By SUSANNA RUSTIN - GUARDIAN.CO.UK, COMMENT IS FREE
Added: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:51:03 UTC

Cristina Odone and Richard Dawkins debate faith, science and creationism. Photograph: Sam Frost

Richard Dawkins has written a new book for children that compares scientific explanations with supernatural ones. Catholic writer Cristina Odone believes an education without religion is missing a crucial dimension. Susanna Rustin brings atheist and believer together.

Richard Dawkins: I've got an idiosyncratic view that evolution could be taught to very young children.

Cristina Odone: I have no problem with the teaching of evolution in science just as I have no problem with the teaching of creation in religious studies. But I think it's very important that religious studies should be taught at school – they bring out different dimensions.

RD: I'm strongly in favour of comparative religion being taught. Modern schoolchildren are lamentably ignorant of the Bible.

Susanna Rustin: Isn't there a difference between learning about religion and the religious teaching that goes on in faith schools and Sunday schools?

CO: Faith schools have to do comparative religion, but what distinguishes, say, my daughter's Catholic school is that they get much more – they'll begin assembly with prayer, she's had Bible readings. But the garden of Eden for her is a story, it isn't the truth. Even in faith schools our children are now being taught about religion in a very metaphorical way.

RD: The problem with that metaphorical view is that you have to decide which bits are metaphorical. Take the story of Adam and Eve. I think the official Catholic position now is that evolution is true, so Adam and Eve didn't exist in a corporeal sense. And yet if you look up the doctrine of original sin it makes heavy reference to Adam's sin. I'd be quite curious to talk to a Catholic theologian about that.

But yes, I think there is a distinction between teaching about religion, which I think we are both strongly in favour of, and teaching a child, "you belong to this religion – you are a Muslim child or you are a Jewish child" – that seems to me a very different thing and I think it's presumptuous.

CO: I'm a Catholic and my husband is an Anglican, and transubstantiation is an issue between us. Do I want my daughter to take up my Catholic beliefs? Yes I do. Do I believe my beliefs are superior in any way to his? Yes I do. But do I want to teach her that mine is the only way? No I don't. What I want her to feel is that there are some beautiful principles in all religions. In your new book you say scientists cheerfully admit they don't know, "cheerfully" because not knowing the answer is exciting. What's so funny is that I feel about religion in the same way. You musn't think that religion is stuck in its inquisitorial phase; religion is capable of evolution and many people of faith are filled with doubts.

RD: But how do you decide which bits to doubt and which bits to accept? As scientists, we do it by evidence.

CO: You can't boil everything down to evidence!

RD: But you're saying religion evolves and changes, so what are the criteria?

CO: Look at birth control. The pope has said there are no ifs or buts, this is doctrine – we must never use birth control. But how many Catholics do you think go to confession and say, "I'm sorry, I've used birth control"? Well here we are, and this is part of the evolution of theology.

RD: So why stick with it? Why call yourself a Catholic when you don't do what Catholics are supposed to?

Read on

TAGGED: BOOKS, RELIGION, RICHARD DAWKINS