2 Hours with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and Christopher Hitchens

This is not very new (it’s from December 2007), but I only found the time today to watch it, and I found it intellectually delicious. Four brilliant minds (who don’t agree in many ways) having a fascinating (and polite!) discussion about religion and atheism.

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and Christopher Hitchens

Please, watch it. Really. Just click on the image above. I suggest downloading the files first and watching them in the best available quality, instead of using YouTube.

For believers, it may surprise you to find out how “strident”, “shrill” and “fanatical” these four bestselling authors really are. :)

For non-believers, don’t pass this by because you expect it be just “preaching to the choir”. As I said, the discussion is, in my opinion, fascinating and absolutely stimulating, and it will sure get you thinking about stuff you hadn’t considered before.

Related posts:

  1. Hitchens vs. Hitchens
  2. More on the Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett / Harris discussion (part 1): belief and emotional investment
  3. More on the Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett / Harris discussion (part 2): the immaturity of religious arguments
  4. More on the Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett / Harris discussion (part 4): creating a false, but positive religion
  5. More on the Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett / Harris discussion (part 3): "God exists" implies Christianity?

2 Responses to “2 Hours with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and Christopher Hitchens”


  1. 1 Webs

    It’s very fascinating and intellectually stimulating. But beyond this you also get a chance to see how human the four really are.

  2. 2 Pedro Timóteo

    Indeed. I only have a slight problem (and it’s *very* slight) with Hitchens. Not because I disagree with him (I loved his book, for instance, though I disagree with his opinion on the Iraq war — he doesn’t admit that it had zilch to do with terrorism), but because he reminds me of a couple of people I knew in the past.

    They absolutely loved arguing for the sake of arguing, up to the point that they would play devil’s advocate, support positions they actually opposed, or even contradict themselves in the space of a single discussion, just so that they could keep arguing and disagreeing. If you agreed with them, they would instantly “change their mind” and argue against their previous (and your new) position.

    While that may be interesting and even fun as an intellectual exercise, it could also get pretty exasperating, in the way that you’d begin to feel like the other person doesn’t really care for the truth, or about what’s right or wrong, he’s just disagreeing to keep the discussion going, and you’re wasting your time arguing with him.

    Hitchens reminds me a little of those people, which is why I could not entirely shake a little feeling of annoyance. But I still admire the guy, and love to hear him talk or to read what he writes.

Leave a Reply








Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal