Religion in Middle Earth?

[Firawyn]

I was thinking today about how all of 'our' countries and people groups have their own religions that dictate to them the moral standards by which to live.

What examples of this to we see in Middle Earth, not only in reference to their own God figures (Eru, for example), but also in comparison to our own religions.

For instance, who (what characters) are living by the religious standards that Tolkien had (Catholic/Christian)?

I've thought a bit about this and had the notion it might make a good discussion topic here on TTF.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

I was thinking today about how all of 'our' countries and people groups have their own religions that dictate to them the moral standards by which to live.

What examples of this to we see in Middle Earth, not only in reference to their own God figures (Eru, for example), but also in comparison to our own religions.

For instance, who (what characters) are living by the religious standards that Tolkien had (Catholic/Christian)?

I've thought a bit about this and had the notion it might make a good discussion topic here on TTF.

Offhand: There is no formalized religion at the level of elves, men or hobbits. There is the sensibility of right and wrong, cruel and kind, good and bad, honest and dishonest, "demonic" (Mordor, etc.) and "angelic" (Lothlorien, etc). The whole thing functions without a "God" concept. Very Buddhist. I wonder what Tolkien would have thought of that...

Barley

PS to Fir: glad to see you've "lightened up" in the sig department!

 

[Firawyn]

Barley, if I didn't know any better, I'd think you were watching my every move (or post, more accurately).


ON TOPIC NOW -

Have you ever seen the movie Timechanger?

In summery - A man from 1890 write a paper about how human beings know good and evil without the God factor at all. Then he is sent into the future where God is no longer that...what's the word...revered. He's shocked by how people act and treat each other with the God factor removed.


So that said - how can the races of Middle Earth, as realistic as they can be, function so honorably and (pardon the pun) godly, when there seems to be no God figure to speak of?

By nature, humans (and dwarves, hobbits, elves, etc) are fallible. How can they realistically be expected to be that good without a moral plum line defined by some form of religion?

 

[HLGStrider]

I wouldn't exactly call the Vala gods but they serve as holy beings and specific groups revere certain Vala more than others. Eru also is godlike without necessarily being worshipped as godlike, which is interesting.

I think Tolkien said somewhere that he purposefully avoided religion in his writings because he didn't want to try and replace his existing religion or create an allegory for it, which really are the only two choices if you add a religion to the fantasy world: make up a religion (upon which some person somewhere will start practicing it if you reach any level of fame . . . like Jedi knights) or you can do what Lewis did and take an existing religion and make a spiritual point. This point does not have to necessarily build up an existing religion, either. Pullman's work uses a very thinly veiled Catholic/Christian style church and proceeds to bring out the worst in it to turn people off from organized religion.

I have tried to do what Lewis did in my work, as a Christian writer, but I find no one does it as well as him, so generally I do what Tolkien does: provide a sense of right and wrong and an innately good creator but avoid the greater details of religion. Unless I've based it in the real world.

We do see Devil-Worship in the villains and we see people criticized for attempting to hold themselves as gods (Isn't that one theory with the "blue wizards").

But rambling aside, I think it all falls back on Tolkien not wanting to write in a religion.

 

[chrysophalax]

Seems to me that the different races (not necessarily individuals within said races) act according to oral traditions passed down to them from their forefathers, some of which, in Tolkien's world, actually had dealings with either the Valar, or the Maiar. Of course in LotR we have good and evil represented by Sauron and Gandalf, both of whom had first-hand knowledge of those who pass for god-like beings (both good and evil) on Arda.

As to individuals, in ME as in our own, apparently free will is a factor, not only at the mortal level, but at the Maiar level, thus we have Saruman changing sides as it were, as well the more commonplace characters such as Smeagol and Saeros.

Eru himself seems to be the ultimate orchestrator of everything, but chooses to remain distant for purposes of him own.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

All of which brings me to this: It's all about behavior choices. It's all about "like begets like." It's about "You get what you give." It's about "Your freedom ends where my nose begins." It's about cooperation rather than competition; about compassion and kindness, a willingness to help. It's about how well you treat yourself and others.

Barley

 

[Confusticated]

I think the morals in Middle-earth were things that naturally followed from being a good faithful person of hope who has knowledge of God, either indirectly by the Valar or more indirectly - from Vala to Elf to Man. Of course Men who knew better didn't always stay in line. With the loss of hope came evil. Over several generations the Numenoreans went from the most Faithful Men in history to Morgoth-worshipping human-sacrificers.

