1. Comment #248468 by mordacious1 on September 16, 2008 at 9:32 am

Always refreshing to hear an interview like this.

Other Comments by mordacious1

2. Comment #248475 by Ole on September 16, 2008 at 9:47 am

Agree with you mord!

At the beginning I was a bit afraid James was trying to make it too funny (the sex part).

Luckily not .. and then we (or me at least) understand that James has quite a knowledge about RD and CD.

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

3. Comment #248511 by Gregg Townsend on September 16, 2008 at 10:58 am

I enjoyed this interview immensely. The amiable give and take was refreshing in contrast to the contentious conversations that usually feature Richard.

Thank you.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

4. Comment #248513 by Apemanblues on September 16, 2008 at 10:59 am

That was thoroughly enjoyable.

I could have listened to another hour of it. Great stuff.

Other Comments by Apemanblues

5. Comment #248518 by Jamie Walton on September 16, 2008 at 11:23 am

I've always said that if I was ever on Room 101 the first thing I would put in is Clive James' voice.

Other Comments by Jamie Walton

6. Comment #248524 by posiedon on September 16, 2008 at 11:35 am

Off topic.
Our old friend the wee flea had a letter in the Independent today.

Whether creationism should be taught or even mentioned in school science lessons is one issue. But Archie Bland sets out a black and white division between evolutionists and creationists who believe in a 10,000-year-old Earth. He lumps proponents of intelligent design in with the young-Earth creationists. Anyone who has read any of the material will realise how false this analysis is.

The majority of creationists in Britain (that is, those who believe that God created) are either theistic evolutionists, or old-Earth creationists. Young-Earth creationism is a relatively new phenomenon, largely imported from the US. It suits both the atheist fundamentalists who want to hijack science as proof there is no God, and the religious fundamentalists, who want to hijack science to prove that there is a God, to make such a simplistic black and white division.

David A Robertson

Author, 'The Dawkins Letters', Dundee

I sent an email to the editor, to say I don't think it's right that he's allowed to publicize his own book for free, in a national newspaper.
I signed it with my name, followed by "reader of the God delusion"

Other Comments by posiedon

7. Comment #248525 by Quetzalcoatl on September 16, 2008 at 11:37 am

The majority of creationists in Britain (that is, those who believe that God created)

Typical disingenuousness. Let's all redefine words to suit our purpose.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

8. Comment #248526 by geehigh on September 16, 2008 at 11:40 am

Wow! An interview between two of my heroes!

Downloading now!

Other Comments by geehigh

9. Comment #248540 by Paula Kirby on September 16, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Quetz: Typical disingenuousness. Let's all redefine words to suit our purpose.

I think what Robertson has written about creationists is probably about right: ultimately ALL Christians are creationists, in that they believe the universe was created by God. That doesn't make them all Young Earth Creationists or even evolution-deniers.

I welcome the fact that he has come out in a national newspaper and declared part of the Bible to be unreliable. One chapter down ... only another 1188 to go.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

10. Comment #248542 by RichardofYork on September 16, 2008 at 12:15 pm

An intelligent interviewer leads to an interesting intelligent interview .Clive James lends a bit of for want of a better word "Gravitas" to Richards views and knowledge , great to just hear him talk about what he knows rather than batting away at ignorance

Other Comments by RichardofYork

11. Comment #248543 by severalspeciesof on September 16, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Paula,
quick,
go ahead and review the other 1188 chapters before D.R. does. I'll studiously await. ;P

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

12. Comment #248550 by Quetzalcoatl on September 16, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Paula-

I know. My point (badly expressed) was that that definition is not how the word creationism is generally used these days. I should quit quibbling over semantics.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

13. Comment #248554 by thewhitepearl on September 16, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Quetz-

Is it safe to presume that you are just tired of everything that flies out of D.Robertsons mouth?

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

14. Comment #248556 by Quetzalcoatl on September 16, 2008 at 12:52 pm

thewhitepearl-

That would be an entirely reasonable assumption.

How are you feeling this evening?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

15. Comment #248576 by Matt H. on September 16, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Superb.

I'd be quite content to give every church in the land their tax breaks if they played that interview at every sermon.

Other Comments by Matt H.

16. Comment #248588 by Ascaphus on September 16, 2008 at 1:50 pm

All very good of course. I like the idea of the 'lust to be good.' That is a new way to put it, I haven't heard it quite that way before. Very interesting. Altruism is typically a red herring for anti-evolution types, and this might be the perfect response. I'm going to use it!

