God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Marcus]

The Tolkien discussion has been fascinating, and I appreciate this comment very much, Philo, thank you!

Defining that 'a Mormon just believes' aspect as a moral shortcut explains so much. in my opinion, those who avoid the consequences by falling back on Gad's second order 8-ball confirmation end up with a level of cognitive dissonance that must be unbearable at times. It also makes it easier to understand, for me, why some Mormons get so angry at those who walk away. Taking the moral shortcut is a comfortable position only when surrounded by others who have done the same. Stereotyping and degrading those who refuse to follow along is an attempt at self-preservation.

I really appreciate how you framed this. Calling it a moral shortcut isn’t about mocking belief, it’s more about noticing how consequences get deferred or dissolved, which is what Tolkien doesn't like and won’t allow. And this is what feels like an enlightenment moment actually. That’s why Tolkien's world feels bracing instead of comforting. It asks more of people, not less.

Absolutely. Joy was mentioned earlier, to me joy isn't settling for the comforting, but rather it's found in embracing the 'bracing.'

[Philo Sofee]

I think Sam Harris said



I can't think of one.

That’s a good point. Religious explanations need dark corners of human knowledge in which to thrive. Once we humans start examining and understanding things, those religious beliefs don’t become more credible.

What Sam Harris is actually doing here keeps things in the apologist/skeptic camp. Tolkien doesn't even enter that arena, and this is a perfect illustration of that. This is what genuinely excites me about Tolkien. Harris’s claim boils down to the theme that religion once explained things we didn’t understand and through the centuries science replaced those explanations. Now the rational thing to do is recognize an obvious conclusion given the assumptions Harris works with. Religion survives only in ignorance and as knowledge expands, religion must shrink, which, truth be told, is a very old Enlightenment argument, and it’s aimed squarely at religion as explanation. So, what is up for grabs is God is the cause of everything, while at the same time being a place holder for ignorance, which stupidly competes with science. Now, many religions actually do function this way. So Harris gains some traction here.

However, where this leads us is the same old argument we've had for centuries with precious little enlightenment I would think. Here's my fictitious discussion of where this sort of thing usually goes.

Apologist: “Science can’t explain meaning, value, consciousness, morality…”

Skeptic: “Those will eventually be explained too.”

Apologist: “You’re assuming materialism.”

Skeptic: “You’re assuming superstition.”

Repeat indefinitely.

What is being fussed over with this is whose explanation counts? Which domain gets authority? Where are the “dark corners”? No one moves because both sides are arguing over explanatory territory, not lived coherence. And here is why Tolkien appeals to me more now than ever before actually. He isn't playing this game at all. It is entirely irrelevant to him. Tolkien is not offering religion as an explanation of the world.
He does not say:

“Here’s why thunder happens”

“Here’s how the universe works”

“Here’s a causal theory to rival science”

So Harris’s challenge doesn’t actually touch Tolkien at all, because Tolkien isn’t filling gaps in knowledge. He’s exploring what kind of goodness remains meaningful even when knowledge increases. And that’s a totally different category, which Harris fails to notice in distinction. What does Harris assume?

religion = explanation
explanation = competitor to science
loss of explanatory power = loss of credibility

The contrast with Tolkien is quite remarkable I think. Tolkien’s moral world doesn’t get weaker as knowledge grows. In fact, it gets stronger.
Because Tolkien is asking something different. What do you do when power increases? What happens when you can do more? What kind of restraint is still required? What does mercy mean when it’s not efficient? None of these questions disappear with science. They become more urgent. Harris wants so badly to close the case against religion: “No dark corners left.” Apologists want to keep religion alive: “There are always dark corners.” Both sides assume religion must justify itself epistemically.