But as the Fourth Age came on, I would expect that even in the West of Middle-earth Men began to start up religions (and in one fourth age tale, JRRT mentions the existance of 'cults'), many with good intentions. Eventually all real knowledge of God would be lost or mixed with myth.

 

[Firawyn]

All of which brings me to this: It's all about behavior choices. It's all about "like begets like." It's about "You get what you give." It's about "Your freedom ends where my nose begins." It's about cooperation rather than competition; about compassion and kindness, a willingness to help. It's about how well you treat yourself and others.

Barley

Agreed Barley, but why? Why would they think that killing their neighbors was bad or helping the poor was good?


I'm really trying not to pick a fight with you m'dear.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Why would they think that killing their neighbors was bad or helping the poor was good?

Hmmm. Well — to a reasonably normal person whose life hasn't been too overly stressed or traumatized, whose situation isn't totally desperate, whose spirit hasn't been too badly damaged, it's self-evident that it's better to help than to hurt.

Barley

 

[HLGStrider]

Not necessarily. If we were just dealing with "live and let live" you could argue that if you give everyone enough of whatever they need they'll just "get along" but as there is always (no matter what system) an unequal division of goods/services/valuables/power you will always encounter at least greed, jealousy, and some corruption and someone is going to realize that occasionally it helps them to hurt some other them, if only a little bit. . . and if there is no reason, no law, then why not? Everyone knew the "King's Laws" were good and followed them just because they were the "King's Laws" but what if there had never been a king?

Even if we assume that people will not hurt other people just because it is mutually beneficial, why would people sacrifice themselves to aid other people if there is no moral law telling them to do it?

Frodo must realize that he, himself, does not benefit from his attempt at the destruction of the ring. He is motivated in no way by self-preservation, and assuming no moral law and no after life there is no reason to do what he is doing. Sure, the world suffers, but if Frodo dies, the world does not exist as far as he is concerned, so for Frodo it really isn't a problem.

People can be asked not to detract from others for the sake of living and let living, but if it comes to detracting from oneself to prevent the difficulties of others, you need a better reason. Frodo obviously had something within him that told him that even if it cost his life, there was a good worth pursuing in the destruction of the Ring.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

If we were just dealing with "live and let live" you could argue that if you give everyone enough of whatever they need they'll just "get along" but as there is always (no matter what system) an unequal division of goods/services/valuables/power you will always encounter at least greed, jealousy, and some corruption and someone is going to realize that occasionally it helps them to hurt some other them, if only a little bit. . . and if there is no reason, no law, then why not? Everyone knew the "King's Laws" were good and followed them just because they were the "King's Laws" but what if there had never been a king?

Even if we assume that people will not hurt other people just because it is mutually beneficial, why would people sacrifice themselves to aid other people if there is no moral law telling them to do it?

<snip>

People can be asked not to detract from others for the sake of living and let living, but if it comes to detracting from oneself to prevent the difficulties of others, you need a better reason...

Agreed: people are people and some will do the right thing (including self-sacrifice for the sake of another) and some will do the wrong thing: that's the normal range of human nature and human behavior. And for the negative end of it we need laws; I never said or implied we don't. But laws need not be religiously based. I do not wish to take this discussion further publicly, because (knowing you) I believe it would drift more and more into a discussion of the need for religion and God as enforcements on human thought and behavior (a concept with which I disagree), and that kind of discussion is not allowed.

Barley

 

[Firawyn]

Hmmm. Well — to a reasonably normal person whose life hasn't been too overly stressed or traumatized, whose situation isn't totally desperate, whose spirit hasn't been too badly damaged, it's self-evident that it's better to help than to hurt.

Barley

But what makes it so self-evident? You're argument is based on you presumption that people a) in general have relatively easy lives, and b) would base a decision on how to treat others on pure logic.

The vast majority of people in the world have been hurt emotionally directly or indirectly. When people have to decide "do I help or hurt?", then often do it without thinking logically, but with hormones, or out of rebound, and many other things.

People can't always see that their actions would hurt someone else, physically, mentally, or emotionally.

Right and wrong, good and bad, are not so "self-evident" as you would think.

