Bradbury made many irrational claims and remarks. Asimov, on the other hand, was clear, concise and factual. Stark difference.

I could listen to Asimov all day. Thanks for this.

Asimov's clarity of mind and paucity with words is so inspiring.

I've read every piece of fiction these 2 have written that I could get my hands on. Asimov wrote more from extrapolative science, Bradbury wrote more fantasy. I've loved their novels and stories since learning to read, and highly recommend the experience. Their writings reveal so much about the psychology and sociology of our species.

Bradbury is a great writer. But, I'll follow Asimov on the science.

A quote from Omni magazine, decades ago ; Religion sells people comfort from the fear of their own mortality.

Ray was my neighbor growing up and friend. I love this recording of him, it shows who he was, how he looked at the world, and what I knew - his excitement for life. I miss him. I was with him a few months before he died. He knew the inevitable was coming soon, but still was as sharp as a tack and always preached to love the people in your life as much as you could.

These two don't really belong in any serious comparison between them. Yes, both are famous for their science fiction writings, but Bradbury was more of a poet who happened to write some science fiction, and Azimov was an actual scientist. In these interviews, Azimov makes solid assertions out of his considerable knowledge and training, and Bradbury mostly just rambles saying not much at all.

That was a breath of fresh air. To hear such an intelligent and prolific man like Asimov speak how I feel about religion. Such a cool guy.

There's no one like Isaac Asimov. I, thankfully, discovered his non-fiction writing 30 years ago and I'm blown away by his directness, clarity, honesty, knowledge and singular purpose of educating. Read his guides to Shakespeare, the bible and anything you can find of his non-fiction writing. I can't speak to his fiction writing, as I haven't read that, but his bridge from the scientific world to the layman's world is eye-opening. I owe my escape from religious thought to Carl Sagan, but most of my education of reality is because of Isaac Asimov's beautifully "simple" factual writings. He's also one of the most prolific writers of all time, so there's a lot to read.

Bradbury seems to argue that since knowlege is approximate, all competing theories can be married under their own ignorance. Im sure we will never know or understand all the intricacies of life or how earth came be as it is, but we undoubtedly have a more robust explanation in an empirical explanation through science than we ever have gotten from anyone's interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis.

While I am an atheist, I still enjoy Bradbury a lot. Although it wasn't sci-fi, "Sun and Shadow" was my favorite story.

Religion began when the first conman met the first fool -- Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)

Fifty years ago as a child, I couldn't stomach Ray Bradbury's writing.

Agree with Isaac ... I grown up with his books and he's one of those helped me to see and understand .

Ray Bradbury considers knowledge derived from the scientific method, is basically the same quality as that which comes from religious speculation, saying it produces the same kind of uncertain results. Isaac Asimov, on the other hand, does not hesitate to ascribe science based knowledge as clearly superior to that derived from religious speculation. In regard to these two different views, I definitely support Isaac Asimov's view, that subjects studied using scientific research methods yields more true and accurate results than religious speculation.

i used to read these author's books when i was a teen. now i'm 79 and things, knowledge, have progressed way beyond that time.

The ABCs of science fiction are Asimov, Bradbury, and Clarke. I've read dozens of books from each, and appreciate each author for their own unique style. Asimov dealt with huge ideas and tied stories that span millennia together with great characters. Bradbury told smaller, more fantastic tales that were really entertaining and memorable. But for the hardest of hard sci-fi, nobody beats Clarke. Would have liked to see pieces of some of his interviews in this collection, too.

There is a world of difference between a myth and a scientific theory.

Anybody who says "It's only a theory" about what science has discovered doesn't understand what "theory" means in a scientific context.