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

17. Comment #248759 by Alternative Carpark on September 16, 2008 at 7:57 pm

Clive James is always a pleasure to listen to, or watch for that matter, and this interview did not disappoint. My only complaint would be that it should have been an hour, or so, longer.

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

18. Comment #248764 by Laurie Fraser on September 16, 2008 at 8:29 pm

The Kogarah Kid can be delightful or infuriating. Fortunately, this time, he was delightful.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

19. Comment #248846 by geehigh on September 17, 2008 at 4:13 am

Laurie Fisher

The Kogarah Kid can be delightful or infuriating.

Agreed, but even when he is infurating James makes you think more deeply about the subject in question, and there's not many interviwers around that can do that.

EDIT: This should have been addressed to Laurie Fraser, but I typed in fisher because I'm an idiot.

Cheers

G :)

Other Comments by geehigh

20. Comment #248848 by Laurie Fraser on September 17, 2008 at 4:17 am

Comment #248846 by geehigh

You know what's infuriating, geehigh? Being called Laurie "Fisher" :)

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

21. Comment #248852 by BillySands on September 17, 2008 at 4:30 am

Posiedon,

Do you have a link to that?

Like the way he put "Author of the Dawkins letters" after that.

Wonder if JK Rowling has to put "author of Harry Potter" after her name incase no one knows who she is?

Other Comments by BillySands

22. Comment #248854 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 4:31 am

Billy-

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-assisted-suicide-931266.html

Fifth one down.

EDIT-

You make a good point: perhaps I should start signing my name and mentioning the books that I have written.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

23. Comment #248857 by BillySands on September 17, 2008 at 4:38 am

Oh yeah, and young earth Creationism is new here?

Wonder how many of his church are YECs? One former one, Hugh Miller, springs to mind. Poor guy killed himself because he could not reconcile his work on geology with the genesis myths
http://www.hughmiller.org/controversies_g.asp

Other Comments by BillySands

24. Comment #248859 by BillySands on September 17, 2008 at 4:43 am

Fifth one down.

Bah! you cant reply. I wonder if he is trying to plug his onw brand of toilet paper (sorry, "book") there? Mind you, I think my butt would just be messier after using it.

Other Comments by BillySands

25. Comment #248860 by Vaal on September 17, 2008 at 4:44 am

Man, DR loves that word fundamentalist. Here you are David, here is the dictionary description of fundamentalist....

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism

2. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture

3. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

Now, who does that most sound like?

Other Comments by Vaal

26. Comment #248861 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 4:49 am

Vaal-

I wouldn't bother explaining it to him. I once directed him to a blog post I did explaining that atheist fundamentalism is a contradiction. His response: you're wrong- never explained why!

Quetzalcoatl (author of ........ and ........)

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

27. Comment #248862 by BillySands on September 17, 2008 at 4:52 am

His response: you're wrong- never explained why!

Cos he is a fud?

Quetzalcoatl (author of ........ and ........)

BillySands (author of this letter to quetz)

Other Comments by BillySands

28. Comment #248863 by scottishgeologist on September 17, 2008 at 4:54 am

Billy

there are LOTS of YECs in Scotlands traditional, presbyterian churches. And they've been there a while as well.

On a slightly different note, I pointed out (on youer blog I think it was) that RC Sproul was now a YEC. To me this is significant. Sproul isnt soem hick from the sticks. Hes a leading, popular mainstream evangelical, the type that gets read avidly by christians everywhere.

Here is his take on things:

For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation, the fourth alternative and the traditional one. Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-fourâ€"hour periods. According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1â€"2. The confession (WCF) makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days.

I would actually be interested in hearing David Robertsons take on this, especially that point about "Reformed hermeneutics"

David, if you read this, Is Sproul wrong. If so, why?

:-)
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

29. Comment #248864 by irate_atheist on September 17, 2008 at 4:54 am

Quetz & Billy -

I'm shocked that he didn't sign himself 'Writer of Dodgy Cheques'.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

30. Comment #248867 by geehigh on September 17, 2008 at 4:57 am

Laurie FRASER!!

You know what's infuriating, geehigh? Being called Laurie "Fisher" :)

Argh! Sorry! What was I thinking??

