The Medieval Enviromentalism of J.R.R Tolkien

The Medieval Environmentalism of J.R.R Tolkien by Jeb Smith
https://bibliotecanatalie.com/home/f/the-medieval-environmentalism-of-jrr-tolkien

A genuine atheist has never seen a tree. Instead, they have seen a large plant vital to our planet’s life cycle providing fresh air.

Perhaps it staves off global warming or benefits them in some manner. The atheist, however, has not seen a unique being created by God. The wonder, the beautiful artwork, and the “magic” of this fantastic creation are lost to him.

I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on this.  To make it clear why, let me invert it.

"The religious person has never seen a tree.  Instead they see a being created by God, nothing else.  They can't appreciate that it is vital to our planet's air and water cycle; they are oblivious to the wonders of photosynthesis, to the marvels of fractal architecture.  Instead they see something that fits into God's plan, and all other miracles that goes into its being is lost to him."

Does that sound right to you?

Tolkien was in fact a keen appreciator of science, and his critique as quoted in your article is quite different:

“You look at trees and call them “trees,” and probably you do not think twice about the word. You call a star a “star,” and think nothing more of it.

But you must remember that these words, “tree,” “star,” were (in their original forms) names given to these objects by people with very different views from yours. To you, a tree is simply a vegetable organism, and a star simply a ball of inanimate matter moving along a mathematical course.

But the first men to talk of “trees” and “stars” saw things very differently. To them, the world was alive with mythological beings. They saw the stars as living silver, bursting into flame in answer to the eternal music.

They saw the sky as a jeweled tent, and the earth as the womb whence all living things have come. To them, the whole of creation was ‘myth-woven and elf patterned.”

Note that he is replacing one story with another.  There is no mention of God.  Where he errs in my opinion is saying a tree is seen as "simply a vegetable organism" without giving voice to all the wonder that is in the current image of an organism: bustling with cells and chemical messages we have still to unravel.  He may also err in thinking that a medieval person would experience more wonder than we might: to such a man a tree growing out of the earth's womb was just the way of the world, as were the stars that were spoken into sparkling being by the deity.  That's the story, ho-hum.

A very different story than our own, with different ramifications when thinking and looking at trees, but I'm not convinced they need have a greater sense of wonder.

halfwise wrote:

A genuine atheist has never seen a tree. Instead, they have seen a large plant vital to our planet’s life cycle providing fresh air.

Perhaps it staves off global warming or benefits them in some manner. The atheist, however, has not seen a unique being created by God. The wonder, the beautiful artwork, and the “magic” of this fantastic creation are lost to him.

I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on this.  To make it clear why, let me invert it.

"The religious person has never seen a tree.  Instead they see a being created by God, nothing else.  They can't appreciate that it is vital to our planet's air and water cycle; they are oblivious to the wonders of photosynthesis, to the marvels of fractal architecture.  Instead they see something that fits into God's plan, and all other miracles that goes into its being is lost to him."

Does that sound right to you?

Tolkien was in fact a keen appreciator of science, and his critique as quoted in your article is quite different:

“You look at trees and call them “trees,” and probably you do not think twice about the word. You call a star a “star,” and think nothing more of it.

But you must remember that these words, “tree,” “star,” were (in their original forms) names given to these objects by people with very different views from yours. To you, a tree is simply a vegetable organism, and a star simply a ball of inanimate matter moving along a mathematical course.

But the first men to talk of “trees” and “stars” saw things very differently. To them, the world was alive with mythological beings. They saw the stars as living silver, bursting into flame in answer to the eternal music.

They saw the sky as a jeweled tent, and the earth as the womb whence all living things have come. To them, the whole of creation was ‘myth-woven and elf patterned.”

Note that he is replacing one story with another.  There is no mention of God.  Where he errs in my opinion is saying a tree is seen as "simply a vegetable organism" without giving voice to all the wonder that is in the current image of an organism: bustling with cells and chemical messages we have still to unravel.  He may also err in thinking that a medieval person would experience more wonder than we might: to such a man a tree growing out of the earth's womb was just the way of the world, as were the stars that were spoken into sparkling being by the deity.  That's the story, ho-hum.

A very different story than our own, with different ramifications when thinking and looking at trees, but I'm not convinced they need have a greater sense of wonder.

Thank you for your perspective!

I do not think it sounds correct, but I DO think it is because they are not inconstant. The Christian is not missing anything, any wonder, etc., while I believe the atheist is. But he does not know what he is missing; thus, he can also find wonder in a tree.

But a purely atheistic survival of the fittest type can only see a struggle for life, competition, death, and decay. The Christian can see beyond the material.

"But a purely atheistic survival of the fittest type can only see a struggle for life, competition, death, and decay. The Christian can see beyond the material."

Absolutely wrong. To say an atheist sees things purely materialistically is balderdash. Will an atheist listen to Bach and only hear fourier series and rhythmic patterns? You have a seriously warped view of humanity if that's what you believe.

The religious person has a certain way of making sense of the world, it is NOT more filled with wonder, that's as much rubbish as saying a priest can't do mathematics, but history is full of mathematical clergy.

You may think that having a religious perspective adds something and an atheist has nothing to replace it with, but there are several routes to the same goal of a view beyond materialism. Some may put their faith in the goodness of man to support one another; others are inspired with mystical awe by the intricacies of nature - the passion is not removed simply by understanding it better.

