I just got my copy of the book and started reading it immediately. Right of the bat, I find the following glaring example of the No True Scotsman-fallacy:

"Such familiar 'God-talk' can - for those in need or those who are, by nature, more superstitious and/or not inclined to be critical or skeptical of religious beliefs - speak comfort, security, and apparent sense to the human mind."

The next sentence, about "unquestioning believers" who feel that their beliefs are comprehensive, coherent and consistent with what they do and know, looks like a straw man to me, leading to the trivial conclusion that such belief (as postulated by the author) cannot forestall profound questions and real doubts and concerns.

I hope this picks up soon because I had very high expectations of this book and I would hate to be disappointed.

I don't think so rt. There is no argument (or counter-argument) being made here. Nor is a definitive statement being made in an effort to reinterpret evidence or construct and then attack a "straw man" to refute a position taken.

Anyone can be "in need" at particular times in their lives, to find comfort in "such familiar 'God-talk'". Moreover, it is not unreasonable to infer that those who "are, by nature, more superstitious and/or not inclined to be skeptical or critical of religious belief" "can" also find such comfort, whether "in need" or not.

The word "can" here is I think significant, as are the words "might seem" in the next sentence. In both sentences merely possible or even likely conditions are proposed that 'can' or 'might' account for the comforting and reasonably assuring affects "familiar" 'God-talk' have on those who are affected by it. That's all there is to this.

Hope this answers your question.

Thanks for the clarification, Tom. I'm a bit further in my reading now. It's not that I disagree with what you are saying but I think the way you say it weakens your argument (I'm just referring to pp. xvi-xix now).

When you use terms like "most (if not all) members", "all Mormon believers - particularly those who are informed, thoughtful and formally educated in the natural sciences and philosophy", "reflective Mormons", "more rational Mormon believers", "many more faithful Mormon believers", "then there are those who might also wonder" without offering supporting evidence (e.g. surveys or other sociological research on religion and/or Mormonism) that such Mormons actually exist and think what you say they think, it looks like you're setting up a long string of straw men to make your points.

True, you qualify all these statements with the necessary "mights" and "coulds" but that only weakens the argument further.

Once or twice you refer to "the Mormons you know". I think that would have been a better way to present the various forms of doubt a (Mormon) believer experiences. Alternatively, you could have drawn on your personal experiences as you were starting to doubt. That would have made it very powerful and appealing to the reader.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2013 04:14AM by rt.

Thanks for your thoughts, rt. I think they certainly have merit in the context of argumentation.

Still, and again, however, there is no "argument", and therefore no argument to "weaken". Even the offering of "survey" and "sociological research" as you suggest, if such existed in this regard, would only be warranted if I was making an argument or a case.

The picture I paint of "some," "most," or "all" Mormons "I know" or that are currently active in their faith is just that, a composite picture I paint based on my personal experiences, observations and inferences as a former insider of 20 years. As such, either the picture looks like the reader or it doesn't.

I, of course, happen to think the picture is an accurate one (as far as it goes), and arguably has its own unique credibility as all "insider's" first-hand perspectives do, although it admittedly can be nothing more than "my picture," based, as all such characterizations are, on the only and best, albeit fallible, lights I have from the inside as a former insider. (In writing this I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes from the renowned psychotherapist and author, Carl Rogers, who, on the basis of his long and esteemed career as a psychotherapist concluded that "That which is most personal is most universal.")

Either way, the Introduction, after all, is a "personal" introduction as stated in its title, written in part to create a context for real doubt, and to advocate later the need to value and therapeutically attend to such doubt, which is likely betrayed in numerous ways. The arguments come later, after the foundation and premises are established in the FP and Chs. 1 and 2.

Incidentally, my personal experiences with real doubt, including my conversion and deconversion experiences and reasons for leaving the church and writing the book, come later in the Personal Introduction, as well as in the Personal Postscript and Appendix A.