Can atheists appreciate/understand Lord of the Ring?

[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.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

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.

The 'hope' in LOTR is actually solely a Christian belief as is the acceptance of the inevitable change. The hope in Catholicism comes from the belief that God will never let humanity completely fall. To quote Hurin there is always a belief that 'Day shall come again'. However, at the same time Man has been in a downward spiral since the Fall and things will get worse. The latter is not strictly Catholic, but found in numerous religions and mythologies from Greek to African. Numenor will never happen again and even Aragorn is the last of the Numenoreans.

Nor does LOTR have any kind of theme about rejecting power. There is nothing wrong with power, when it is something innately yours or taking up your responsibility.

However, the biggest theme of the books and the mythology as a whole is Death and how we cope with the fact that one day we will die.

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.

Maybe "buy" is not the correct word, maybe accept is more useful. I agree with you though it is too wide to draw a line between atheist and belief in God. I personally am agnostic, but was raised Catholic. Whilst I am no longer Catholic and I am agnostic, I would struggle to enjoy any story, which was anti-Catholic in nature like say the Dark Materials books.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The 'hope' in LOTR is actually solely a Christian belief as is the acceptance of the inevitable change.

Professor Tolkien may have written about them in a Christian way but my point is that personally I don't think we have to appreciate them from a Christian point of view, as I've already argued. I think much of The Lord of the Rings can be read (but does not have to be read) in terms of human limitations: applicability as opposed to allegory. But that's just how I tend to read it. I don't think there's a single, unilateral reading of the text and that other readings are bunk. Which leads me on to:

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Nor does LOTR have any kind of theme about rejecting power. There is nothing wrong with power, when it is something innately yours or taking up your responsibility.

Maybe I should have said a rejection of totalitarianism, which is to say "power" in the sense of the capacity of an individual to force others to do and even to be what the power-wielder wants. I know Professor Tolkien says in his letters that it's not the main issue, but it nevertheless is part of the whole scheme. Of course the text seems to value leadership, responsibility and strength.

I suppose it's because of my own opinions (I won't say "beliefs") that I tend to generalise and abstract the ideas about "death and the desire for deathlessness" to apply more generally to "change and the desire for changelessness" but personally I think that's borne out in the text, especially in terms of the relationship between human lives and the passage of history.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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

From the Silmarillion, it seems very clear Morgoth is responsible for a lot of the climatic unbalance in the First Age and before (as well as a number of natural catastrophies)! While we have to keep in mind the Silmarillion is mostly written from the Noldor's point of view and they are very unreliable narrators, especially when it comes to Morgoth, a few quotes from the pre-Noldor era need to be brought up in this context.

Originally Posted by Ainulindalë

...and the light of the eyes of Melkor was like a flame that withers with heat and pierces with a deadly cold.

The combination of unexpected heat/cold exists from the very start. These seem to be among Melkor's dominant passions.

Originally Posted by Ainulindalë

He hath bethought him of bitter cold immoderate, and yet hath not destroyed the beauty of the fountains, nor of my clear pools. Behold the snow, and the cunning work of frost! Melkor hath devised heats and fire without restraint, and hath not dried up thy desire nor utterly quelled the music of the sea. Behold rather the height and glory of the clouds, and the everchanging mists; and listen to the fall of rain upon the earth!

It seems very much that not only did Melkor create ice and clouds, but the Climate Change was brought into the Music as part of his discord.

Originally Posted by Of the Beginning of Days

And seeing now his time he drew near again to Arda, and looked down upon it, and the beauty of the Earth in its Spring filled him the more with hate.

And so was the Spring of Arda marred - Melkor seemed to hate everything in its natural state. His need to corrupt reached even the nature and, I would argue, the climate.

Originally Posted by Of Tuor and His Coming to Gondolin

Slow was their going by twilight or by night in the pathless wilds, and the fell winter came down swiftly from the realm of Morgoth.

This quote implies Morgoth had indeed some control over the climate. Of course the phrasing could be a result of Thangorodrim's northern location, but given Morgoth's earlier pendant for fine-tuning the weather, we can't rule out the option that the fell winter (and other such occasions) were entirely his doing. After all, we know even Saruman, who is considerably less mighty than Morgoth, could do all sorts of things with the weather.

