The ordinary man on the street might be forgiven for thinking that he is somewhat of a rarity in modern society. He doesn't hold extreme views on religion or politics; the foreign worlds of Al-Qaeda, Creationism and militant atheism are presented to him as an all engulfing threat, poised to destroy his dreams of an easy life.

Calmly, David Robertson has rebutted a steady flow of strikes at the intellectual foundations of his religion from secularist, Alistair McBay in the George Square Theatre tonight. White hot lights, camera flashes and a hard backed chair mean Robertson won’t be relaxing just yet. But, leaning in to impose his kindly yet impressive presence on a debating table that has just witnessed a battle significant only for its lack of fireworks, the Dundee Free Church minister is ready and able to deny any charges of fanaticism: “Crusader is the wrong term. I wouldn’t like that at all. I don't consider myself to be a liberal Christian. I am a Biblical Christian and I do believe in the Bible, but I don't fit the fundamentalist stereotype that people want to pigeonhole you into.”

The easy-going family man and author of The Dawkins Letters—epistles addressing each chapter of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion from a Christian perspective—is no nutter. A self-styled “intelligent Christian”, his responses are always measured, never rash: “I’ve quite often said that I hate religion, and I do mean that. There are lots of negative aspects to religion but my problem is that Dawkins takes the negative aspects and extrapolates back to absolutely all religion, which seems to be a particularly ad hominem attack that is not really worthy of him.”

As a new minister in town, Robertson’s modern sensibilities shocked four members of his seven strong congregation into upping and leaving altogether. But in a PR coup that might have stunned Max Clifford into silence, debates in Borders bookshops and discussions held all over town soon resurrected a congregation 150 Dundonians strong. Of his new members, Robertson enthuses: “A lot of them were from a non-church background and I realised that there are many people out there who have no concept of what Christianity is at all. But rather than go out and just ask them to come to the church, I would discuss things and do debates to stimulate people’s intellects.”

As a history student at Edinburgh University and a keen participant in student politics, debating came naturally to Robertson. He recalls vividly his failed attempts to avoid arriving at Christianity as the logical conclusion to his academic researches into faith. Ultimately, the belief system he came upon would not only prevent him from following the hedonistic dreams he had nurtured before attending University, but also lead to his disappointment in the EUSA Presidential elections, an over-zealous Student editor managing to convince the voting public that Robertson was just another religious crackpot.

With his background in an academic approach to Christianity, it may seem reasonable that Robertson’s response to reading the international bestselling God Delusion was a considered deconstruction of Dawkins’ assumptions rather than a fire and brimstone rant: “The Dawkins Letters came very simply: I didn't intend to write a book, I just wrote an open letter to Dawkins that appeared on his website and got a phenomenal response – most of it incredibly abusive.” Speaking of criticism from Dawkins that he is merely trying to make a living off the Oxford don’s back, Robertson is philosophical: “It’s quite hilarious considering he has sold 2 million books off the back of a God he says doesn't exist.”

There is no line of argument or process of thought that can stump Robertson tonight; his Christian faith stands as firm at the end as it was in the beginning. Equally, there are no revelations for committed atheists here and the unanswered whys and wherefores of the universe are met only with the catch-all of Faith. Of course, it is Faith that drives Robertson’s belief in his message and the way he goes about delivering it, and it is this that is perhaps most disappointing for the floating voter. The well trodden “commonsense” arguments of atheists are countered with talk of evidence, even "valid" evidence, but little substance is in reality forthcoming.

Dawkins’ most famous and oft quoted argument against the loving God of Christianity, the partisan God of the Old Testament, is so often regurgitated for Robertson that it now appears to bore him. But despite having clearly heard this all before, his retaliation can seem garbled: “I think it's a question that is based upon presuppositions that are wrong. It's a cheap shot…but the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are one and the same. There are aspects of that Revelation of him that appear to be particularly horrendous, and those are very, very difficult questions to answer. My argument would be that we need to look at those questions in context, not rush to immediate judgments.” One would have thought that 4,000 years of history would be enough time to avoid rushing to immediate judgments but Robertson seems reluctant to weigh into this debate with any more substance.

Although refusing the title of Liberal Christian, it would be difficult to describe Robertson’s interpretation of the Bible as anything else. It is clear that his determination to have Faith in God is met with an equal amount of reluctance to commit to any concrete set of beliefs about scripture. On creation and Creationism he comments: “Every Christian is a creationist in the sense that we believe that God created us. My argument is that the Church in this country has largely been creationist in the sense of Old Earth Creationist or Theistic Evolutionist—and there are a significant number of Young Earth Creationists as well—but I don't care personally. I can live with all three. I think that the Bible will allow for all three positions; the Bible says nothing about the age of the Earth.”

It is perhaps this aspect of Robertson’s argument that is most refreshing. His attempts to reconcile diverging opinions on Christian dogma identify the man as a tolerant face of positive Christianity and explain why his letters have been met with so much interest from Christians, agnostics and atheists alike. Robertson’s point of contention with Dawkins is not the latter’s atheism but rather the vitriol that permeates and characterises his lines of argument.

That there are those who exploit humanity under the banner of religion is not a state of affairs lost on Robertson. However, as he sees it, so obsessed is contemporary media by the idea of extremism that moderation is something many fear no longer exists except in themselves.

“Religion is like sex or money: it can be used and abused but no one is going to turn around and say, ‘No sex! No money!’ I'm saying exactly the same. It is part of our human nature to seek after God; we have a God consciousness within and it is that very desire that allows people to exploit religion. And religion can be very exploitative and oppressive. What Dawkins is saying is truth but it's not the whole truth.”

Many will never be able to join the invisible dots that allow Robertson to have Faith in an implausible God. But so refreshing is this minister’s quest for tolerance that none can leave his presence without reassessing their own preconceptions of the faithful.