Julia and Charles - The Ending

@MidniteRambler » Fri Jul 20 2012 00:39:23

Say what you will, Waugh's "views and opinions" are scarcely flawed. And I am more than able to cope with people who think that they are.

THE POINT IS THAT WAUGH'S BELIEFS WORK WITHIN THE FILM. IT'S A FILM, FOR PETE'S SAKE. CAN'T YOU GET THAT INTO YOUR HEAD?

I refer to the man I knew - friend is stretching a point - as moderately intelligent because he was. He went to Westminster College and his degree was in theology or divinity or similar.

Yes, I know Waugh and about his son Auberon whom I used to read every fortnight in Private Eye until his recent death. Evelyn Waugh was a pretty poor father, by all accounts. And I have read the book more than once, including this year. Whether many, many people do not follow their parents' religions in adult life depends upon one's definition of "many". There may be hundreds of thousands worldwide but in per centage terms their number is minimal. Iran is not full of convertees to Christianity, Israel boasts few of Jewish descent who become muslims and Spain and Brazil and Poland are not full of people who have adopted the Jewish faith. There may be more people switching faiths in less doctrinal countries such as the US and the UK, but their number is small. I have seen it rarely. I don't object to it, as I said before, but I have to wonder why someone adopts a particular religion. What is it about, say, Islam that leaves them believing the truth of it? What "evidence" do they have that that is the true path rather than Hinduism? In the end it can only be a personal preference for a particular belief since there is no evidence for the truth of any of these superstitions, which is why they all demand "faith" and "belief" in the face of the absence of anything substantive. In fact, the only faith for which there is any evidence, such as it is, is for Hinduism and reincarnation, of which there are various putative cases.

Atheism and agnosticism are not opinions; in fact agnosticism is, by definition, the absence of an opinion. To an atheist saying that they have an opinion that there is no such thing as a god is like saying that not believing in witches on broomsticks or the tooth fairy are opinions. In fact, believing in a god, it seems to me, is not a matter of opinion but of faith or belief. Your post again alleges things that I did not say. I never used the word brainwashed and never thought it: indoctrinated is the word I used and "brainwashing" is not only something else but deliberately emotive on your part. Nor did I say that 999 out of 1000 believers could not think for themselves; they can think for themselves but it is often impossible, even when the rational parts of the brain insist upon it, for people to rid themselves of notions inculcated in them from birth. I said that 999 out of 1000 have been subjected to and encouraged to follow their parents' beliefs and as a result have done so. If that were not the case then countries would not be described as being Catholic, Muslim, Hindu or Jewish: these countries would be awash with people abandoning their parents' faiths for others or for atheism if children were not indoctrinated from birth by their parents. But they have been indoctrinated and the children of Catholics tend to remain Catholics and the children of Jews tend to remain Jews; how you can deny this in the face of the evidence, I don't get.

It's not arguable that atheists are necessarily either stupid or lazy, as you acknowledge. My experience is that atheists are - as a general rule - either of higher intelligence or lower intelligence and that "people of faith" are in the middle degrees of intelligence. Why atheists should be lazy, I don't get either. Adopting a faith is the easy option. There is nothing I would like more than to believe that this life is just a prologue to an eternity in some fourth-dimensional paradise. I should be delighted to meet my deceased parents again; nothing would please me more. Adopting a faith is the easier and lazier way out, though I do not suggest that that is the reason most believers believe.

I will answer your other points at another time. This would be quicker if you did not repeatedly accuse me of things I have not said or thought, such as brainwashing or that 999 out of 1000 do not think for themselves: I said neither.



We'll probably be found dead in here next spring

"any distinction between right and wrong can never be more than an opinion"

Your contention seems to be that human beings are only able to support their positions on right and wrong on the basis of ancient superstition. I find that the opposite is true. Christians, presumably, tell their children that, for instance, killing another human being is wrong because God says it is wrong: "Thou shalt not kill". They are therefore establishing their morality on the back of the alleged teachings of a supernatural being who handed down his (?) dictum to... who? - and in what manner? Moses? Christ? I don't know. Or care. But to found a morality on such an implausible, insubstantial and decrepit (in its literal sense) basis seems to me to be the height of folly. It is asking for trouble, quite apart from the fact that religions have been used and continue to be used as the justification for murder hourly. I have never heard an atheist justify a murder on the ground that he is an atheist and can do what he likes. I do hear a lot about Christianity and other religions being used to rail against homosexuality and abortion because "god said this" or the "book says that", while atheists, with no such hang-ups, are prepared, by and large, to live and let live. What is it both sides are crying on the streets of Tehran at the moment? God is great? Why did that madman kill the doctor in the US who carried out abortions? - "because of God's law"? How often is atheism a justification for murder? When did an atheist kill a Christian or a Jew and say it was because the Jew believed in a god? While you may believe that the only way to instill right and wrong in children is a belief in an omnipotent supernatural being all the evidence is to the contrary. My children, both cynical atheists, do not advocate the murder of anyone, I am glad to say.

That brings us to the raising of children as atheists and their exposure to religion. Mine, which is the only real experience I have of the subject, are well aware of the religions of the world through their schooling. I would have explained the tenets of the major world religions to my children if only so that they understood the geo-politics of the world about them, since religions continue to cause more wars and destruction than any other aspect of the human condition. They have been to church occasionally since their mother was raised by devout catholics and I agreed to both my kids being baptised, into the catholic faith as it happens. I didn't object because the entire process is meaningless. (It was only the second time I had been in church in a religious context in my life; the first was as a belligerent 8 year-old dragged into one by an ancient aunt. I had walked out within 5 minutes). I consider that indoctrinating children with a belief that the world is the creation of a supernatural being and that they should live their lives on the basis of the doctrines of this mythical entity is just plain wrong and constitutes unmitigated damage. In the example of Brideshead, although Waugh meant to convey something quite different, it ruined the lives of the whole lot of them, except perhps Cordelia. Julia did not divorce then marry the man she loved because of religion. Sebastian degenerated into alcoholism because he could not escape the pressure of the oppression of his mother's religious mania. The Marchmains lived apart without divorcing and finding new spouses because of religion. Charles could not be with let alone marry the woman he wanted because of her indoctrination. And Rex, presumably, would have had a fight on his hands if he ever wanted to divorce Julia to marry someone else. I fail to see what good Catholicism did any of them. Misery all round. The most intelligent and sensible character, and the most content, was Edward Ryder, who only attended church "with derision". Waugh may have intended to propound the benefits of religion, of a state of grace, but he failed dismally. The ending did not, as you put it, anger or upset me. It was a story and having expounded the flaws and miseries of Catholicism for ninety five per cent of the work, Waugh then attempts to salvage the situation by having Lord Marchmain accept the last sacraments, Charles convert, Julia reject Charles because of her superstitions and Sebastian enter a monastery in his alcoholic haze. All it served to confirm was the violence Catholicism can inflict on a person's life and the damage that can be done to any human being by indoctrinating them with religion from the moment they draw their first breath. It ruins lives, which is why I say that it borders on child abuse. Within a hundred years the western world may not even regard it as bordering on child abuse. There is already a substantial body of opinion that supports this view.




We'll probably be found dead in here next spring