The Lord of the Rings

[Leela]

Hi all,

I was thinking about Boromir. Boromir did not lack any belief that the others had. When he argued that their task was impossible, none of the others could disagree. I don’t think he had any different assessment of the probability of success for the Fellowship’s task as any other members of the Fellowship, yet he was in despair, and the others were not. I think the others had faith and that Boromir’s lack of faith destroyed him and that his lack of faith was not a lack of belief. The difference was not he presence of absence of an intellectual structure but an attitude toward the world or trust in the process of life. Since Tolkien is viewed as a Christian writer, perhaps this forum can shed some light on this issue. What do you think? Is faith the same as factual belief as fundamentalists seem to be saying it is? Or is faith something that is independent of belief as in the case of Boromir?

Best,
Leela

 

[Eucharisted]

Faith is “both a gift of God and a human act by which the believer gives personal adherence to God who invites his response, and freely assents to the whole truth that God has revealed. It is this revelation of God which the Church proposes for our belief, and which we profess in the Creed, celebrate in the sacraments, live by right conduct that fulfills the twofold commandment of charity (as specified in the ten commandments), and respond to in our prayer of faith. Faith is both a theological virtue given by God as grace, and an obligation which flows from the first commandment of God (26, 142, 150, 1814, 2087).” (Catechism glossary)

Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)

Pope Benedict XVI clarifies what Catholics mean by faith: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hi all,

I was thinking about Boromir. Boromir did not lack any belief that the others had. When he argued that their task was impossible, none of the others could disagree. I don’t think he had any different assessment of the probability of success for the Fellowship’s task as any other members of the Fellowship, yet he was in despair, and the others were not. I think the others had faith and that Boromir’s lack of faith destroyed him and that his lack of faith was not a lack of belief. The difference was not he presence of absence of an intellectual structure but an attitude toward the world or trust in the process of life. Since Tolkien is viewed as a Christian writer, perhaps this forum can shed some light on this issue. What do you think? Is faith the same as factual belief as fundamentalists seem to be saying it is? Or is faith something that is independent of belief as in the case of Boromir?

Best,
Leela

Fascinating question!

I would say faith is an affirmation that the world (the nature of reality, perhaps better phrased as the “not-me”) is good, in the face of conflicting evidence. It is seeing Mordor as the unavoidable route to salvation, instead of as the land of doom. It is looking death in the face and believing that (somehow, someway) death does not negate life.

 

[fhansen]

Hi all,

I was thinking about Boromir. Boromir did not lack any belief that the others had. When he argued that their task was impossible, none of the others could disagree. I don’t think he had any different assessment of the probability of success for the Fellowship’s task as any other members of the Fellowship, yet he was in despair, and the others were not. I think the others had faith and that Boromir’s lack of faith destroyed him and that his lack of faith was not a lack of belief. The difference was not he presence of absence of an intellectual structure but an attitude toward the world or trust in the process of life. Since Tolkien is viewed as a Christian writer, perhaps this forum can shed some light on this issue. What do you think? Is faith the same as factual belief as fundamentalists seem to be saying it is? Or is faith something that is independent of belief as in the case of Boromir?

Best,
Leela

The factual belief undergirds, or provides reason for, an innate but otherwise uniformed faith in the goodness and purpose of life.

 

[Leela]

Fascinating question!

I would say faith is an affirmation that the world (the nature of reality, perhaps better phrased as the “not-me”) is good, in the face of conflicting evidence. It is seeing Mordor as the unavoidable route to salvation, instead of as the land of doom. It is looking death in the face and believing that (somehow, someway) death does not negate life.

Hi Prodigal Son,

I think that is how I see it. You’ve grasped the aspect of the issue that Eucharisted and fhansen missed in that Boromir does not have any different beliefs as compared to the rest of the Fellowship. There is no talk of belief in a higher authority where Boromir does not believe or does not believe as strongly as the others in that higher authority to set things right.

