fiction of Prof. Tolkien and in our real world are not too different. That's the reason I believed that atheists can't understand or appreciate the books.

[Mithalwen]

I have found many Christians rude and arrogant...even back in the day when I counted myself as a believer and was thus ashamed by the association. Nothing like an unshakeable bdlief in being right and righteous to make someone totally obnoxious in my experience.

It is knowledge that is the key to understanding not belief.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I have found many Christians rude and arrogant...even back in the day when I counted myself as a believer and was thus ashamed by the association. Nothing like an unshakeable bdlief in being right and righteous to make someone totally obnoxious in my experience.

It is knowledge that is the key to understanding not belief.

I've found the same thing about the current, strident crop of atheists lately. What a coincidence, yes?

[Inziladun]

This thread has an explosive potential, though the topic itself is quite interesting.

I'm merely going to say that I think Tolkien, though a Christian himself, deliberately wrote LOTR in a way that was thought-provoking and accessible to every reader. There are various truths and meanings that persons of different spiritual and intellectual bents can derive from these works. Hence, an internet forum over ten years old and still going strong, devoted to them.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

I've found the same thing about the current, strident crop of atheists lately. What a coincidence, yes?

Almost certainly not. Extremists tend to have more in common with the opposing extreme than The inbetweeners and no one group has a monopoly on arrogance. Or indeed goodness and morality.

[Formendacil]

My initial inclination was to ignore this topic and given its inflammability, perhaps that would have been the better choice, but I've been ruminating on it and have been driven from my tree-like state into movement.

As with some prior posters, my reaction to the bare question "can atheists appreciate/understand The Lord of the Rings?" was "well, obviously they can." A lack of belief doesn't not mean the inability to understand a belief or to appreciate the artistry of something created under a belief. If it did, there were would have been a sharp decline in the appreciation of Bach and Michelangelo (to name but two) in the past century--or, to name some non-Christian religious art that has seen *increased* interest from those not sharing the faith of the original artists, in ancient Egyptian art in the past two centuries.

My second thought was that asking the question seems to fly a bit in the face of Tolkien-as-anti-allegorist. Although Christian apologists have flocked to The Lord of the Rings as their standard, Tolkien was much more ambivalent about the specificity of his faith in the work than, say, C.S. Lewis--let alone most of these apologists. The whole point of applicability-vs-allegory seems, to me, to be that the work can be appreciated as a story-in-itself by anyone.

That said, speaking out of my own intensely subjective experience as a Catholic sharing Tolkien's faith, this question isn't completely pointless, even if (first language barrier being in play?) it has to be sifted a little to get there. As I said, there is no bar to the capacity of an atheist or non-Catholic generally to comprehend or appreciate what Tolkien is doing, nor is The Lord of the Rings itself designed to be exclusive to non-Catholic/non-religious readers--yet, perhaps, I would be willing to admit that there's a certain intuitiveness that comes to sharing the perspective of the original author.

Of course, born a century later in the New World and lacking Tolkien's strong classical education--to say nothing of linguistic virtuosity--I do not dare say anything that remotely suggests I can read his mind, but certain analogies or impressions come to me automatically that I think do not come to others. When Tolkien says that The Lord of the Rings was an unconsciously Catholic work in the writing and conscious in the revision, I feel like I have a sense of what he is saying, and when he compares the eucatastrophes of his work to The Eucatastrophe of the Resurrection, it's not as though "ah, that's what he's going for" clicks on in my head, because it's already natural to my sense of storytelling (derived from my metaphysics of reality) that is how stories work.

I would add, too, that this is not the sort of intuitivity that is limited to shared religious belief. As I noted before, I do not share all of Tolkien's formative elements. I am not a philogist at all (though, thanks to Tolkien, I have frequently wished I were), but it is apparent to me that when a philogist reads Tolkien they *get* that side of him--this is, at its heart I think, why Shippey is such a good and instructive commentator on Tolkien: because there is one major element of Tolkien that comes to him with such naturalness.

This is not to say that any intuitivity is *needed*--all the connections that a linguist or a Catholic or an Englishman would make intuitively can be made with study by a non-linguist, a non-Catholic, a foreigner. Can be made and have been made. And if this extra effort (however minor or major it may be in individual cases) is required, Tolkien's storytelling is such that he invites the effort and encourages the exploration. The mark of a good professor, I suppose, as well as a good storyteller.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

Being theist does not mean you have to be religious. I'm not "religious" if being religious means belonging to a religion. The better word I use for this is SPRITITUAL. Professor certainly wrote his books for all mankind instead of just religious people. But do all the people understand the books?
I started the thread because my experience with atheists has always been bad, so to speak (and I think most of them are arrogant). They doubt God's existence in real life. How are they going to understand characters that are directly affected by "God" or "Eru"? Would they take him as a "character"? Or as an energy? If they do so(energy thought), why not think this is true in real life as well? Or would they say "in Tolkien's world God existed because he saved the world"?
As Prof. said mercy and pity are in divine nature, it's not only true for LotR but for our real lives too. At times it happens when our previous mercy or pity saves us from a disaster. This is what I call "miracle". Miracles do happen; and they take place because of the "divine intervention" Prof. talks about. I don't say atheists can not understand these words, but can they understand the depth of Frodo's actions that saved the world in this context?

