Can atheists appreciate/understand Lord of the Ring?

[Mithalwen]

It is a valid topic but it could have been phrased better without the assumptions... an observation not an attack nb. It is a very complex though since individual readers of Tolkien are going to be at different points on various spectrums that may have a factor in their understanding and appreciationof different aspects of Tolkien's work.

Then belief and understanding are not the same.Nor perhaps are understanding and knowledge -the distinction the French make between savoir and connaître. I haven't lost my knowledge and understanding of religion with my loss of faith.

Yes things will be more obvious or resonate if they chime with one's own experience Having roots in the same part of England may help my appreciation, or. y fascination with language but does that count for more than a Finn or Norse scholar's familiarity with the Kalevala and Eddas? Maybe the mathmagicians could work out a formula to decide if a sincere but otherwise ignorant believer has a deeper appreciation than a learned atheist, but it does rather head towards a method acting approach to literary appreciation. It is rather insulting to the human powers of imagination and empathy to think you have to be like the author or stories have to be "relatable". Stories let us try on another's life, another worldview, lead us to find out more and perhaps thereby increase in understanding and compassion.

Not forgetting of course that as our lives may affect our understanding of books, books may affect our understanding of our lives. I don't quite have a "What would Elrond do?" wristband but I discovered Mordor takes many forms.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

It is a valid topic but it could have been phrased better without the assumptions... an observation not an attack nb. It is a very complex though since individual readers of Tolkien are going to be at different points on various spectrums that may have a factor in their understanding and appreciationof different aspects of Tolkien's work.

Then belief and understanding are not the same.Nor perhaps are understanding and knowledge -the distinction the French make between savoir and connaître. I haven't lost my knowledge and understanding of religion with my loss of faith.

Yes things will be more obvious or resonate if they chime with one's own experience Having roots in the same part of England may help my appreciation, or. y fascination with language but does that count for more than a Finn or Norse scholar's familiarity with the Kalevala and Eddas? Maybe the mathmagicians could work out a formula to decide if a sincere but otherwise ignorant believer has a deeper appreciation than a learned atheist, but it does rather head towards a method acting approach to literary appreciation. It is rather insulting to the human powers of imagination and empathy to think you have to be like the author or stories have to be "relatable". Stories let us try on another's life, another worldview, lead us to find out more and perhaps thereby increase in understanding and compassion.

Not forgetting of course that as our lives may affect our understanding of books, books may affect our understanding of our lives. I don't quite have a "What would Elrond do?" wristband but I discovered Mordor takes many forms.

What irked me originally was the fallacious assumption that an atheist cannot comprehend Tolkien's symbology. People aren't born atheist, any more than they are born Catholic (ignoring Monty Python's song implying you're Catholic the moment dad did his duty with mum). It is based on your experience and most often on your familial background.

I was raised a Catholic -- yes, laughably, the Dark Elf was even an altar boy and an acolyte up to age 11 -- and I went to Catholic school. I understand Catholic dogma, and as a medievalist I have researched the Church and its doctrines moreso than many adherents who wash up and go to mass on Sunday, whether they need to or not.

I understand Tolkien's applicability and his Catholicism, but I reject Catholic doctrines in a real-life worldview; after all, isn't it the running joke that most atheists were once Catholics? I reject the Catholic worldview in reality, just as I reject the idea of a benevolent deity floating about benignly in the ether spraying his blessings about while mankind commits genocide. That, however, does not mean I cannot appreciate the deftness by which Tolkien built his subcreation.

On the contrary, and as I stated before, his is a synthesis of varying mythos that is transformative and unique in all of literature. His creation outdoes the biblical version in beauty and awe. It is great as a myth goes, just as there are great myths in the Eddas and Sagas, the Grecian works of Homer and Plato, the Mabingion, the Finnish Kalavela and the bible. And to really understand Tolkien, you must have a grasp of all these to truly appreciate his Middle-earth. But you don't have to accept Elves or Trolls as being real to appreciate it, any more than you have to accept Eru as the monotheistic god of Christianity.

[wilwarin538]

I was raised a Christian, and read the books for the first time when I still was and I remember especially with the Ainulindale feeling very 'connected' to what Tolkien wrote, and it really held a lot of deep meaning for me. Similarly, when I read the Narnia books, those really touched me and I saw Christian symbolism everywhere and I enjoyed them all the more because of it.

For the past three years, after quite the journey, I am an atheist (might shock a few people!), and though I think of these books in a different way I don't think I necessarily appreciate them any less. As I now view the Bible as an impressive work of (fictional) literature and still appreciate it for it's literary value, I hold that same appreciation towards Tolkien's and Lewis' works.