Though he is a fictional character, the self-destruction of Boromir rings true to me. There is something to faith that is not about belief but about something else that needs to be better articulated. It is something that is important to both believers and nonbelievers. I think the opposite of the sort of faith that Boromir’s story is an allegory for is not disbelief but despair and that faith of this sort is not assenting to factual claims but letting go and being comfortable with not being in control of everything. It is possible to believe that God exists and that the Bible is true and still despair. So belief at least does not exhaust faith. It is also saying “yes” to life. It is the attitude that the universe is unfolding exactly as it should be often in spite of the facts. It is an attitude tied up in beauty. It is the understanding that the world of our desires–the world that does not include illness, death, and conflict–is not as beautiful and perfect as the world as it actually is.

What do you think?

Best,
Leela

 

[Betterave]

Hi Prodigal Son,

I think that is how I see it. You’ve grasped the aspect of the issue that Eucharisted and fhansen missed in that Boromir does not have any different beliefs as compared to the rest of the Fellowship. There is no talk of belief in a higher authority where Boromir does not believe or does not believe as strongly as the others in that higher authority to set things right.

Though he is a fictional character, the self-destruction of Boromir rings true to me. There is something to faith that is not about belief but about something else that needs to be better articulated. It is something that is important to both believers and nonbelievers. I think the opposite of the sort of faith that Boromir’s story is an allegory for is not disbelief but despair and that faith of this sort is not assenting to factual claims but letting go and being comfortable with not being in control of everything. It is possible to believe that God exists and that the Bible is true and still despair. So belief at least does not exhaust faith. It is also saying “yes” to life. It is the attitude that the universe is unfolding exactly as it should be often in spite of the facts. It is an attitude tied up in beauty. It is the understanding that the world of our desires–the world that does not include illness, death, and conflict–is not as beautiful and perfect as the world as it actually is.

What do you think?

Best,
Leela

Hi Leela,
Why would you say the others missed what Prodigal did not? I don’t see it.

Christian faith is certainly not about embracing illness, death, and conflict as more beautiful and perfect than health, immortality, and peace. It is about recognizing that illness, for example, is a deficiency of health, that health is the natural state of a thing, that therefore the natural world is corrupted/corrupts, it is bad and ugly, but not so as to have destroyed its goodness or its purpose, which *is *to express goodness and beauty. These remain for those who have eyes to see. Faith gives us those eyes, in a sense, but it also sustains us with hope when all we can see is the pain and sorrow. But this is because we believe in God’s promise, not necessarily because we ‘see’ or understand the truth of that promise by looking at the world. If belief is *replaced *by a faith *attitude *(if faith and belief are said to be independent), this *attitude *becomes irrational and solipsistic, insensitive to the reality of evil in the world, and the need for (and/or possibility of) real measures to overcome it.

Satan, too, is said to be a believer (similar to Boromir, perhaps). But his faith is not bound to love, and Christian faith *is *necessarily bound to hope and love.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi all,

I was thinking about Boromir. Boromir did not lack any belief that the others had. When he argued that their task was impossible, none of the others could disagree. I don’t think he had any different assessment of the probability of success for the Fellowship’s task as any other members of the Fellowship, yet he was in despair, and the others were not. I think the others had faith and that Boromir’s lack of faith destroyed him and that his lack of faith was not a lack of belief. The difference was not he presence of absence of an intellectual structure but an attitude toward the world or trust in the process of life. Since Tolkien is viewed as a Christian writer, perhaps this forum can shed some light on this issue. What do you think? Is faith the same as factual belief as fundamentalists seem to be saying it is? Or is faith something that is independent of belief as in the case of Boromir?

Best,
Leela

It is not. Faith is existential.​

 

[Leela]

Hi Leela,
Why would you say the others missed what Prodigal did not? I don’t see it.

Because they talked about belief while the whole point of the Boromir story was that belief does not distinguish the characters. they all had the same beliefs but only one of them was without faith.