Also, think about the fires they burned in Angband and Morgoth's other strongholds. Think about the dragons and the balrogs. It's not far-fetched at all to say that a horde of these spirits of fire could have raised the average temperature in Middle-earth by a couple of degrees during their main era of wreaking havoc.

Based on this, I'm led to the conclusion that the Peoples of Middle-earth had very little to do with the changes in the climate, but it was mostly the Enemies' doing. They played a major part in teaching Men and Hobbits the art of pollution, too - mainly Saruman here, what with everything he did at Isengard and in the Shire.

[jallanite]

In theory, Christians, in particular Roman Catholics, ought to appreciate The Lord of the Rings more than non-Christians. In fact Tolkien has more arguments and disagreements with obvious Roman Catholics in the book Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien than with anyone else.

The Lord of the Rings is obviously a fictional work. Manwë and Varda never existed, ever. The earth was never flat. Gandalf never existed. Hairy-footed hobbits never existed. Tom Bombadil never existed. Númenor never existed. Ents never existed. None of these things has any connection to Christianity.

But anyone who attempts to read The Lord of the Rings as though it were real is badly misreading it. Tolkien in his essay “On Fairy Stories” makes it clear that fairy tales, attract, to those who find them attractive, by their very unreality. The story The Juniper Tree is, according to Tolkien, an amazing tale. I agree. But it is not in the least realistic. It is not in the least Christian. Nor is it any kind of allegory. It is pure fantasy.

Lotrelf seems to miss that Christian theists are as ready to misread Tolkien as anyone. Anne Marie Gazzolo’s Moments of Grace and Spiritual Warfare in The Lord of the Rings I found to be hideous pious piffle, to take a recent example. And there are other well-known Tolkien fans who I find to my taste to be pure evil.

Tolkien himself very much enjoyed David Lindsey’s A Voyage to Arcturus, a gnostic tale in which the moral is that pain is the sole virtue. In later life Tolkien found at least some of George MacDonald’s fantasy works unreadable and loathed C. S. Lewis’ Narnia books. Like everyone, Tolkien had individual tastes which were not always in synch with his fans. He liked what he liked.

Personally I left the Mythopoeic Society years ago because of my revulsion for its leader, Glen GoodKnight, a purported Christian, and a person whom I grew to loathe for his continual flagrant dishonesty. Eventually the Society, who had previously made him permanent president, realized they could legally get rid of his influence by just removing all presidential duties, and did so. Glen was still president, legally, but had no further duties or responsibilities or role.

Note that Tolkien’s religion was, despite what is often claimed, not so Catholic as is often claimed. Tolkien, in his fantasy, did not claim death was brought on humans as a punishment for eating the forbidden fruit. Tolkien very much disagreed with some of the reforms of Vatican II, notably the replacement of Latin in the church service. In his fantasy he avoids anything like a parish priest.

See http://bustedhalo.com/features/of-go...en-and-hobbits for the statement:

Scholars of Tolkien, including Matthew Dickerson, author of A Hobbit Journey, adds that the Lembas, the thin small cakes that the elves make and eat, have sacramental or even Eucharistic connotations.

Wait a minute. How can lembas have “Eucharistic connotations” when it is supposedly consumed thousands of years before Jesus was born.

Dickerson says that Marian imagery also abounds in Tolkien’s work. “The Vala Elbereth, also called Varda, is certainly a Marian figure. She is a venerated and revered queen, whom the elves of Middle-earth call upon in times of need. Her name alone has power, and when those in need call upon her, help comes.”

The problem is that the same is true when in old legends believers call on pagan goddesses, and Elbereth, again, is supposed to exist thousands of years before the Virgin Mary was even born. And Elbereth has no son.

I am, or was, in personal communication with a fan who similarly believed, and presumably still believes, that Goldberry is really the Virgin Mary.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by jallanite

The Lord of the Rings is obviously a fictional work. Manwë and Varda never existed, ever. The earth was never flat. Gandalf never existed. Hairy-footed hobbits never existed. Númenor never existed. Ents never existed. None of these things has any connection to Christianity.

I don't think anyone would dispute that.

Originally Posted by jallanite

But anyone who attempts to read The Lord of the Rings as though it were real is badly misreading it. Tolkien in his essay “On Fairy Stories” makes it clear that fairy tales, attract, to those who find them attractive, by their very unreality. The story The Juniper Tree is, according to Tolkien, an amazing tale. I agree. But it is not in the least realistic. Nor is it any kind of allegory. It is pure fantasy.