My head is bowed with shame and dishonour, and I will be sure to iron my hands when I get home ;)

Other Comments by geehigh

31. Comment #248868 by Vaal on September 17, 2008 at 4:58 am

Vaal

Author of soon to be released "David Robertson, my conversion to atheism"

Other Comments by Vaal

32. Comment #248871 by scottishgeologist on September 17, 2008 at 4:59 am

Billy:

Coz he's a fud?

Love that word, it is just so wonderfully, I dont know... rude without being too coarse

First time I came across "Fear Uncertainty and Doubt" (a la IBM) it was the acronym FUD that they used. Didnt half laugh when I saw it...

And of course, FUD also stands for "female urination device"......

I think this comment needs to be brought to a swift end ere I get carried away by the imagery esp in light of your original remark....

:-)))))))))
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

33. Comment #248872 by Vaal on September 17, 2008 at 5:01 am

Who's Laurie Fisher? Son of Princess Leia :)

Obi-Wan Fraser!

I'll get my coat..

Other Comments by Vaal

34. Comment #248873 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 5:01 am

Billy-

That's right!

Quetzalcoatl (God, author and accountant)

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

35. Comment #248874 by God fearing Atheist on September 17, 2008 at 5:05 am

#248540 by Paula Kirby
I welcome the fact that he has come out in a national newspaper and declared part of the Bible to be unreliable. One chapter down ... only another 1188 to go.

Better than that, he is implying "God told me".

C.f. Preface to 2nd edition of "A book" - "Since the first edition of my book much excellent work has been done in the xx field, such that I have rewritten chapter 2, and added much new material to chapter 3 ..."

Who the **** is Robinson to revise "God's book" without permission of the author? Thf. God must have told him ...

Yea, we all know, ... but I just thought I'd inject another spin on the argument (or maybe its an old spin?)

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

36. Comment #248878 by Laurie Fraser on September 17, 2008 at 5:15 am

Geehigh - ironing one's hands because of a little mistake seems a bit...er...fundamentalist to me.

Signed
Laurie Fisher
Author of Vaal's Guide to Slow-Motion Replays of the Bit in the Film Where Princess Leia Wears a Bikini

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

37. Comment #248879 by Vaal on September 17, 2008 at 5:16 am

Laurie

Cheque mate!

Other Comments by Vaal

38. Comment #248880 by Laurie Fraser on September 17, 2008 at 5:19 am

Well, Vaal, you've gotta admit - it was the only scene in the entire Star Wars saga that was worth watching.

*Goes on the lam in case MPhil's lurking*

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

39. Comment #248881 by BillySands on September 17, 2008 at 5:21 am

I would actually be interested in hearing David Robertsons take on this

Me too. I would also like to know what Robertson uses to decide between creation hypotheses and what value he places on the scientific approach. From his previous ramblings, I suspect that he will claim that the ultimate truth lies in the bible - but he will also fail to demonstrate that.
This is why theology is so useles. It is not grounded in anything concrete.

And of course, FUD also stands for "female urination device"......

Probably best I dont say where my mind went with that one. Let's just say, I see DR wearing a raincoat :-)

BillySands Author of Would you buy a used car from David Robertson?

Other Comments by BillySands

40. Comment #248882 by scottishgeologist on September 17, 2008 at 5:21 am

Billy:

"This is why theology is so useles. It is not grounded in anything concrete"

Reminds me of the parable in the bible of the wise and foolish builders...

Matthew 7:24-27 (New International Version Bible) 24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

theology: a house built on sand...

:-)
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

41. Comment #248884 by BillySands on September 17, 2008 at 5:23 am

theology: a house built on sand...

Washed away by 15 pints of lager and a FUD :-)

Other Comments by BillySands

42. Comment #248886 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 5:25 am

Scottishgeologist-

theology: a house built on sand...

Quicksand is more like it.

Quetzalcoatl (author of http://musingsofastrangemind.blogspot.com/2008/03/evening-with-david-robertson.html)

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

43. Comment #248887 by Philip1978 on September 17, 2008 at 5:31 am

I would also like to know what Robertson uses to decide between creation hypotheses and what value he places on the scientific approach.

When I think of that I get a headache, being able to hold creationism AND the scientific approach somehow together seems like quite a feat of mental gymnastics that is only to be performed by trained professionals. Look what happened to poor Hugh Miller for goodness sake, that's pretty harsh.

Philip
BA Combined Honours, English and History, Southampton University
Diploma of Merit, Public Relations, London School of Public Relations
Author of http://teafueledmadness.blogspot.com/
Guitarist,
Optimist,
Atheist,
Tea Drinker.

