The White Council

Re: Nature of Evil

Tolkien and Inklings Discussion

: : : Now, I see that a subject that I have been struggling with is already being brought up in the "search for a Hero"- thread, so I will post it before my own thoughts on the matter has ripened- even though the subject has been touched before. : : : We know that all the Ainu were created by the thought of Ilúvatar, including Melkor, and we know (since he tells us so) that there can be no creation, no thought NOTHING that has not its origin with Ilúvatar. Now, this must thus entail Melkor's rebellion, everything Melkor does has its ultimate foundation in the thought of Ilúvatar that created him. Is Ilúvatar evil then? And what is the nature and purpose of evil? To create something even more beautiful in the end, something that not even the evil mind itself could foresee? Why then is Ilúvatar wroth with Melkor when he continues to sing his own theme in The Music? Is evil but a part of Ilúvatar symbolised by Melkor? is its purpose to achieve balance between good and evil (well to engage in a struggle with good for supremacy and thus be a catalyst for good to rise to greater good)? Is it merely created to avoid a neutral grey mass? : : : I know little of mythology (apart from the Norse one of my forefathers) so I am really struggling with these questions that has arisen from a debate between one of my player Characters and an NPC where the PC was embarking on the path of evil by ambition, selfaggrandisation and bloodthirst (he wanted to kill a dragon merely because it was evil and to secure its skin- the NPC would help him out of friendship but bade him ponder the reasons behind the fall of the Noldor, the Maiar and even Melkor himself). Consequently I need some wise words of those more knowledgeable on (catholic) religion than I, or of those merely wiser. : : : Neithan Turambar (Palle)

: : Very deep questions indeed, with very few satisfactory answers I'm afraid. All religions have struggled with the nature of evil. I'm most familiar with my own beliefs, and others here will undoubtedly share their views. Whether my views are "wise" or even knowledgeable, I don't know. In the Bible God is quoted as saying the He creates evil. Some interpret that as meaning that God, like the captain of a ship, takes responsibility for the evil acts of his creation, though He Himself does not sin. But we are still drawn to he fundamental question of "how can evil come out of perfect good"? I reject the notion of the Yin and Yang or a "balance" between good and evil. If I believe in a Supreme Being who is perfectly good and cannot allow evil in His presence, then there can never be a balance between the two. It either God's way or the highway. The view that God is in some kind of life-or-death struggle with Satan (or Evil) is essentially false. God allows evil, but the hope of Jews and Christians is that He will eventually restore the universe to its former perfection and there will be no more evil. Tolkien must cover some of the same ground in his cosmology. Illuvatar is the One God, from whom all of creation flows. And it is Illuvatar alone who knows the entire score of the music that will eventually restore Arda to its full potential. Was Melkor's music foreseen by Illuvatar, and was it necessary for evil to come into existance? Perhaps. Maybe man can only learn and grow and gain character by struggling and making mistakes. If men have freewill and Illuvatar/God doesn't want robots, then this view may make sense. I could go on and on, but I hope I've hit on a few essential points. I'm by no means a theologian or philosopher, so don't beat me up too unmercifully if there are holes in my logic. :) : I like what you had to say. The only part I wanted to address is the quote about God claiming evil comes from Him. It was in the Old Testament though I can't find it at the moment. But I think it's very important to differenciate between evil=sin and evil=calamity. Calamity as in the Flood, droughts, earthquakes etc. I can see God being the author of these and, in my opinion as well as many translators, that is what is meant by "evil" in this passage. But, again, liked what you had to say.

You are correct to translate "evil" as "calamity". I suppose that the "evil" of the Flood depended on whether you were inside or outside the ark. I used that passage on purpose though to bolster my point that if God is the "All-In-All" and is ultimatley responsible for everything that happens or comes into being, then sin and rebellion must be included. A Christian Scientist would merely claim that since God is Spirit (Immortal Mind), then sin, sickness and the material world are merely illusions. By saying that "evil" (sin) doesn't exist instantly removes the dilemma of a Perfect God of Love creating an imperfect world. Think the flaw here is that if this material world is only illusion, then how did Man become imperfect and lose sight of reality? We can't make man disappear our claim ourselves to be illusions. And yet Paul does allude to a greater reality when he says, "Now we see through a glass darkly." And there are other passages which seem to indicate that what we perceive as reality is more a shadow of a greater spiritual reality. In The Lord of the Rings this separation is a bit less distinct for the Elves. At times we can see the "other side" or it effects as when Glorfindel is revealed in his glory, or for that matter when Gandalf throws off his grey cloak to reveal his power as Gandalf the White. As a Christian I cannot but help to make comparisons to the Transfiguration. The Ringwraiths also have similar moments, as when at the Ford, the Nazgul raises his arm and Frodo is struck dumb and his sword is shattered. Is there any real difference beetween raising your arm and shattering a sword or walking on water? Both require a breaking of physical laws by powers beyond our understanding, or by understanding that the physical is less real than the spiritual. The danger here is in making the kinds of comparisons that I have just made. Tolkien never intended to have his story compared to the Bible, I'm sure. And nothing he wrote compares on a one-to-one basis with any particular source. We've all seen or read about the various sources that may have inspired him, but that's much different than showing a one-to-one relationship to other stories or sources. Tolkien may have drawn on many sources, but the LOTR is essentially his own work in the same way that Star Wars, which pays homage to Saturday Matinee serials and Twelve O'Clock High, is not a serial nor a World War II dogfight film. It is its own thing, a blending of sources into a new whole, so that like LOTR, there is a great familiarity in all that we see and hear, making Star Wars' far off galaxy a "real" place for us.