OVER DEZE AFLEVERING
Jonathan Simmons argues that religious apologists often deflect criticism by attacking researchers' credibility and reframing critical inquiry as bias or persecution. Focusing on a dispute between Stephen Kent and Massimo Introvigne, Simmons contends that parts of academia have become overly protective of religious claims, resisting the application of standard scientific and psychological analysis.
Read this article and find accompanying references at:
About the Author:
Jonathan Simmons, PhD, is an independent scholar and higher education professional whose research examines nonreligion and social movements in North America. His doctoral work analyzed moral identity and activism in Canadian atheist communities, and his current research focuses on Indigenous religious change and nonreligion. His scholarly articles have appeared in Secular Studies, Religion and Gender, and Social Movement Studies, examining topics ranging from feminist atheist activism to the intersections of nonreligion with social justice movements.
Subscribe to Free Inquiry: https://secularhumanism.org/subscribe/
