[irrelig]Surprise! Kirk Hastings’ recent email drew me out of (semi-)retirement. After recovering from those withering electronic insults, I sat down with expert Hovindologist Matt W to review Hastings’ magnum opus, “What Is Truth?” We examined his many and varied claims about truthology, and how they relate to science and most especially “Darwinism.” In this episode — part one of a three-part series — we discuss Kirk’s conversion process and his absolutely unshocking failure to grasp even the basic principles of science and mathematics while he attempts to take down Darwinism. This series could also be entitled, “We read Kirk Hastings’ shitty rehashed creationist screed so you don’t have to.”

Kirk does get an A for effort, though, and should he succeed in his quest to demolish Darwin’s theory of evil-ution, he may ultimately end up with a Nobel Prize. History (or maybe the next episode, where we finish talking about the science portion of his book) will have to render a verdict on that score.

[irrelig]Although listening to it I’d hate to go out this way. It’s basically a beta version of the Loftus interview. I’m a huge fan of Dan Barker, but I seem less engaged in this one even though it was done way back in February. Leighton actually has a clue who Barker is since I loaned him my copy of Losing Faith in Faith in preparation for the E4F debate, but he’s still Leighton.

I need a break. But I am toying around with the idea of doing another episode gently critiquing Kirk Hasting’s magnum opus What is Truth? (since I’ve already finished half of the work on it) maybe with expert Hovindologist Matt Wakefield as cohost. That might be a more fitting exit for Irreligiosophy than a poorly-done interview — although come to think of it, poorly-done interviews are what we’re known for.

No matter what happens, the site and existing podcasts will remain up and available.

[irrelig]Episode 109 will be the last Irreligiosophy episode. I’m tired, the business failed (spectacularly), Leighton quit midstream and despite his many promises to pay his share, left me holding the bag for all of the debts we incurred. So I’ll be very busy over the next two to three years working hard to pay those back.

I appreciate everything our listeners have done for us, from all of the feedback (both good and bad), to putting up with our shenanigans and even donating your hard-earned cash to support the site. Thank you very much.

Perhaps Irreligiosophy will return some day, like a skeptical King Arthur in the time of atheism’s greatest need. Or maybe like that other fictional character Jesus, we’ll just keep threatening to come back and never actually do it.

[irrelig]In this episode we talk to John Loftus, atheist extraordinaire, author of “Why I Became an Atheist” and editor of “The Christian Delusion” and now “The End of Christianity” anthologies. We discuss Loftus’s trip from believer to atheist, his encounters with theists, and his “Outsider Test for Faith.”

With this episode, we’re going to start our Halloween hiatus early this year — but given the pace of the episodes thus far, I wonder if anyone will notice.

[irrelig]Chuck’s sources: Q, the Earliest Gospel by John Kloppenborg and Jesus: According to the Earliest Witnesses by James Robinson
Leighton’s source: unknown, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say Wikipedia

For this episode, we discuss the hypothetical document Q, theorized to explain the near-verbatim similarities found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. We give some brief history about the theory and then quickly delve into what the Q community, which very likely was early, rural, and Galilean, had to say about the teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

And although we’re a little late to the party, we take a moment to discuss the very serious issue of Elevatorgate.

[irrelig]We return with an interview with the inimitable Bob Price, who has recently written an eBook called “Latter-day Scripture,” which is all about Price’s look at the Book of Mormon as a work of pseudepigrapha, or “false writing.” Price compares Joseph Smith’s 19th century work with some of the pseudepigrapha in the Old and New Testament, such as Daniel or the Pastoral Epistles, and emerges with a new appreciation for an old hoax.

No Skunk Dickery this week, unless you count what goes on inside the podcast.