I am an atheist. I more than likely understand the context Tolkien wrote in better than you do. No, I take that back: I am certain I understand the context of Tolkien's entire corpus better than you do. So please, don't preach to the rest of us.

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I am an atheist. I more than likely understand the context Tolkien wrote in better than you do. No, I take that back: I am certain I understand the context of Tolkien's entire corpus better than you do. So please, don't preach to the rest of us.

Obviously you do. I didn't deny the fact. My post was not meant to offend you or anyone. No, it wasn't. This thread I started to know the fact, more than discussing it. And I do not think you have any problem if I put up the questions to you or anyone here. I thank you for clarifying this misconception of mine.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

I started the thread because my experience with atheists has always been bad, so to speak (and I think most of them are arrogant).

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I have found many Christians rude and arrogant.

Originally Posted by Andsigil

I've found the same thing about the current, strident crop of atheists lately. What a coincidence, yes?

I would argue that the important thing to realise is that people are not strident or arrogant or what have you because of their beliefs but because of their personalities. Being a Christian, an atheist, of any other belief or ideology does not make one arrogant, in my opinion, but arrogant people will use those things as a bludgeon to try to quash differing opinions or points of view which threaten their own self-image. For this reason I would argue that we ought to avoid generalisations wherever possible.

Returning to Professor Tolkien's work more specifically, I find the question of a generalised spirituality, setting any specifically Catholic doctrine aside, to not be irreconcilable with a non-spiritual view of the world. What are the most spiritual elements of the text, then?

1) The idea that there are 'divine' forces at work in the world: Eru, the Valar etc. I think even in a non-spiritual sense it is possible to appreciate the idea that human power has severe limitations in the grand scope of time and space, and that history is complex and rife with the unexpected, that evil will not always triumph and so on.

2) Mercy, pity and self-sacrifice: I don't think compassion and altruism need to be considered 'divine' traits but that from a non-spiritual point of view they can derive from a recognition of weakness and suffering in others as we ourselves are weak and suffer. Ultimately I would link this back again, I suppose, to a recognition of human limitations.

I am neither a religious nor a spiritual person. I don't know for sure what I would classify myself as: I'm not overly keen on "labeling" myself in any sense. Lately in fact thoughts have been troubling me when I consider Professor Tolkien's faith and the "catholicity" of his work and whether I'm to any extent a hypocrite for appreciating it as I do. I think the internal consistency of the narrative helps a great deal, however, what with the account of Eru, the Valar, the Ainulindalë and so forth, and again the recognition that the themes of the work, in my opinion, have great relevance to human life regardless of beliefs.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

Being theist does not mean you have to be religious. I'm not "religious" if being religious means belonging to a religion. The better word I use for this is SPRITITUAL.

You stole my thought, Lotrelf. I was just catching up on this thread and thinking that it's more about the spitiruality of the person than his religious denomination.

I'm not an atheist, but I don't assign myself to any religious dimension. I have more than slightly visible paganistic tendencies, or pantheistic maybe, or panentheistic, or whatever they call it, except that I'm neither really. I've been educated in two different monotheistic systems of belief, but at a certain point I decided that it's not so much that religion is rubbish and therefore God doesn't exist as organized (and especially monotheistic) religion is unappealing to me and therefore I don't like it. And, now that I think of it, around the same age I stopped liking the beginning-of-The-Sil backdrop - the more organized "theology" of the legendarium. Yeah, I don't appreciate it enough, most likely. However, I can't appreciate more the more mysterious references to the more obscure "fate" in LOTR. (And I've always loved the First Age tragedies, they remain amazing no matter what )

So can I appreciate LOTR? (hint: if you answer "no" to this question, you will suffer a slow and painful... lecture ). I can understand the relationship of Eru-Valar-World, but it doesn't feel right, or maybe doesn't appeal to me. I can still put myself in that perspective's shoes, though.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I'm not an atheist, but I don't assign myself to any religious dimension. I have more than slightly paganistic tedencies....

Good lord! G55 eats Christian babies!

Just when you think you know someone, they get all pagan on you.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Good lord! G55 eats Christian babies!

They're best stewed with some spices and vegetables, if you have some at hand. The whole trick is not to put too much pepper.




EDIT: well, crap, I've just wasted my 6000th post on this joke. After WEEKS of making sure I don't miss the anniversary. Blargh!

EDIT2: On a second thought, what better way to spend an anniversary post?

[IxnaY AintsaY]

I'm a devout agnostic, and I'll admit that the dependence of LoTR's plot on miracles, faith, and divine inspiration bothers me somewhat. But the work has enough other themes that I understand better or more intuitively that the whole still resonates.

Whether I understand "the depth" of it as well as I would if were a person of faith, I have no idea. But I'd guess one might as well ask similar questions with regards to having "scholarly credentials in philology", or "experience fighting in World War I", or "a West Midlands English middle-class background circa the late 19th and early 20th centuries."

Jeeze, it's some kind of miracle any of us understands the book in the slightest.

[demnation]

Originally Posted by IxnaY AintsaY

I'm a devout agnostic, and I'll admit that the dependence of LoTR's plot on miracles, faith, and divine inspiration bothers me somewhat. But the work has enough other themes that I understand better or more intuitively that the whole still resonates.

Whether I understand "the depth" of it as well as I would if were a person of faith, I have no idea. But I'd guess one might as well ask similar questions with regards to having "scholarly credentials in philology", or "experience fighting in World War I", or "a West Midlands English middle-class background circa the late 19th and early 20th centuries."

Jeeze, it's some kind of miracle any of us understands the book in the slightest.

I'm also agnostic, but I have to say that I find LOTR to be almost devoid of any faith or divine inspiration, at least in any obvious way. Characters certainly aren't going around praying to the Valar or anything. Miracles.....maybe, but only a few. Unless you were talking about subtext, in which case I would say it's debatable!

[alatar]

I always wanted to read Frank Herbert's Dune while having sand under my feet and some kind of cinnamon nearby.

Which then made me wonder how people read LotR while living no where near a forest. Where I live, we take trees for granted. We also experience all four seasons, so I can imagine climbing Caradhras as well as escaping the Shire.

So surely an atheist can appreciate LotR, but it might feel a bit differently to someone with a more spiritual viewpoint.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by demnation

Characters certainly aren't going around praying to the Valar or anything.

Not as a formal action, no. But I think prayers are indeed present in LOTR.

When attacked by the Witch-king on Weathertop, Frodo cries:

O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!

In The Two Towers, when Faramir's men Mablung and Damrod see the Oliphaunt, we see Damrod saying:

'May the Valar turn him aside! Mûmak! Mûmak!'

The sense of that one, to be fair, might be more akin to a 'Lord help us!' as spoken today; an exited utterance in fear.

However, when facing Shelob alone, Sam resorts to Elbereth again:

Gilthoniel A Elbereth!

And to escape the Watchers at the Tower of Cirith Ungol, Sam again, in desperation, cries:

'Gilthoniel, A Elbereth!'

I think prayers to the Valar, Ilúvatar's governors in Arda, were not uncommon with the Eldar, and apparently not to the Númenóreans in exile either.
At Henneth Annûn, Faramir and his men stand facing west for a moment of silence, as Faramir explains:

'So we always do,' he said as they sat down. 'We look towards Númenor that was, and beyond to Elvenhome that is, and to that which is beyond Elvenhome and ever will be.'

Originally Posted by demnation

Miracles.....maybe, but only a few. Unless you were talking about subtext, in which case I would say it's debatable!

If by 'miracle' you mean something unexpected that accomplishes a great good, I think the book is rife with them. It seems to be a running theme that the players in the story are being directed by something other than their own conscious thoughts and goals, and that Purpose brings good from evil.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by demnation

I'm also agnostic, but I have to say that I find LOTR to be almost devoid of any faith or divine inspiration, at least in any obvious way.

By divine inspiration, I mean things like Gandalf and Elrond deciding that Merry and Pippin tagging along with the Fellowship was a good idea; or Gandalf again, suspecting Bilbo's ring to be The One and that Sauron would be a-hankering after it, concluding it would be safe enough with an unwitting Hobbit for a couple of decades.

Miracles.....maybe, but only a few. Unless you were talking about subtext, in which case I would say it's debatable!

Hmmm, I'm not sure how sub into the text you have to get. Let's put it this way: counting the history in "The Hobbit", the storyline of LoTR can be seen as bookended by two events. The first is Bilbo blindly putting his hand on the One Ring while lost under the mountains. The second is Gollum biting it from Frodo's hand at what would otherwise have been the moment of his ultimate ruin and the ultimate triumph of Sauron. But as Inziladun said, the tale is rife with miracles.

You know though, "providence" would have been a finer fit to my meaning than "miracles", since I wasn't talking about flashy talking-topiary type stuff.