Tolkien and Iron

[Gwaimir Windgem]

*plunges straight into Off-Topic*

Originally Posted by EllethValatari

The government chooses to force-feed the theory of evolution into the people's mouths, and it contradicts the teachings of the Bible; it contradicts Christianity.

I contend that it does not contradict the teachings of the Bible. There are many reasons that we should not think think of Genesis accounts as strictly historical, of which evolutionary theory is only one, although this may not be the place to go into them.

And it certainly doesn't contradict Christianity, unless you want to deny that Lewis and Chesterton were Christians; both believed in evolution.

I find this very interesting, because it reminds me of something I read about Tolkien a long time ago. Is is not true that as a child he loved to look at the names on the trains that passed by; mostly Welsh and Irish? A lot of his inspiration for Middle Earth and the Elvish language came from his childhood...right? Does anyone have a reference or am I just tired?

Welsh was one of the influences for Tolkien's Elvish languages; I believe primarily for Sindarin. I don't remember the bit about trains, but it seems likely.

What do you mean by "different spheres of reality?" What I believe religiously is what I believe scientifically and theoretically-do you separate those things?

I mean that the claims which belong to religion cannot be verified or disproved by science, and vice versa. Religious claims are taken up by faith, not by scientific proof.

That depends on what truth-claims Christianity makes about the natural world. To a Biblical literalist, the claims of science contradict the claims of Scripture and must be wrong.

You are right about that, but as noted above, that kind of thinking is erroneous and inconsistent, in my view.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Catholic Church's position is that it's impossible for science to be incompatible with faith, because God created the Universe based on reason and natural law.

I think that the official definition is that reason cannot be incompatible with faith, but from that, the compatibility of science and of faith certainly follows.

Which I actually don't agree with...it seems to me that the central point of Christianity is based on a miracle, and therefore conflicts with science.

Indeed, Christianity is predicated upon a miracle. However, it's the sort of miracle which could never be scientifically verified, because it works in perfect harmony with the natural. More on this below.

What would Jesus's DNA reveal? OK, that's only semi-serious, but still the essence of Christian belief is, is it not, a supernatural intrusion into the natural world?

And therefore makes a claim about the world that could be subject to verification?

Your semi-serious question actually provides a valuable occasion for an illustration of my basic point.

From the dogmatic definition of the Council of Chalcedon: "following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man..."

If Jesus was "complete in manhood," then it seems to follow that His DNA would be 100% human. Science could, theoretically, verify the humanity of Jesus, but that's as far as it goes. You couldn't analyze a drop of Jesus' blood for God-DNA. There is nothing material or physical about God, so there is no ground upon which scientific analysis of that kind of faith-claim could be built. You can't verify God.

The reason for this, in my view, is that the miracle of Christianity is not one that changes the world in measurable ways, but it is one that works with it. The Incarnation did not bring about any measurable or physical changes, but changed the ordering of creation to God.

From Eliath's quoting of the Mythopoeia, this looks to be a reference to evolution:

'I will not walk with your progressive apes,
erect and sapient.'

It certainly is, and as I recall, Tolkien did in his letters deny evolution. However, I don't think that's his basic point. He contrasts these progressive apes, not with claims of revelation, but with images of beauty and myth. As I read it, Tolkien here indicts evolution, not as such, but as part of a the same metanarratives and myths of progress, which are today assaulted by postmodernism.

As regards his denial of evolution elsewhere, I don't recall if he considered it an attack directly*upon Christianity; to find out would require digging out the Letters, wherever they may be.