Regarding the Accommodationist topic, you guys drilled down to a key point in terms of the conversation the two respective sides undertake in discussing this topic but I think you needed to go one step further. The point at which Massimo spoke of the two sides "not talking the same language" and relative "incoherence", is when I would have liked to have heard that fleshed out more on a pragmatic level. When "Last Thursdayism (LT)" is invoked, it certainly can serve as a conversational "trump card." However, it can not and does not serve any purpose from a practical standpoint. In fact, if LT (in its broadest form throughout all topics, not just religion) were to be honestly accepted as a normative form of understanding, then our ability to communicate would essentially vanish as the ramblings from the insane would carry as much weight as comments from the supposed sane.

Regarding the consciousness topic, it's generally accepted that the brain is not likely to be an independent source of consciousness. In other words, having a brain in a vat won't do it. It requires the entire body, including critical things like a central nervous system, in order fully grapple with the emergence of consciousness. While it's common to only bring up the brain when discussing consciousness (as was done in this episode), I think it perpetuates the simplistic "brain=consciousness" paradigm and therefore doesn't lend itself to providing a greater understanding of this complex topic. As a suggestion when talking about consciousness, please remember to give credit to non-brain parts of our body.

An interesting show - thankyou!

Listening to it, I began to wonder if the dispute between the purists and the accomodationists isn't really over what religion is, rather than about the limits of science. For example, Dawkins (a purist) doesn't say that science can falsify the metaphysical claims of religion, but instead emphasizes the empirical content of the religion, and infers from this conception of what religion is that science has something to say regarding s religion's truth. An accomodationist, such as yourself, would point back to the metaphysical content, and to various moves which rescind the empirical claims.
What I take from this is that the two parties each have a different conception of the core claims of religion. The purists think that at least some of the core claims are empirical, and where a metaphysical 'recapture' of a claim is made, this is a kind of excuse made behalf of the empirical claim, and not a genuine rescindment. So on this view, intercessory prayer is a core belief, believers think it works, and those believers who appeal to the possibility of God's not playing our scientific game do not usually believe this, but merely point it out so as to avoid criticism and retain their faith.
On the other hand, accomodationists take the core claims of religion to be metaphysical, perhaps primarily ethical. They view the empirical claims as part of the historical baggage of a religion, not as central to concerns of the religious, and therefore think that attacks on the empirical claims fail to substantially engage with religion. They take the metaphysical recapture to show that the empirical claims are not important.
I doubt either position is wholly right, since it seems to me that there's enough diversity of religious opinion that both descriptions apply. Some believers will have a rather esoteric conception of God, and so their beliefs will be primarily metaphysical. Some believers will take the empirical claims seriously, and think of the esoteric interpretations of God as woolly-headed and without content. Given this, a mixture of philosophy and science is appropriate to criticize religion, not just one or the other. After all, what else should we expect with such a notoriously broad and indefinite concept as 'religion'?

I think what's being missed here is the fact that almost all of the people that atheists are arguing with are not the kind of people who assert that their religion is empirically equivalent to "last Thursday-ism". None of the theists I've argued with would accept that comparison. They'd call it a straw man. Once you've got to the point where you can get your opponent to admit that their beliefs are equivalent to that, you've won the argument as far as any reasonable person is concerned. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

No-one actually lives their lives as if the physical world is just a solipsistic illusion. There is no real argument between the accommodationists and the purists beyond the semantics as far as I can see. Dawkins and Hitchens both agree with you. They don't say they can disprove gods, they just say that theists can't demonstrate their beliefs. You people aren't in disagreement! Please try to communicate with each other better so we can get on with actually tackling our common foes.

I found the thesis put forward in this rather strange. It seems like what was being said was "Sure, science and religion are compatible, because one can simply deny the validity of science (by applying whimsical and silly ad hoc theological explanations)". I felt like the thesis had little to say about the conflict between religion and science, and seemed self-defeating to an extent - science and religion are compatible, but only if you reject the validity of one (in at least a few key areas). I could be wrong (i've generally only heard one side of the argument), but I don't think this really addressed what the "purist" vs "accommodationist" argument is really about.