This frame is entirely trivially irrelevant when Tolkien is involved in our understanding. Because the question is not “Is religion true?” Or even if “Does God explain X?” Another useless question with Tolkien is a famous atheist one - “Is belief rational?” But the Tolkienian questions are on an entirely different plane. “What moral vision survives scrutiny without coercion?” “What doesn’t need ignorance to function?” “What remains meaningful even if all facts were known?”

Harris's critique applies to religion as explanation, but not to religion or myth as moral imagination. Tolkien doesn’t use God to explain the world; he uses story to explore what kind of goodness remains when power, knowledge, and certainty increase. That project doesn’t depend on ignorance at all.

Harris assumes that as science advances, moral questions become simpler. Tolkien assumes the opposite:
The more power you have, the more knowledge you gain, the less excuse you have for domination. In Tolkien’s world, enlightenment raises the moral bar. In Harris’s argument, enlightenment removes the need for religion. Those are fundamentally different visions of what it means to understand. This shifts from arguing over who explains the world better to asking what kind of moral life is worth living. That question doesn’t need dark corners to survive. It needs honesty. And that’s why Tolkien keeps feeling like oxygen.

[I Have Questions]

This frame is entirely trivially irrelevant when Tolkien is involved in our understanding. Because the question is not “Is religion true?” Or even if “Does God explain X?” Another useless question with Tolkien is a famous atheist one - “Is belief rational?” But the Tolkienian questions are on an entirely different plane. “What moral vision survives scrutiny without coercion?” “What doesn’t need ignorance to function?” “What remains meaningful even if all facts were known?”

Thank you Philo. I’m going to have a good think about this paragraph.

[MG 2.0]

The Tolkien discussion on this thread has been interesting, especially the idea that his 'created world' refuses any “moral shortcut” where belief dissolves tragedy, failure, or consequence. That actually feels very close to what the thread title is getting at, that is, if God “writes straight with crooked lines,” then whatever is happening with spiritual witnesses, certainty, and providence cannot be a cheap escape from the real moral costs of our choices.

But even at that, the moral costs are part of the world of crooked lines that is the only one God has to work/deal with when He set up a plan by which freedom and choice reigned supreme. Even when having initiated He knew that I many instances, including those brought about by natural law, there were going to be minor if not Major screwups.

We then come back to some of the things we discussed back during the Sorites Paradox portion of the thread. What are the thresholds attached to the arbitrary judgements we make in regards to the things that happen in the world and at what threshold(s) do we call "Foul!" and either curse God or man.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

To be clear, again, as per the OP of this thread that I started, I am looking at things from the POV of a creator God.

I realize this will run at odds with some posters.

The OP, however, and the thread itself seems to give a wide opening/berth for God to be an active part of what is going on in human history at the macro and micro level.

Tolkien seemed to have an inkling of that also.

Regards,
MG

[Philo Sofee]

I’m not suggesting Tolkien solved the problem of evil or made the world fit his beliefs. What interests me is almost the opposite: he refuses to let belief dissolve tragedy, failure, or moral cost. If he were simply rationalizing, we’d expect certainty, resolution, and vindication. Instead we get unfinished wounds, irreversible loss, and goodness that often fails. That feels less like wish-fulfillment and more like moral discipline.

I agree that he didn’t write through rose tinted spectacles. I think he is reflecting the world he sees around him. For instance he wrote Lord of the Rings between 1937 and 1949. He lived through two world wars He would have seen all sorts of examples where belief didn’t dissolve tragedy, failure, or moral cost. He’s not rationalizing, he’s processing the world around him, and writing about it fantastically.

The effects of some specific experiences have been identified. Tolkien's childhood in the English countryside, and its urbanization by the growth of Birmingham, influenced his creation of the Shire,[132] while his personal experience of fighting in the trenches of the First World War affected his depiction of Mordor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien

He seems to have been writing about the real world where belief didn’t dissolve tragedy, failure, or moral cost. But he will then also have been retrospectively overlaying his belief in God upon that somewhere and trying to make the two things fit together.

