A review of Dr. Midgley's review of Dr. Gee's book
A big thanks to Dan for forcing the issue at Interpreter and getting this review published.
Midgley's review of Dr. Gee's attempt at politically conservative sociology does not exude Midgley's trademark wrath against the critics. This is not the man I know who will cross an ocean to give a critic a piece of his mind. And so, my biggest criticism of his essay is that he doesn't sell me on his belief that Dr. Gee's book is 'remarkable.' It feels like he was forced to write it.
Normally I'd point out that the apologist should feign objectivity for the sake of convincing their base that they would point out a flaw if they saw one, but this time the unilateral praise feels like checking boxes. It's "remarkable", "every word is excellent okay? Goodbye, I've got other things to do now."Dr. Midgley wrote:I have tossed out several earlier attempts to address the contents of each of its excellent chapters. When I first began to draft a review, I discovered that I simply could not address all of the excellent content in each of its ten chapters.
Although Dr. Midgley should be applauded for his brevity and ability to get to the point, something Interpreter contributors struggle with immensely, given the supposed complexity of Gee's book, his short statement on Gee's work feels inadequate. It may very well be that after putting countless hours into vindicating Gee on every point, cog dis built up to the point where he couldn't tie it together, and had to abandon the effort.
Others have pointed out this doosy. This is Gee's Nibley influence. "If you want to know where I got that specific point, go read the entire library like I did!"Dr. Midgley wrote:If I have counted correctly, Saving Faith has 1,052 footnotes, and at least half of these draw upon contemporary social science scholarship central to the issues addressed in the book. The reader can be assured that Gee has not manufactured evidence to support a revisionist ideology, which some others seem to have done.2
Par for the course. "The critics have nothing! the youth are leaving due to sin, and their parents' sin!"Dr. Midgley wrote:Saving Faith begins by addressing rumors (rife in some circles) that Latter-day Saint young people are leaving their faith in “droves.” He demonstrates that while, in America, we do “lose some of our youth, certainly more than we would like,” the fact is that, when compared with Roman Catholics and Protestants, “we hold on to more of our youth than anyone else”
“Most of the reasons why youth leave the Church have to do with either [Page 227]events that disrupt routines (for example, divorce, moving) or behaviors (for example, drugs, drink, sex, or sin), not intellectual issues” (p. 290). “Doubts” it turns out, “generally play a role” in youth leaving the Church of Jesus Christ “only when combined with other factors,” which include “a lack of commitment to and the importance set on the Church in the teenage years by their parents”
It's an interesting data point if true that Mormon youth are leaving in smaller droves than elsewhere. It would be nice to know if the reasons are the same. Are the youth leaving the Catholic church for intellectual reasons or the same reasons Mormons are? If intellectual reasons are a non-issue, then why do we need Mopologetics?
Studying FARMS doesn't even come in at number 5?Midgley wrote:The “statistically effective factors for individuals to retain their faith are,” Gee demonstrates, “(1) daily prayer, (2) regular scripture reading, (3) weekly Church attendance, and (4) keeping the law of chastity” (p. 290).
I feel like either Midgley or Gee is leaving something out, but let's continue:
And --Midgley wrote:We need to give youth and young adults reasons to believe rather than reasons not to leave. … This is not about changing the Church so that atheist determinists or moral relativists (or followers of whatever wind of doctrine) can feel comfortable coming to church,
Midgley says the book is fantastic, touches the Mopologist talking points, and it's a wrap. The first talking point: "It's not for intellectual reasons!" Sure. My personal experiences agree. I've said before that out of all the people I personally know in real life who have fallen to inactivity, I can't think of anyone who even claims it's for intellectual reasons but me. But if the reason is "sin", and the fix is read, pray, and go to church, did we really need a book with 1000 footnotes to tell us what we already know? The sin accusations are mainly the apologists swinging their axes at online critics. "You guys aren't intellectuals, you're a bunch of sinners!"Gee wrote:A number of the topics discussed [in this book] are sensitive to various people,
we do not like having our pet sins pointed out or poked.
Are youth leaving the Catholic Church leaving mainly due to sin? This generation of youth is just several times more sinful than Midgley's generation? There isn't anything else to explore -- social media, online gaming, explosive cost of living for young people while their church hoards wealth? Trauma from school shootings? Trauma from online bullying? Exposure of child predation rampant throughout close-knit religious communities and leaders fighting tooth-and-nail to cover it up?
Oh, there is that other talking point. We don't need to become the Church of woke. Sure. I somewhat agree with that also. Years ago, Don Bradly wrote a review of Sam Harris and the point that stuck out the most to me was the point that churches that liberalize fail. It's fundamentalism that sells.
And so, I really don't disagree with Midgley's main two talking points, except that all Gee is really doing is swinging his axe at liberal believers and critics while his boat is sinking. It's not for intellectual reasons, and liberalizing probably won't work; great, but it can't all be just because of sin and lazy parenting. There is a universal phenomena here, but all Gee really has to say is that the gaping hole in our boat is one centimeter less in diameter than the giant hole in all the other boats.
From Migdley's review, it sounds like Gee has written a book that merely toes the Mopologist party line and fails to even try to understand why there is a big hole in all the boats on the lake. Instead of seriously trying to understand the problem, they're standing in their sinking boat screaming at everyone they don't like, calling them out as sinners. Is this virtue-signaling to the Brethren? Mopologist tunnel vision? Obstinance with such momentum it just can't stop? It seems like the book is pointless, and that Midgley tacitly agrees, as he offers the lowest-energy by-the-numbers review I've ever seen from him.