Christian faith is certainly not about embracing illness, death, and conflict as more beautiful and perfect than health, immortality, and peace. It is about recognizing that illness, for example, is a deficiency of health, that health is the natural state of a thing, that therefore the natural world is corrupted/corrupts, it is bad and ugly, but not so as to have destroyed its goodness or its purpose, which *is *to express goodness and beauty. These remain for those who have eyes to see. Faith gives us those eyes, in a sense, but it also sustains us with hope when all we can see is the pain and sorrow. But this is because we believe in God’s promise, not necessarily because we ‘see’ or understand the truth of that promise by looking at the world. If belief is *replaced *by an attitude, the attitude becomes irrational and solipsistic, insensitive to the reality of evil in the world, and the need for real measures to overcome it.

Satan, too, is said to be a believer (similar to Boromir, perhaps). But his faith is not bound to love, and Christian faith *is *necessarily bound to hope and love.

Christianity and other religions give us ways of talking about faith. What the story of Boromir suggests to me, since it was written by a Christian writer, is that this same faith that is associated with Christianity can still be talked about without reference to Jesus or God or Satan or divine purpose, etc. Do you think you could explain faith to someone without religious language? Care to give it a try?

Best,
Leela

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Christianity and other religions give us ways of talking about faith. What the story of Boromir suggests to me, since it was written by a Christian writer, is that this same faith that is associated with Christianity can still be talked about without reference to Jesus or God or Satan or divine purpose, etc. Do you think you could explain faith to someone without religious language? Care to give it a try?

Try Paul Tillich. He’s a theologian/philosopher who writes extensively about the “courage to be”. He would explain courage as the affirmation of meaning in the face of uncertainty. Having that courage gives a person the substance of faith.

What is this faith in? All that matters, to begin with, is that the faith is in something beyond myself and my experience. If the object of this faith was tangible – for example, if it were *probable *that Frodo would fulfill the mission – then the relation to the object would not be faith. Instead, the object of faith must be always intangible, never verifiable, always unknown.

This does not, however, mean that the object of faith cannot be experienced. ** The experience of this object is hope.** Affirming the possibility of true goodness in the world (a way through Mordor) opens a person to the experience of that goodness itself, before its revelation (the climax of the book, as it were). Tillich talks about a “God above God”, by which he means the first affirmation of faith – which is devoid of content.

All of this runs parallel, as it were, to the revelations of religion. The Christian story is true, and it is the answer to the question of *how *there can be faith (how is it possible to affirm the negation of one’s own experience?) and *what *is the unfolding of events that will, in time, transform the faith that one might be saved into the belief that one has been saved.

In short, I think you are asking some awesome questions, and I’m learning a lot just thinking through the details of your analogy.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think the opposite of the sort of faith that Boromir’s story is an allegory for is not disbelief but despair and that faith of this sort is not assenting to factual claims but letting go and being comfortable with not being in control of everything. It is possible to believe that God exists and that the Bible is true and still despair. So belief at least does not exhaust faith. It is also saying “yes” to life. It is the attitude that the universe is unfolding exactly as it should be often in spite of the facts. It is an attitude tied up in beauty. It is the understanding that the world of our desires–the world that does not include illness, death, and conflict–is not as beautiful and perfect as the world as it actually is.

Or…

It could be the understanding that the world of our desires is not possible without first encountering a world that we do not desire. Desire is, after all, nothing but a lack. How could you ever had any desires satisfied if you never encountered anything that opposed your will?

 

[Betterave]

Because they talked about belief while the whole point of the Boromir story was that belief does not distinguish the characters. they all had the same beliefs but only one of them was without faith.