I love Tolkien's books just as much as I did before. I do think that my intensive knowledge of Christianity has made the symbolism more obvious than someone without that knowledge, but not to the point where I wouldn't have appreciated or understood the books otherwise. With Narnia the symbolism is way more blatant, I remember seeing the first film with a non-religious friend who didn't pick up on any of the symbolism, but it didn't stop them from enjoying it and understanding the plot (though it does sort of make it less enjoyable now for me, because it's just so blatant it brings up bad feelings, LotR is certainly not near that point).

Basically, I think there are religious aspects to Tolkien, but it isn't actually necessary for someone to be religious to understand or appreciate those aspects, and as someone who has had both mind sets when reading them it did not at all diminish my love or appreciation of the books, I perhaps wasn't "spiritually" connected to them anymore, but the religious aspects of the books didn't turn me off at all, because they aren't really blatant enough in my opinion, but rather very subtle.

So yeah, my complete turn-around in perspective did not at all change the way I see LotR, I love it just as much, if not more.

[Nerwen]

Amazing. A thread like this hasn't turned into a flame war within half-a-dozen posts? Truly an internet first!

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Amazing. A thread like this hasn't turned into a flame war within half-a-dozen posts? Truly an internet first!

I think that's a big part of why this forum has endured so long.

And now, on to the Middle-earth Climate Change debate: natural, or Morgoth made?

[cellurdur]

I see no reason why atheists cannot understand or appreciate LOTR, but I think it's generally hard to like a film, which goes against your morals and beliefs. The LOTR is a very catholic book, more than Tolkien probably intended, but it's virtually impossible for an authors beliefs to not seep into his work.

Knowledge of Catholic doctrine and philosophy would probably enhance the story, but book knowledge not mean you belief in something.

Ultimately I think some atheist would struggle to by the numerous times Eru intervenes to save the day. That being said Kingdom of Heaven is a film I completely disagree with, but I still love the film.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

I see no reason why atheists cannot understand or appreciate LOTR, but I think it's generally hard to like a film, which goes against your morals and beliefs.

Courage, hope, self-sacrifice, refusal of power, acceptance of the inevitability of change: are these solely theistic (or Christian, or Catholic) beliefs? The Lord of the Rings doesn't go against my morals or beliefs because a) I think a lot of its morals are universally good, and b) I don't think a reader has to believe in god, fate or providence in the real world to accept that god, fate and providence can exist in a story.

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

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 suppose The Lord of the Rings in isolation is sufficiently ambiguous about things (is Eru mentioned specifically anywhere outside the Appendices as 'the One'?) but within the context of the broader corpus of literature it's observable that in the narrative there is a god (Eru) who does influence things, subtly in some cases and directly in others. It'd seem bizarre to me if an atheist didn't consider the god within the world of a fictional narrative to be real.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Ultimately I think some atheist would struggle to by the numerous times Eru intervenes to save the day.

In all honesty I find some of Eru's actions to be rather inscrutable, or rather his fluctuating levels of involvement, but I don't think I struggle to "buy" his role in the narrative because, well, if Professor Tolkien says that's what happened then that's what happened. But that's a story of his invention. Surely it's entirely reasonable to differentiate between that and reality.

I agree that a particular faith or system of belief may influence one's reading of a text but in my opinion there are so many different beliefs and ideologies that it doesn't work to simply draw a line between atheists and all forms of spiritual belief and say that the latter are predisposed to "get it" better than the former. Many forms of "belief" are vastly different from Professor Tolkien's Catholicism and have different values and ethics despite still believing in a spiritual sphere of existence.

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

It is a valid topic but it could have been phrased better without the assumptions... an observation not an attack nb.

I understand what you mean. The reason for my first post got posted they way it did is partially because English is not my first language. Yes, English is given a place in Indian Constitution like many other Indian languages; but not many, in my area, think it is good to speak English. Another reason is that I have never met a Christian. I don't know what their beliefs are or what terms they use. Had I known this my post would have been better.
This is another my "defence" post. Thanks for enduring.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

I understand what you mean. The reason for my first post got posted they way it did is partially because English is not my first language. Yes, English is given a place in Indian Constitution like many other Indian languages; but not many, in my area, think it is good to speak English. Another reason is that I have never met a Christian. I don't know what their beliefs are or what terms they use. Had I known this my post would have been better.
This is another my "defence" post. Thanks for enduring.

Ah well there is quite a range of Christian belief, and also a range of unbelief. I would call my self agnostic rather than atheist and still regard myself as culturally Christian. But then a UK anglican upbringing is fairly low key as such things go and perhaps less likely to inspire rebellion. So iam in a different situation to Morth and both of us are different to someone who had no religious element to their upbringing and these days that is increasingly common.