In "The Inconvenient Truth About Evidence" Stephen Campana argues that compelling evidence does not necessarily produce certainty since evidence can point in opposite directions. Using the JonBenét Ramsey murder case to illustrate, he shows how the same body of evidence can support seemingly contradictory conclusions. Applying this lesson to the resurrection of Jesus, Campana aims to show that persuasive evidence on either side does not, by itself, determine what actually happened historically. Furthermore, because interpretations of evidence are shaped by prior beliefs, experiences, desires, and expectations, different assumptions about what is possible can generate radically different conclusions even when starting from the same evidence. Thus when the evidence remains genuinely ambiguous, humility is appropriate. From a Christian perspective that distinguishes a gift of faith from an objective weighing of evidence, Campana concludes that in place of assuming that one's own interpretation is correct, we ought to accept the understanding that makes the most sense to us while simultaneously recognizing that we could be wrong.
In this article Helen Jefferson and Robert Shaw examine how rigid dogma affects mental health within the Jehovah’s Witness movement. It draws on John Spencer’s 1975 study, whose analysis explored how hyper-vigilance sustained by a century of failed prophecies and the sect's "tangential" interpretations of the Bible maintained potentially pre-psychotic states. The narrative culminates in the Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body's March 2026 policy shift that abruptly permitted the medical use of one's own blood, highlighting the tragic human cost of absolute loyalty to arbitrary and shifting dictates.
A Christian friend gave Daniel June some solid advice on how he should be building up his
marriage, and that advice inspired him to write this informal critique of the Christian
bestseller This Momentary Marriage by John Piper. With a bit of humor, June argues that
Piper's "Jesus-and-his-bride-the-Church" model of a modern marriage, where the wife is subservient to a husband who can do no wrong, is a completely absurd model on which to base any respectful modern marriage.
Based on conversations with religious family members, Bob Harriet outlines key takeaway points about rational deliberation about religion with the faithful. He concludes, for instance, that fundamentalists reside in a bubble that cannot be penetrated from the outside by philosophical arguments, the results of biblical scholarship, or other such academic concerns. Thus, unless freethinkers particularly enjoy engaging in argument for its own sake, or have other reasons for offering up arguments, it is best to simply live and let live given (as Harriet sees it) the futility of attempts to change the beliefs of the faithful.
"It is misguided to regard the growth of Creationism as a major threat to Western civilization. On the contrary, Creationism is exactly what we can expect to see from a collapsing religion. It's last-ditch defensive behavior—the equivalent of a hedgehog rolling into a ball. It's what's left of Christianity when all the behavioral precepts have been discarded. It is belief for the sake of belief. So if you're an atheist, please don't waste too much energy on Creationism."