I don’t think fhansen’s comment need be interpreted this way and if that is how you read what Eucharisted wrote you are simply misinterpreting it. Read it again:

Faith is “both a gift of God and a human act by which the believer gives personal adherence to God who invites his response, and freely assents to the whole truth that God has revealed. It is this revelation of God which the Church proposes for our belief, and which we profess in the Creed, celebrate in the sacraments, live by right conduct that fulfills the twofold commandment of charity (as specified in the ten commandments), and respond to in our prayer of faith. Faith is both a theological virtue given by God as grace, and an obligation which flows from the first commandment of God (26, 142, 150, 1814, 2087).” (Catechism glossary)

I’m sorry if the religious language leaves you nonplussed, but much more than beliefs are discussed here. Do you think that Boromir really freely assented to the same beliefs as the others? Was his faith a ‘gift from God’ (i.e., much more than just a matter of belief)? Do you think he really responded to the beliefs in question, in the manner spoken of above? I don’t. He argued that the task was impossible, the others didn’t - maybe the others couldn’t disagree (offer reasons for disagreement), but they did disagree, didn’t they? In terms of the quote above you could say they kept on praying and living the sacramental life in the face of difficulties, whereas Boromir ‘believed’ but stopped believing (or having faith if you prefer, although I feel uncomfortable with a mere-verbal-assent conception of belief - as I would have thought you would too).

Christianity and other religions give us ways of talking about faith. What the story of Boromir suggests to me, since it was written by a Christian writer, is that this same faith that is associated with Christianity can still be talked about without reference to Jesus or God or Satan or divine purpose, etc. Do you think you could explain faith to someone without religious language? Care to give it a try?

I guess I could give it a try: Faith is … hmmm… whatever you want it to be? Formally, I guess, faith is just a kind of firm doxastic adherence and trust in something or some set of propositions (the value of which adherence will depend on what it is that is believed in, trusted in, and adhered to).

I guess Tillich’s “courage to be” works too. Where Tillich would explain ‘courage’ here as the affirmation of meaning in the face of uncertainty, which courage gives a person the substance of faith, we could probably add that ‘courage’ is only appropriate where the object of faith is admirable (which admirableness will be a function not just of which ‘verbal’ affirmations are involved, but of the intellectual character of the individual who is affirming). Where an affirmation is simply absurd or arbitrary, we could speak (awkwardly!) of the “rashness to be” (where rashness is the vice corresponding to the virtue of courage), such that it implies a vicious affirmation of meaning in the face of uncertainty. This is where faith becomes presumption.

 

[Betterave]

Or…

It could be the understanding that the world of our desires is not possible without first encountering a world that we do not desire. Desire is, after all, nothing but a lack. How could you ever had any desires satisfied if you never encountered anything that opposed your will?

hmm… this leaves me a little cold: nothing but a lack? That would describe a vain desire. But desire as such? I’d have thought desire was more like a promise. And only the fulfillment of imperfect desires brings about (temporary) satiation, cessation of desire; the fulfillment of the heart’s desire in an adequate object (which is called erotic love) means rejoicing in the object desired without ceasing to desire it.

 

[Leela]

Try Paul Tillich. He’s a theologian/philosopher who writes extensively about the “courage to be”. He would explain courage as the affirmation of meaning in the face of uncertainty. Having that courage gives a person the substance of faith.

Is there a particular book by or about Tillich that you think would be a good place to start?

 

[Godfollower]

It seems to me that a big part of the problem is Boromir’s lack of faith – his despair – in the plan of the other Companions, as opposed to his belief in his own ability to save himself. He argued persistently that, given the Ring, he (and his father) could conquer the enemy, despite everyone else’s argument that they would then become just as bad as (or worse than) Sauron. He discounted the danger of seizing the One Ring and using its power, and – to the extent he even believed the warnings of the Council that whoever used the Ring would eventually succumb to its evil – he believed that he could keep himself safe.

To put it another way, Boromir believed that he needed no one to save him; he was perfectly capable of saving himself. The other Companions – and those who supported them – recognized their need for help and sought it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Is there a particular book by or about Tillich that you think would be a good place to start?

The Courage to Be.

amazon.com/Courage-Be-Paul-Tillich/dp/0300084714/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253579128&sr=8-1

 

[Prodigal_Son]

hmm… this leaves me a little cold: nothing but a lack? That would describe a vain desire. But desire as such? I’d have thought desire was more like a promise. And only the fulfillment of imperfect desires brings about (temporary) satiation, cessation of desire; the fulfillment of the heart’s desire in an adequate object (which is called erotic love) means rejoicing in the object desired without ceasing to desire it.

