The book pretty much states as its explicit purpose making as many people as possible aware that being religious is a choice and that there can be alternatives. Watertight philosophical rigor would probably harm that goal.
Getting smart people to think that religion deserves seriously thought out counterarguments might just be a way for theists to keep winning anyway.
The book pretty much states as its explicit purpose making as many people as possible aware that being religious is a choice and that there can be alternatives. Watertight philosophical rigor would probably harm that goal.
Getting smart people to think that religion deserves seriously thought out counterarguments might just be a way for theists to keep winning anyway.
Fully watertight philosophical rigour is probably optimising the wrong thing, yes. c.f. Mencken on one horse-laugh versus ten thousand syllogisms.