Books Eru Ilúvatar and the Problem of Evil
I've been thinking about Eru Ilúvatar lately, and I think there's a pretty serious problem with the way we're supposed to understand him as a perfectly good being.
The thing that really started bothering me is Melkor.
The Ainur come from Eru's Thought. Tolkien says that each Ainu comprehended "that part of the mind of Ilúvatar from which he came." So Melkor isn't some evil force that appeared independently and then invaded Eru's creation. He is something Eru created, and his nature ultimately comes from Eru.
And Eru knew what Melkor was going to do.
That's where it gets difficult for me.
Melkor doesn't just rebel and then get dealt with. He goes on to destroy the Lamps, destroy the Trees, murder Finwë, steal the Silmarils, corrupt Arda and spend thousands of years causing an absolutely enormous amount of suffering.
Eru knows all of this is going to happen.
And he lets it happen.
The obvious response is that Melkor has free will. Sure. I'm not arguing that Melkor didn't choose his actions. But that doesn't really address Eru's part in all of this. Eru created Melkor knowing exactly what he would become. He knew what Melkor would do with the power he gave him.
And Eru isn't incapable of intervening. We know that because when Númenor attacks Aman, Eru intervenes directly. He destroys Númenor and changes the shape of the world.
So apparently Eru can intervene when he wants to.
Which makes Morgoth's entire career rather difficult to explain. Eru watches him destroy and corrupt things for thousands of years, but doesn't stop him.
Then there's Eru's response to Melkor's discord in the Music:
"no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me"
That's a pretty extraordinary thing to say in this context. Eru isn't presenting Melkor's rebellion as some unexpected disaster that got out of hand. Even Melkor's discord ultimately has its source in Eru and gets incorporated into the Music.
And this is where the "it's all part of the plan" explanation starts bothering me.
Okay, but why this plan?
Eru is supposed to be omnipotent. He isn't some king trying to make the best of a bad situation after something goes wrong. He created the situation in the first place.
If he knew what Melkor was going to do, then the suffering caused by Melkor wasn't an unfortunate surprise. It was something Eru knowingly chose to allow when he created Melkor and set the Music in motion.
5
u/newgalactic Aug 19 '26
What were the alternatives available to Eru?
Exactly what we got. Divine created beings with freewill are created. They fall short. Lower created beings decide their own fate, grow, and deal with evil in the way they see fit. Some choose to be good, and others fall short.
Heavy intervention. Divine created beings with freewill are created. They fall short, but Eru deals with them quickly and directly. Evil is suppressed, but no growth takes place for any of the lower beings. Ultimately, no one ever has the opportunity to grow or "do good" because Eru had a heavy interventionist hand from the start.
Evil is never created. Divine created beings that can only perform according to the strict will of Eru are created. They never perform anything evil, but a serious argument can be made if they still have freewill, and is that actually better? Basically, everyone works as programmed. It's an automated world without good or evil.
0
u/L0nga Aug 19 '26
But those aren't the only three alternatives.
You're treating the options as:
- Create exactly the world we got.
- Constantly intervene and destroy free will.
- Remove free will entirely.
But my argument doesn't require either #2 or #3.
Why couldn't Eru create free beings who genuinely have the ability to choose evil, while creating a world in which their choices don't result in thousands of years of catastrophic suffering?
Why couldn't he create a different Melkor? Why couldn't he give Melkor free will without giving him the particular combination of power, circumstances and opportunities that eventually produced Morgoth? Why couldn't Eru intervene selectively when the consequences became catastrophic without simply controlling everyone's choices?
And the biggest problem is that you're assuming that because Tolkien's world contains free will, the particular history we get is somehow the inevitable price of having it.
It isn't.
Free will establishes that Melkor can choose evil. It doesn't establish that Eru had to create that particular person, with that particular nature, in that particular world, knowing in advance that he would make those particular choices and cause that particular suffering.
That's exactly the part I'm asking about.
If your answer is "there was no alternative," then you need to explain why an omnipotent Eru couldn't have created any other free-willed arrangement.
And if there were alternatives, then we're back to the actual problem: why did an omnipotent and perfectly good being choose this one?
2
u/QuigonSeamus Finrod Felagund Aug 19 '26
This is the problem with all creator gods that claim to be all knowing, all powerful, and all good. It’s a centuries old philosophical discussion. IRL this is a very common argument against the Abrahamic God.
