In an irksome article in the Times Educational Supplement, A. C. Grayling took aim (again) at the place of religion in schools. Though it is misleadingly titled ‘Worship in Schools is Insidious’, he takes issue with three separate aspects of religion in schools - religious education, the daily act of worship and faith schools in general. The requirement for a daily act of worship - frequently ignored - is an easy enough target, but Grayling spills most of his ink on RE. This he sees as a poor, if not outright damaging, waste of time.
Those familiar with Graylings utterances on these issues will feel that they’ve been here before. Since religion is so patently retrograde, it should be studied through the lens of intellectual history or, more to the point, Grayling's preferred version of intellectual history. The alternative he offers, however, would be more insidious than the curriculum he lambasts. Grayling writes that, 'It would include the development of science out of philosophy, the competing world views of different traditions and how they compare with science on such matters as the origin and nature of the universe, the evolution of life...'. In other words, the purpose of Grayling's reformed RE would be to impress upon students that religion in not science or that, at very best, creation stories are primitive and redundant attempts at science.
Grayling here would no doubt be thinking of creationists who do treat bits of the bible as scientific revelation. With some decent RE, he might have been challenged to think through the argument that this is not a 'thick' tradition and certainly does not speak for most believers. He might not have been so eager to indulge in the lazy and simplistic pitting of faith against reason (if they were inimically opposed, then it would be difficult to explain people like Sir Francis Collins, or the numerous other esteemed scientists who subscribe to a religious faith as well as understanding the power of the scientific method). Grayling’s assertion that science developed out of philosophy is equally spurious and tendentious. Indeed, there is a strong argument to suggest that because of belief in a rational God, and therefore a rational universe, science in the West progressed ahead of scientific discovery in the East. But these points would run counter to Grayling’s argument that religion is bad science, and therefore would find no place in his new curriculum.
Professor Grayling would also like to see religious narratives put into the context of many other mythical stories, and so illustrate that they are nothing but a patchwork of other myths that have somehow been more tenacious than their predecessors. He writes, 'One could show how every feature of the Christian story is lifted from earlier mythologies, just as one could show how the makers of the New Testament constructed it to fit with the Old Testament stories'. CS Lewis - before his conversion - thought that such parallels gave credibility to Christian story. Simone Weil had similarly interesting things to say on the connections between Prometheus and Christ, though again one doubts that such formidable and persuasive theistic thinkers would earn a place in Grayling’s lessons. One also doubts that Grayling would bother dealing fairly with the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth in a curriculum - it is easier to consign him to myth than give oxygen to reasoned arguments in favour of religion. All this brings to mind Terry Eagleton’s review of The God Delusion: 'does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that he can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case?'
It is baffling that Grayling seems to have no meaningful acquaintance with religious thought. He makes a scathing comparison of theology to astrology, and his desire to expunge religion from the school curriculum conveys what can generously be described as a tin ear for religion, if not a wilful blindness to understand religion on its own terms. It is something remarkable that a man with the intellectual curiosity of Grayling is happy to consign the beliefs of billions of rational (and many brilliant) people to the bin of delusions that one should not even attempt to understand. Apart from Grayling’s approach being a barely veiled attempt at humanist proselytism, there are at least two reasons why Grayling’s re-imagining of how religious education is approached would be damaging to pupils, and indeed the nation.
First, Grayling can’t dislike religion into non-existence. Towards the end of last century the academy predicted the demise of organised religion. The bright light of reason would shine on all of our dusty and irrational beliefs. They were profoundly wrong. Indeed, in their book God is Back John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge point out not only that most of the world is seriously religious, but that if we want to understand it, we cannot ignore God. Understanding religious faith is one way to understand much of the world’s ethics, economics, politics and - yes - its conflicts. It is also incumbent on us who educate to form individuals who will work at helping parts society able to live in mutual respect. This will not readily be achieved by condescension and hostility.
Second, we patronise our students when we do not give them the ability to work out their own beliefs. Grayling suggests that we should not expose people to ideas he finds intellectually impoverished, at least not unless the teaching points towards their stupidity. What religious education seeks to do, and is doing with success across the nation, is to get pupils to think analytically as well as to understand belief systems and their critics. In school I would teach arguments for God’s existence and their short falls with equal rigour - I expect my students to make up their minds about what arguments win. Likewise, I will soon be teaching the humanist atheism espoused by the likes of Grayling, and I aim to give its toughest case a fair hearing.
Religious education has been on a journey of improvement for the last few decades. The Church of England report on religious education in primary schools does indeed show that it is far from being a finished product. However, for Grayling to argue that it should be replaced with his version of philosophy is to betray that he never understood it in the first place. What Grayling has successfully managed to communicate is that he is religiously illiterate, and should therefore have as much influence on the syllabus as my football hating wife should have on Match of the Day.
Kenny Primrose is Head of the Religious Studies and Philosophy Department at Robert Gordon's College in Aberdeen
Image by Adam Levine from flickr.com under the Creative Commons Licence.