As an aside, his work on developing an entirely new language (Elvish) is incredible.

I think that’s a very fair way to put it, and I agree with most of what you’re saying. Tolkien absolutely is processing the world he lived in. Two world wars, the trenches, industrialization swallowing the countryside he loved. It is almost obviously not even necessary to say that all of that clearly shaped the texture of Middle-earth. Mordor doesn’t feel imagined out of thin air. It feels recognized.

Long before Tolkien, writers like Hardy and Dostoevsky showed that belief doesn’t erase suffering; Tolkien’s originality is that he refuses to let that truth collapse either into comfort or into despair. What he refuses to do is let belief become either an excuse or a consolation prize. He doesn’t say, “It’s all secretly fine,” but he also doesn’t say, “Nothing matters.” Instead, he insists that goodness remains costly, fragile, and often ineffective, and yet still worth choosing. That feels like more than retrospection to me; it feels like discipline.

So yes, he’s reflecting the world he saw, but he’s also setting constraints on how belief is allowed to function inside that world. God isn’t used to smooth over history, justify suffering, or guarantee outcomes in Tolkien. Faith doesn’t come with immunity from loss. If anything, it heightens responsibility.

And I agree completely on the language point. The fact that he built Elvish not as a gimmick but as a lived linguistic ecology is astonishing. Although in one of his letters (to one of his kids? I can't remember), he said he was sort of embarrassed in a way that in his adulthood the desire to invent fantasy languages hadn't left him. I can only thank God for his lifelong joy and will to keep going with them! It’s another example of how seriously he took sub-creation, not as an escape from dismal reality as we incorrectly interpret it, but as a way of telling the truth slant. Athrabeth vain aníra nin, mellon nîn. (Your conversation delights me, my friend)

[Marcus]

The Tolkien discussion on this thread has been interesting, especially the idea that his 'created world' refuses any “moral shortcut” where belief dissolves tragedy, failure, or consequence. That actually feels very close to what the thread title is getting at, that is, if God “writes straight with crooked lines,” then whatever is happening with spiritual witnesses, certainty, and providence cannot be a cheap escape from the real moral costs of our choices.

What?! No, the OP implied nothing at all like that, and it was never mentioned by the OP prior to the Tolkien discussion. Mentalgymnastics are hard at work with this nonsensical attempt.

[Marcus]

...I’m not suggesting Tolkien solved the problem of evil or made the world fit his beliefs. What interests me is almost the opposite: he refuses to let belief dissolve tragedy, failure, or moral cost. If he were simply rationalizing, we’d expect certainty, resolution, and vindication. Instead we get unfinished wounds, irreversible loss, and goodness that often fails. That feels less like wish-fulfillment and more like moral discipline.

In other words, the opposite of the triteness imposed with the 'crooked made straight' OP argument.

[Morley]

But even at that, the moral costs are part of the world of crooked lines that is the only one God has to work/deal with when He set up a plan by which freedom and choice reigned supreme.

Free choice may reign supreme in some other of God’s distant worlds, but even someone who believes that agency exists would be hard pressed to show how “freedom and free choice” reign supreme in this one. If it “reigned supreme” here, everyone would agree that it exists—and that there are no angels with flaming swords coercing obedience.

You keep injecting Mormon theology (in this case, free choice) that was not part of the OP, and you then cry foul when other people either recognize it or respond to it.

We then come back to some of the things we discussed back during the Sorites Paradox portion of the thread. What are the thresholds attached to the arbitrary judgements we make in regards to the things that happen in the world and at what threshold(s) do we call "Foul!" and either curse God or man.

The purpose of Sorite’s Paradox is to warn against framing questions using vague and imprecise language. It’s not the defense that you seem to think it is. The answer to Sorite’s Paradox is not to stand and yell “Ahah!” It’s to ask people to clarify their terms.

[Morley]

Philo, your Tolkien stuff is pretty sweet. Thanks for brightening my day.