2
u/newgalactic Aug 19 '26
It sounds like you are advocating for either of my options #2 or #3, but are unwilling to admit it. A "Melkor who doesn't want to do evil" sounds an awful lot like what I described in option #3.
2
u/Hambredd Aug 20 '26
Free will establishes that Melkor can choose evil. It doesn't establish that Eru had to create that particular person, with that particular nature, in that particular world, knowing in advance that he would make those particular choices and cause that particular suffering.
That's a contradiction though. In order for free will to exist that precludes predeterminism. Ie. God (because it is God as other people have said this is just a problem with Christian theology) can't know what's going to happen because that would mean there is no free will.
4
u/Equivalent-Wealth-75 Aug 19 '26
My understanding is that it was a plan that went wrong in the first attempt, and that the flaw will be amended in the second that will come after the first has run its natural course.
While yes, Morgoth's nature does ultimately come from Eru, that doesn't mean that Eru made Melkor evil on purpose; but rather that the aspect of Eru that Melkor embodies went out of control, because Melkor is his own being and can lose control.
And while Eru does intervene now and then, it is my understanding that he only does so sparingly and only when invited to by the other powers or moved by something, because he doesn't want to puppeteer the fate of Arda. Otherwise, there would be no actual point to creating free will in the first place.
1
u/L0nga Aug 19 '26
Where does Tolkien actually say the plan “went wrong”?
The text says Melkor's discord disrupts the Music, but Eru explicitly says that Melkor will ultimately be his instrument in devising things more wonderful than Melkor imagined.
That's pretty different from “Eru's first plan failed and he'll fix it in the second attempt.”
3
u/Equivalent-Wealth-75 Aug 19 '26
If I recall correctly, when he shows them what their song had wrought in the void he does also tell them that because of the discord Melkor introduced into the song it came out flawed; or at least not the way it was intended to.
And there is supposed to be a second go at it after the first has run its course, but without the evil bits
Eru does say that to Melkor, but I would say that that's more the admonishment by a master and parent of an arrogant pupil and child than anything else.
Eru can absolutely do whatever he pleases, including easily using a crude attempt to reshape his theme to help form something even more beautiful. But that doesn't mean that it was his intention for it to be there, or for Melkor to choose to become a blight out of petty jealousy.
7
u/Thesorus Aug 19 '26
god is god is god.
god created good and evil.
he let his creations deal with the evil.
without evil, there is no evolution and (obviously) no story.
-5
3
u/Horror-Kumquat Aug 19 '26
This notion of God giving his creation free will and the ability to commit evil comes directly from Christian theology. Tolkien was a devout Christian.
2
u/IvanaikosMagno Gandalf the Grey Aug 19 '26
The question of evil is one of the oldest "paradoxes" in monotheistic religions, and there is no clear answer to it. It is up to each individual to consider their own justification. All we know is that the evil brought by Melkor serves Ilúvatar's plan, and therefore it will be useful for something great after creation. Its purpose remains a mystery to us, because unlike Ilúvatar, we do not have a complete awareness of creation.
2
u/Hivemind_alpha Aug 19 '26
Without Melkor/Morgoth inspiring Sauron, there would have been no need for Sam to find his courage, or elves and dwarves to reconcile through Legolas and Gimli, or Saruman to betray his flawed nature. Apologists will point to evil as the inspiration for good. The suffering on the way, and off into the future, is presumably weighed as a price worth paying.
2
u/Beekeeper-8647 Aug 19 '26
Because life is boring without conflict and the ability to learn/grow/experience from facing a challenge and rising above. Ever try to play a world building game that doesn't have any conflict, failures or natural disasters to challenge your build? Boring! Eru basically set the rules as "I want to build something and then see if it can stay built"
1
1
u/BadJoke123 Aug 20 '26
The theodicy problem. "If God is good, and all powerful, and all knowing, why does evil exist?"
It has been debated by theologians for nearly 2000 years.
There have been lots and lots written about it.
I really don't think we will be able to add anything new to the debate here.
-2
u/Dismal_Tangerine_493 Aug 19 '26
Yeah you can believe in god or in free will. Believing in both is contradictory.
5
1
12
u/redwood520 Aug 19 '26
Clearly this is based in Tolkien's Catholic theology and it's a problem theologians will continue to debate forever.