Ring of Power

We chose a Lord of the Rings theme for this site not only because we like the books, but because J.R.R. Tolkien, in those books and in The Silmarillion, is deeply concerned with the exact same thing that troubles us: The One Ring.

No, I'm not being melodramatic. We stand side by side with Tolkien's Aragorn, Frodo, Gandalf, and the others in attempting to destroy the Ring, which--as you'll notice over in our sidebar--we define as philosophical materialism (the claim that the material world is all there is). Here is how Tolkien defines the Ring:

In a letter written late in 1951 to a potential publisher, Tolkien himself described the "primary symbolism of the Ring" as "the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies" (Letters, p. 160) (Matthew Dickerson, Following Gandalf, 98).

The Ring, as Dickerson explains, "is the power to dominate other wills. It is the power to take away freedom." What does that have to do with philosophical materialism? Everything. Nothing takes away freedom more completely than the claim that freedom doesn't even exist.

Dickerson explains:

Betrand Russell was forced to deny the existence of free will because his materialist worldview did not provide him any answer to where freedom can come from. In denying free will, he also has to deny the value of creativity, saying it is ridiculous to build a statue to someone who writes a poem, since the writing of that poem is simply the effect of a cause for which he has no control. In other words, in writing a poem there is only the illusion of creativity.

Now Russell was a hard-core philosophical materialist and thus doesn't necessarily represent the regular man or woman on the street, but even the soft-core practical materialist is faced with a similar dilemma: either denying free will and creativity and calling them mere illusions, or having to explain where they come from in a material universe" (Dickerson, 113).

Did you catch that? Materialism (also known as naturalism) denies the existence of free will; that is, it takes away freedom. It says your will doesn't exist, that everything you do--every song or poem you write, every good deed you perform, every cruelty you inflict--is not a choice or a creative act, but is simply the inevitable result of causes over which you have no control.

Materialism says you are nothing but a puppet.

Tolkien, however, "affirms both free will and creativity" and tells where they come from (Dickerson 113), by beginning at the beginning in The Silmarillion. In that book Eru Iluvatar (which means the Father of All) creates Middle Earth, but does so by creating creatures and kindling within them the Flame Imperishable. Then Eru Iluvatar invites these creatures to create--to adorn the theme he began, "each with his own thoughts and devices, if he will."

Update: Tom Clark, of Naturalism.org, very kindly wrote to tell me he was posting a response, which concludes:

To sustain a pluralist society such as ours, those of faith and those of science should refrain from mutual demonization, since after all, we largely share the same set of needs and desires. Naturalists are not bent on depriving anyone of their freedoms or beliefs. In the Shire of planet Earth, our philosophical and religious differences should be accepted as normal variation that adds spice to life. And as we champion our worldviews, let’s proceed in good faith in each other’s humanity.

Faith and science should not be posited as opposites, but with Tom's point about courtesy I wholeheartedly agree. I responded:

Thank you for the heads up, and for your civility. Rest assured I don't want to destroy naturalists--only naturalism, which, as I'm sure you understand, I believe hurts you. Of course I do realize that on this point we disagree.