I don't know if I dare jump in on this one, but I'll go ahead and make myself an easy target since I am a positive atheist with respect to the Christian Diety.
In regards to Perry's leading question in the OP: I believe being part of a high pressure religion vs a moderate one makes a person more keen on the sensation of "doing cognitive dissonance." There is a palpable feeling to having a legitimate doubt, calling the doubt evil, then feeling good about avoiding it. This is a necessary cycle for the cult member. In general, since leaving JW's, I view having a degree of conflicting opinions as a good thing. Engage in some dialectical boot strapping and explore the sources of doubt. Find the best answers for things which are known/knowable. Freely admit what isn't known or knowable. Viola, my naturalist worldview.
I first encountered dissonance theory while still a JW in Cialdini's book Influence. I was working in the technical sales biz and this was required reading with a few other classic business books. Cialdini included a section on dissonance from Leon Festinger's original research. This helped me see the answer to an all important fact about JW's: I was in a situation where I knew that if I were wrong, it would be impossible for me to find out and still be a good JW. This was a perfect catch 22 which lead me down the road of discovery.
At any rate, Festinger's research from the 50's has been significantly modified and is pretty out dated. The flawed attack on the skeptical mindset common among atheists does not hold up, and is usually twisted as Perry has done into an accusation of making science a religion of sorts.
I think all former JW's should get several years of talk therapy with a good counselor to help integrate their personality in a healthy way. Then you'll never jump on another bandwagon.
Now, for Perry's challenge in the fine tuning debacle:
In order to declare a constant "tuned" assumes that the value in question has a possible range of set-points. So my question to Perry is "What is the possible range of values for the ratio of the strong and weak nuclear forces?"
In general, these numbers are cooked up to look very small and unlikely with no prior discussion of the statistical assumptions underlying the conclusion. Bad argument, in general. See my thread on good / bad theistic arguments. This is a bad one.