Of course LOTR is a fantasy, and I have never met anyone who arose in the morning and went to the local tall hill to worship Eru Ilúvatar. But that is not to say that there cannot exist ideals and characters in the books that could have a particular resonance for a reader, whether they see the works from a Christian perspective, or not. The freedom to interpret a work as one reads is of vital importance, and why would anyone bother to read any work of fiction, if they were told they must limit themselves in what they take from it?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

The freedom to interpret a work as one reads is of vital importance, and why would anyone bother to read any work of fiction, if they were told they must limit themselves in what they take from it?

Do you mean that there is no point in reading anything in any fiction if one must in any way limit oneself? I am unaware that I am in any way limiting your freedom. Believe whatever you wish. And allow me the same privilege to disbelieve in Bilbo Baggins, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, and Peter Pan.

I strongly believe that one should not take Ents, or Hobbits, or Elves as factual. Why should this bother you? Is it ok to believe that Goldberry is really the Virgin Mary?

Believe whatever you wish. I have no power to limit your beliefs.

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by jallanite

In theory, Christians, in particular Roman Catholics, ought to appreciate The Lord of the Rings more than non-Christians. In fact Tolkien has more arguments and disagreements with obvious Roman Catholics in the book Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien than with anyone else.

The Lord of the Rings is obviously a fictional work. Manw�0Š5 and Varda never existed, ever. The earth was never flat. Gandalf never existed. Hairy-footed hobbits never existed. Tom Bombadil never existed. N¨²menor never existed. Ents never existed. None of these things has any connection to Christianity.

But anyone who attempts to read The Lord of the Rings as though it were real is badly misreading it. Tolkien in his essay ¡°On Fairy Stories¡± makes it clear that fairy tales, attract, to those who find them attractive, by their very unreality. The story The Juniper Tree is, according to Tolkien, an amazing tale. I agree. But it is not in the least realistic. It is not in the least Christian. Nor is it any kind of allegory. It is pure fantasy.

No character of Professor's books exist in real life. Reality in not derived from fiction, fiction comes from reality. The ideals Professor represents are those that exist in real life. No Hobbit existed in real life, no dwarf, no wizard, no one. But their ideals do. There are still people like Frodo and Gandalf. It does not mean they exist in real life; it simply means these characters' ideals are real. Numenor's did not exist, indeed, but they exist because of reality. I didn't talk about if these characters are real or ever existed; it's all about their ideals and spirituality. And spirituality does not belong to any religion.

Lotrelf seems to miss that Christian theists are as ready to misread Tolkien as anyone. Anne Marie Gazzolo¡¯s Moments of Grace and Spiritual Warfare in The Lord of the Rings I found to be hideous pious piffle, to take a recent example. And there are other well-known Tolkien fans who I find to my taste[...]

It's not just about one religion. Not only Christians readers have read the books. I'm Hindu if we go by the religion, and many other Hindus do not get Hindu Mythology at all. Again, something not concerning any religion but one's spirituality. Many Christians have read our Epics, and they understood them better than many Hindus. As for the book you mentioned above, I've read some of her essays and disagreed with many points she made. I haven't read any other book except two of Professor's LotR & TH. No other book concerning LotR, TH or The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales. So how other authors interprete the text is something out of my understanding. Though I'd agree with you that it is easy to misinterprete the text because of the complexity and literary details. Probably those believers take things far too literally and see everything connected to One? This is what I found in Anne Marrie Gazzolo's essays.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

No Hobbit existed in real life, no dwarf, no wizard, no one. But their ideals do. ... I didn't talk about if these characters are real or ever existed; it's all about their ideals and spirituality. And spirituality does not belong to any religion.

I’m sorry, but if the hobbits, dwarves, and wizards don’t exist, then neither can their ideals, except as fictions by Tolkien.

Also, I rather dislike the term spirituality. It has so many different and conflicting meanings. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality . However I think I get what you mean. Basically I have encountered numerous cases of supposed Tolkien fans who are morally garbage, though others who are very much not. I have not found that a supposed belief in Christianity matters much.

I know and respect some people who greatly dislike Tolkien and want nothing ever again to do with some who claim the opposite. And I admit I may be misled in arriving at some of these evaluations. Basically you have probably found by now in this forum that being a professed Christian confers no status.