 

[HLGStrider]

It is an interesting discussion, but both sides of it really aren't Tolkien related. We should return to the original question which is the representation of religion within Tolkien's works.

In this world we don't have undeniable proof of the existence of a god let alone an exact model of what that god is like, but in Tolkien we have both. We know that Eru exists. We know basic points about his nature. We know the structure of his world simply because Tolkien told us and Tolkien made the world (in some ways Tolkien is the god of Middle Earth, but he passed the creator baton onto Eru and the Vala.).

Since we know Eru exists, we have to answer other questions.

1. Do the majority of creatures know/acknowledge that he exists?
2. Does Eru not demand any form of worship? Why or why not? Does he approve of any worship? Is there any race that actively worships Eru?
3. Did Eru give a collective conscience to his creations? IE Is there a universal right and wrong acknowledged by all his creations because of him?
4. Are there other (false) gods acknowledged by other races? How do they differ?
5. Does Eru have a plan for his people's afterlives? Do they know this? Is there any "judgment" where some make it and some do not?
6. Do the Dwarves, as not part of the original plan, fall under a different set of rules than the other races?

etc.

 

[Firawyn]

You're right, of course. Back on topic. I was thinking the same thing anyway.

1. Do the majority of creatures know/acknowledge that he exists?
2. Does Eru not demand any form of worship? Why or why not? Does he approve of any worship? Is there any race that actively worships Eru?
3. Did Eru give a collective conscience to his creations? IE Is there a universal right and wrong acknowledged by all his creations because of him?
4. Are there other (false) gods acknowledged by other races? How do they differ?
5. Does Eru have a plan for his people's afterlives? Do they know this? Is there any "judgment" where some make it and some do not?
6. Do the Dwarves, as not part of the original plan, fall under a different set of rules than the other races?

etc.

1. Know, perhaps. But I've only heard the Elves really acknowledge Eru.

2. I keep thinking about all the Elven songs and how we have our "Praise and Worship Songs". Could there e a connection?

3. That is the premise of the question Barley and I have been grappling over.

4. Souron?

5. The Grey Havens?

6. Well women were created after man, and they follow the same rules as men...most of the time anyway!

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

But what makes it so self-evident? You're argument is based on you presumption that people a) in general have relatively easy lives, and b) would base a decision on how to treat others on pure logic.

The vast majority of people in the world have been hurt emotionally directly or indirectly. When people have to decide "do I help or hurt?", then often do it without thinking logically, but with hormones, or out of rebound, and many other things.

People can't always see that their actions would hurt someone else, physically, mentally, or emotionally.

Right and wrong, good and bad, are not so "self-evident" as you would think.

You are reading all sorts of things into what I said that aren't there. Take what I say at face value. "...it's self-evident that it's better to help than to hurt." "But what makes it so self-evident?" Which would you rather have, a kiss or a punch in the mouth? That's what I mean by self-evident. And Strider's right: this discussion has no place here.

Barley

 

[Firawyn]

You are reading all sorts of things into what I said that aren't there. Take what I say at face value. "...it's self-evident that it's better to help than to hurt." "But what makes it so self-evident?" Which would you rather have, a kiss or a punch in the mouth? That's what I mean by self-evident. And Strider's right: this discussion has no place here.

Barley

Okay...face value...back on topic...*grin* Um...about that punch or kiss scenario - it would depend greatly on whom the punch or kiss was coming from.

 

[HLGStrider]

6. Well women were created after man, and they follow the same rules as men...most of the time anyway!

But women and men were created by the same being. Dwarves were created independently of Eru's will . . . though it was Eru who gave them their free will so you could argue that he did bless their creation and complete it.

 

[Firawyn]

Would it make an difference to note that God created animals, then man, then woman.

I guess animals don't have to follow the same rules though, so that's probably a mute point.

Thoughts on this Barley?

 

[Starbrow]

I think it's interesting that when Tolkien specifically mentions a form of religion it tends to be very negative. For example, the Numenoreans who worshiped Melkor, the people cursed by Isildur who worshiped Sauron, and the cults mentioned in the Fourth Age. I can't recall any positive expressions of religion beyond the songs to Elbereth that the Elves sing.
Am I missing anything?

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Would it make an difference to note that God created animals, then man, then woman.

I guess animals don't have to follow the same rules though, so that's probably a mute point.

Thoughts on this Barley?

Nope, I'm bowing out of this.

Barley