Well, I admit I’m just following Plato here. But I’ll put up a qualified defense.

“Erotic love means rejoicing in the object desired without ceasing to desire it.” Well put. But I think the accurate interpretation here is that you continue to desire it because you haven’t gotten enough of it. Earthly life whets our appetite for food that will satisfy, waters that will never run dry. So the desire remains a lack, but this lack is of ultimate importance.

Out of curiosity: what would you say that desire is, if not a lack?

 

[Betterave]

Well, I admit I’m just following Plato here. But I’ll put up a qualified defense.

“Erotic love means rejoicing in the object desired without ceasing to desire it.” Well put. But I think the accurate interpretation here is that you continue to desire it because you haven’t gotten enough of it. Earthly life whets our appetite for food that will satisfy, waters that will never run dry. So the desire remains a lack, but this lack is of ultimate importance.

Out of curiosity: what would you say that desire is, if not a lack?

It seems to me that not being satiated by the object of one’s desire can indicate two things: 1) the inadequacy of the object; 2) the super-abundance of the object. As I said, and I think you agree, desire speaks of the promise of its fulfillment (at least of some kind, although desires can be disordered). This already makes it more than a lack; it is a positive indication of and impulse towards its object. I haven’t read Teresa of Avila in many years, but as I vaguely recall, she speaks of the intensity of desire that is generated by union with God, an intensity/capacity of desiring that only grows the closer one gets to God, the more the object of desire is given. I think of the intensity of Bernini’s Ecstasy of St. Teresa

 

[Leela]

I think commedian Bill Hicks was talking about faith in secular terms when he told us “it’s just a ride”:

The World is like a ride in an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it you think it’s real, because that’s how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round, and it has thrills and chills and is very brightly colored, and it’s very loud. And it’s fun, for a while.

Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they’ve begun to question, ‘Is this real, or is this just a ride?’, and other people have remembered, and they’ve come back to us and they say ‘Hey, don’t worry. Don’t be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride.’ and we KILL THOSE PEOPLE.

“Shut him up! We have alot invested in this ride! SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry. Look at my big bank account, and my family. This has to be real.”

It’s just a ride.

But we always kill those good guys who try and tell us that. You ever noticed that? And let the demons run amok. But it doesn’t matter, because … It’s just a ride.

And we can change it anytime we want. It’s only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. A choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear wants you to put bigger locks on your door, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love, instead see all of us as one.

Here’s what we can do to change the world right now, to a better ride:

Take all that money we spent on weapons and defense each year and instead spend it feeding, clothing, and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, and WE CAN EXPLORE SPACE, TOGETHER, BOTH INNER AND OUTER, forever … in peace.

– Bill Hicks (1961 - 1994)

youtube.com/watch?v=iMUiwTubYu0&feature=related

 

[Jason_1977]

Hi all,

I was thinking about Boromir. Boromir did not lack any belief that the others had. When he argued that their task was impossible, none of the others could disagree. I don’t think he had any different assessment of the probability of success for the Fellowship’s task as any other members of the Fellowship, yet he was in despair, and the others were not. I think the others had faith and that Boromir’s lack of faith destroyed him and that his lack of faith was not a lack of belief. The difference was not he presence of absence of an intellectual structure but an attitude toward the world or trust in the process of life. Since Tolkien is viewed as a Christian writer, perhaps this forum can shed some light on this issue. What do you think? Is faith the same as factual belief as fundamentalists seem to be saying it is? Or is faith something that is independent of belief as in the case of Boromir?

Best,
Leela

thats it, i’m starting a STAR WARS thread…LMAO!

 

[Betterave]

Re: Bill Hicks’ faith
If this is secular faith, it explains why secularists generally assume that religious faith is fluff - they assume it’s the same as secular faith.

I’m curious Prodigal: how would you interpret Hicks-faith from the perspective of Tillich-faith?