John Gee claims in his new book intro that there's no need for his new book

[_Tom]

I don’t mean to say that 3-5,000 copies have been sold. Rather, I believe that Amazon and FairMormon sold their initial stock (whatever it was) to DezNatters and Dr. Gee’s friends (plus some critics of the book). I would assume that RSC won’t provide additional copies to Amazon and other book sellers until RSC’s further review of the book is complete (although the Amazon page now says that copies usually ship in 2-5 weeks; maybe Amazon has another source). I see that copies remain available at the BYU online bookstore and the Seagull Book website.

https://mobile.Twitter.com/FiverMacGyve ... 9204007937 (pic of response from Deseret Book).

[_I have a question]

Riess gives some thoughts and insights...

According to the publisher, the book is currently under additional review.

https://religionnews.com/2020/09/08/con ... -john-gee/

A second problem is that Gee seems to be reading mostly scholars who agree with him, while neglecting important researchers who have reached opposite conclusions (Sherkat, Zuckerman) and even those whose conclusions would support at least some of his critiques (Woodhead, the later writings of Berger).

Thirdly, the book sometimes makes simplistic conclusions about complicated issues. He argues many times that secularization is merely a narrative told and retold by social scientists who are themselves agnostics or atheists, and that they persist in this untrue narrative because it legitimates their own irreligion. He asserts early in the book that secularization theory is “promoted by social scientists, 61% of whom describe themselves as atheists.” Considering that only 4% of Americans identify as atheists, that 61% figure seemed highly improbable, so I read the original study he cites in the book—which he has substantially misinterpreted.

What Neil Gross and Solon Simmons said in their 2006 research was that atheists and agnostics were “more likely to be found in some disciplines than in others,” and that the fields of psychology and biology led the way at 61%. So rather than claiming that 61% of all social scientists “describe themselves as atheists,” it would be accurate to say that one 2006 study showed that 61% of psychology professors who were then teaching at American institutions of higher education described themselves as atheist or agnostic.

Considering that psychology is just one branch of social science and that many social scientists don’t work in academia at all, using this study to advance a claim that 61% of all social scientists consider themselves atheists is ridiculous.

In a further attempt to show that professors are undermining college students’ faith, Gee also misinterprets other findings about religiosity on campus. He correctly quotes one study saying that one-third of college professors have unfavorable views toward Mormons but then follows that up by stating, “Thus faculty members tend to have negative feelings toward Latter-day Saints.”

For starters, this ignores the fact that according to the study, two-thirds of professors did not express negative feelings, and gives the impression that anti-Mormon bias was somehow universal among faculty.

Moreover, he neglects the larger context given in the study, in which professors’ views toward members of some minority religious groups were noticeably more positive than the views of the general population. While it’s unfortunate that a third of professors held negative views of Mormons, only a third of the general population had positive views of Mormons (35%). This means that Gee’s depiction of faculty members somehow singling out Latter-day Saints for censure is an unfounded interpretation of the actual research.

But he doesn’t offer new research of his own, and he plays too loosely with the research of others to make this worth recommending. The book may have disappeared from the shelves because of what the author said about sexuality, but the publisher’s decision was the right one even outside of what the author or others might be tempted to dismiss as an example of “cancel culture.” The book is an inaccurate and skewed reconstruction of other people’s research in the sociology of religion.

(emphasis added)

What an embarrassment.

[_Tom]

Thank you, IHAQ. I wonder when Dr. Midgley’s review of Dr. Gee’s book will be posted on the Interpreter website. Dr. Midgley has opined that Saving Faith is “truly remarkable,” “stunning,” and “terrific” and that Dr. Riess’ book is “terrible.”

[_Dr Exiled]

Thank you, IHAQ. I wonder when Dr. Midgley’s review of Dr. Gee’s book will be posted on the Interpreter website. Dr. Midgley has opined that Saving Faith is “truly remarkable,” “stunning,” and “terrific” and that Dr. Riess’ book is “terrible.”

Midge probably needs to read both books first, lol.

[_I have a question]

Interestingly the Amazon reviews are currently
5 Stars 51%
4 stars 0%
3 stars 0%
2 stars 0%
1 star 49%

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/reviews/19 ... geNumber=2

[_Philo Sofee]

Interestingly the Amazon reviews are currently
5 Stars 51%
4 stars 0%
3 stars 0%
2 stars 0%
1 star 49%

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/reviews/19 ... geNumber=2

Well, Mopologists do love to do group think, and group vote......

[_Dr Moore]

“Most of those who have seriously read this book give it a 5 star review.”

[_Philo Sofee]

“Most of those who have seriously read this book give it a 5 star review.”

Had it been a Methodist author or a Catholic one, it never would have even been read. Mormons always Morm in favor of their brothers and sisters....

[_Kishkumen]

Interestingly the Amazon reviews are currently
5 Stars 51%
4 stars 0%
3 stars 0%
2 stars 0%
1 star 49%

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/reviews/19 ... geNumber=2

These look like the results of a US presidential election.