Other Comments by Philip1978

44. Comment #248889 by God fearing Atheist on September 17, 2008 at 5:39 am

Being able to hold multiple logically contradictory views is a fairly well known fact about huuman psychology. Hence "THE PROBLEM" ...

(I should be able to quote the evidence, but its been a long time since "Psychology 101" ... )

EDIT Thf. another argument against ID? No, toooo subtle!

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

45. Comment #248890 by Vaal on September 17, 2008 at 5:42 am

Quetz

You just beat me to the quicksand joke. Fascinating blog article "Meeting David Robertson". I nearly laughed out loud (in the office) with "Look at the (wooden) table next to you. Even if you wait a trillion years, is that table ever going to live? Of course not!"

Man, that is nearly up there with continental plates shifting due to "sin". How can he be so daft?

Interesting that David seems to come across as quite reasonable when you meet him, Billy mentioned it the other day when some brights in Glasgow met him. I wonder why he turns into Dr Hyde when he comes on RD net, as there is no doubt he can be extremely unpleasant and patronising, not to mention his talent of not answering any questions that are too hard for him.

EDIT: So, does he look like Father Jack? :-)

Other Comments by Vaal

46. Comment #248903 by God fearing Atheist on September 17, 2008 at 6:09 am

Quetz,

"Meeting David Robertson" - Interesting blog. No wonder he trolls rather than stays for a debate.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

47. Comment #248904 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 6:13 am

Vaal-

No, he doesn't, unfortunately. :)

God fearing Atheist-

Thank you. I'll put my hand up here and admit that I provided that link purely in hope of attracting more readers and commenters to my blog.

http://musingsofastrangemind.blogspot.com/

:)

(Last time I link to it unrequested)

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

48. Comment #248916 by Jamie V on September 17, 2008 at 6:38 am

That was a very enjoyable interview - Clive James had done his research and his interest was obvious. I always enjoy listening to Richard, and his take on the crucufiction wasn't one I'd heard framed exactly like that before (although he's expressed his view in similar terms elsewhere). Richard's outrage was infectious, and hopefully the people in the audience who gasped when he said it will have taken the time to think about what he said.

Jamie

Author of "Police Academy - A Defence"

Other Comments by Jamie V

49. Comment #248920 by scottishgeologist on September 17, 2008 at 6:50 am

Vaal asked "I wonder why he turns into Dr Hyde when he comes on RD net, as there is no doubt he can be extremely unpleasant and patronising, not to mention his talent of not answering any questions that are too hard for him.


Good Question Vaal

I have never met DR. However, my theory is this. David is basically a reasonable guy and I reckon if you met him when out for a walk and got talking to him, it would be all quite good natured.

However, remember how "religion poisons everything?"

People seem to turn into Mr Hydes when religion gets raised. Its like its some visceral thing, something deep within which takes offence and then lashes out.

This phenomenon is also found within religious groups - now I've mentionmed it before, but the history of the Socttish churches is LITTERED with this sort of behaviour - I know a guy who is a Free Church elder from Lewis. Lovely man, really good guy( as long as religion is kept at bay..) Anyway, this guy was telling me about the Free Church split in 2000 when a bunch of conservatives left to form the Free Church Continuing

The bitterness from that split still exists. Families are split over it and people wont talk to one another. There have been all sorts of horrible legal battles over churches and manses and so on. It really is quite remarkable. And all becasue of one particular "angel ona pinhead"

Sad really, becasue a lot of these churches have got basically good decent people who have a lot to contribute to their communities and further afield. Instead their efforts get wasted on this sort of nastiness.

I know David himself was right in the thick of the 2000 schism and reported on it through his church website. Bad enough dealing with the howling hordes of neo-atheists shouting "Dawkins Akhbar" Worse still to be getting it from your own "hounds of death" as they were once beautifully described.

I'll say one thing, he's got stamina. A lot of it!

:-))
SG
Author of "The Gospel According to Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann"

Be sure to check out this link:

http://85.234.137.11/articles/virtual-hebrides/protestantism-hebrides.htm

Its written by Dr Finlay Macleod, an atheist from Lewis. A very perceptive writer.

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

50. Comment #248935 by Hellene on September 17, 2008 at 7:46 am

Quote;

"...and he saw the tadpoles and drew the right conclusions".

Avatar vindicated!


Script writer, "Tadpole Incorporated".

Other Comments by Hellene