It is true that an atheist is more likely to drown in nihilism, but that is not a foregone conclusion. And I know many atheists who feel they were drowning in self-satisfied religion, and left it for a clearer view.

Embrace the diversity of human perspective - for long I was equally smug about my view of things, but with age I've learned it's a trap that will leave you in isolation.

There are facts, and there is truth, and people will read the same facts and come to diametrically opposed conclusions. When they actually come to the same conclusions it's science; but when you see different conclusions you need to start questioning if your postulates are universal.

halfwise wrote:"But a purely atheistic survival of the fittest type can only see a struggle for life, competition, death, and decay. The Christian can see beyond the material."

Absolutely wrong.  To say an atheist sees things purely materialistically is balderdash.  Will an atheist listen to Bach and only hear fourier series and rhythmic patterns?  You have a seriously warped view of humanity if that's what you believe.

The religious person has a certain way of making sense of the world, it is NOT more filled with wonder, that's as much rubbish as saying a priest can't do mathematics, but history is full of mathematical clergy.

You may think that having a religious perspective adds something and an atheist has nothing to replace it with, but there are several routes to the same goal of a view beyond materialism.  Some may put their faith in the goodness of man to support one another; others are inspired with mystical awe by the intricacies of nature - the passion is not removed simply by understanding it better.  

It is true that an atheist is more likely to drown in nihilism, but that is not a foregone conclusion.  And I know many atheists who feel they were drowning in self-satisfied religion, and left it for a clearer view.

Embrace the diversity of human perspective - for long I was equally smug about my view of things, but with age I've learned it's a trap that will leave you in isolation.  

There are facts, and there is truth, and people will read the same facts and come to diametrically opposed conclusions.  When they actually come to the same conclusions it's science; but when you see different conclusions you need to start questioning if your postulates are universal.

I am referring here to a "logically constant" atheist who thinks life is nothing but matter, and organism at war for resources, survival of the fittest, etc. Not a secular spiritualist or religious person. So I must disagree, and we must compare apples to oranges. But if we do think of this

Your spouses (assuming you have one) have certain physical attributes. Let's say they are "above average" in looks. But when you see them, you likely see the one you love, your friend. You have a connection only you know, so you "see" much more than a random individual would. You have more appreciation for this person and "see" more beauty.

So, the fact remains that the ardent materialists will not have the same response and will not see the same things as the Christians. He might find wonder in another way, but he does not and cannot see what the Christian does, just as I cannot "see" the inner beauty of your spouses as you do.

Embrace the diversity of human perspective

Then embrace my perspective, which differs from yours! It is not about rejecting some view; it is a comparison/contrast of differing views. And you must first "embrace" the view before seeing it for what it is. I did not force everyone into this specific view, nor atheists, only the dominant view of strict materialistic atheism that dominated Tolkiens day and is still going strong in our own.

If I were a math teacher, I could "embrace" all my students' answers; in fact, I need to show them who is correct and who is wrong. Falsehood should never be embraced. However, diversity of falsehoods should be embraced so they can be corrected, such as the claim that differing diverse views (materialism and Christianity) are really saying the same thing.

If you don't automatically equate an atheist with a materialist then we are moving closer to finding common ground. And you are accepting that an ardent materialist still finds wonder from a different perspective. But that's not what you were originally saying, so I think there's been a shift in stance, which is good.

People usually make the mistake of thinking I'm a spiritual person - which I'm not in the least, but apparently I give off that vibe in person. I just get there a different way. I've found that when you poke around too deep in someone else's mind you often find a space alien inside. We all make perfect sense to ourselves but upon deep examination prove somewhat incomprehensible to others. Even within religious communities when all the doctrines seem clearly laid out you find, a few drinks in, folks talking about multiple levels of heaven and don't get started on angels. We're complicated beings trying to make sense of a complicated world. You just gotta accept it without too much judgement.

halfwise wrote:If you don't automatically equate an atheist with a materialist then we are moving closer to finding common ground.  And you are accepting that an ardent materialist still finds wonder from a different perspective.  But that's not what you were originally saying, so I think there's been a shift in stance, which is good.

People usually make the mistake of thinking I'm a spiritual person - which I'm not in the least, but apparently I give off that vibe in person.  I just get there a different way.  I've found that when you poke around too deep in someone else's mind you often find a space alien inside.  We all make perfect sense to ourselves but upon deep examination prove somewhat incomprehensible to others.  Even within religious communities when all the doctrines seem clearly laid out you find, a few drinks in, folks talking about multiple levels of heaven and don't get started on angels.  We're complicated beings trying to make sense of a complicated world.  You just gotta accept it without too much judgement.

I do not. I specifically contrasted Tolkien's view with that specific worldview. I do not think I "shifted"; I only clarified. Most people are inconsistent (both Christian and atheist, etc.) with their professed worldview.

I apologize if I seem judgmental. I was only trying to show the negative effects of the modern materialistic worldview on the environment and how much it impacted Tolkien's growing up and how he incorporated it into his works. Having said that, I am a Christian. I believe in good and evil. I could get inside Hitler's mind and become judgmental, just as I do when I get in my own mind. But I do generally agree with your Analysis of mankind.

Thank you for your thoughts on this subject and for not being so judgmental!

P.S. Would it help if I stated that the person who finds the most wonder in a tree is the pagan who worships it as divine? I'm just asking.

Actually that last point crystallizes things quite well.