Religion

It’s Easter! A celebration of all things chocolatey. A time when spring lambs bound around in fields and people take long walks in the lengthening evenings. And also, lest we forget, a reminder of Jesus' death on the cross and his rising from the dead.

For Christians, this last point is kind of a big deal. Christmas may grab the attention of the rest of the world, but without Easter there would be no Christian faith. No atonement or expiation of sins. No redemption through the crucifixion. And certainly no promise of eternal life.

Given the profundity of these theological points, I'm glad we don't have to spend Easter at home. As well as being able to slob out and eat Easter eggs all day, I also don't have to suffer Runty and such people's take on religion, arguments conceived ad hoc and informed by the F block Divinity syllabus and not much else.

Religion, as a part of education, is a funny thing. Being a nominally Christian school, Eton obliges everyone to attend chapel several times a week. We hear the preachers' musings on life, listen to the choir's beatific odes, and troop out slightly different people. But when faith is such a personal matter, a mysterious thing, it makes any form of communal worship, no matter how beautiful, slightly awkward.

Nevertheless. I think Eton strikes a good balance between being preachy and preaching. What is said by the chaplains does not extend to the classrooms. We are given food for thought rather than moral instruction. Which given that are all teenager, and thus rebellious, is probably a wise move.

As a result, there is a very respectful attitude towards religion. Attendance at chapel is compulsory, but I don't remember anyone raging against this, even friends who find all religions abominable.

It helps that the surroundings are spectacular. College Chapel is something of a misnomer - cathedral or basilica would be more apt as it rises high above the school, like a fantastic old aoak tree. The interior is inspiring, gloomy in the way you imagine a medieval church to be, welcoming knights in to pray before battle. Which all makes the boring sermons slightly more bearable.

The official religion of the school is Anglicanism, but for boys of other faiths there are special arrangements made. On Sundays, Roman Catholics can attend Mass in Lower Chapel, led by a priest who doubles up as a Divinity beak. There is also one (super short) service during the week which is an alternative to normal chapel.

Muslims also a have a beak within their ranks, who acts as an iman or cleric. I presume they have their services on Fridays, but don't know if they are Shi’ite or Sunni. Jews also have a visiting rabbi to provide spiritual guidance, as I think do the Hindus with their equivalent leader.

Religion is therefore a discernible part of school life. Having said that, it would be wrong to say that most boys are religious. Hardly any of my friends are. Furthermore, those who would describe themselves as Christian would be more like cultural Christians than spiritual ones.

Which I guess is to be expected really. Being young and religious in society today is very much taboo. The boys in my block who are devout Christians (often evangelical) are occasionally referred to as virgins or bible bashers. Not in an overly malicious way, but so the person saying it can feel superior to them.

Nevertheless, the ‘bible bashers’ in my block have always struck me as very admirable. They are often personable and kind, the type to help you out immediately if you are ever stuck in a rut. Granted, they may not be too wild or the source of hilarious stories, but the world would be a better place with more of them in it.

Whilst their orthodox Christianity is shunned, some other boys’ aggressive atheism is accepted. Which is fine of course, but it is a case of double standard. What I've often pondered on is how may of the atheists’ arguments could be turned back on themselves.

Take the idea of faith for example. This element of religion is widely condemned by non-believers as a plug for evidence-free gaps. The resurrection; eternal life; heaven and hell; no proof for these exist, so only faith, blind faith can lead one to believe in them. Blessed are those who have not seen, yet still believe etc.

But are the arguments put forward by atheists really faith-free themselves? Can they offer incontrovertible evidence of God’s non-existence? The short answer is: not really. On what happened before the Big Bang, we still have no idea, despite the theories propounded by eminent scientists. Nor can we explain abstract concepts such as love, sacrifice, and morality without simplistic allusions to ‘hormones’. And the idea that no physical evidence for God exists is kind of missing the point that God is not a physical being.

You’d think also that atheists would be saddened by the prospect of a Godless universe. That they would spend their time moping around, gnashing their teeth and bemoaning the pointlessness of life. Not a bit of it. The atheists I know seem positively thrilled by their meaningless existence. With it, all chains on behaviour are loosed. What’s wrong and what's right becomes a fluid concept, dependent on the law of the state and the effects on other people. This ultimately leads to an excuse for all kinds of debauchery. Worship at the temple of pleasure.

I probably sound like a bit of a puritan, but I just think religious people have a rough time of it. They propose moral standards for society, and get slammed when they fail to live up to them. Whereas the atheist trips up and is looked upon more kindly, since, well, he doesn’t really believe in anything does he?

It’s easy to sneer at the man on the street corner quoting Scripture. But when you think about it, what’s the difference between him and the person sharing a Dawkins article on Facebook? Not much, as I can see it.