Changes

The book's primary weaknesses are its lack of clarity and its absence of fair representation and careful analysis of theistic arguments. The third part contains simplistic versions of theistic arguments and cursory dismissals with significantly less carefulness and charity than one should expect from an academic philosophy book. It is worth noting that the level of care and effort in faithfully representing, objecting to, strengthening, and reexamining theistic arguments typical among philosophers of religion is not modeled by the brusqueness displayed in the second half of this book.<ref>[https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/systematic-atheology-atheisms-reasoning-with-theology/ JOHN R. SHOOK, ''Systematic Atheology: Atheism's Reasoning with Theology'', Reviewed by Chris Tweedt, Christopher Newport University]</ref>}}

The book's primary weaknesses are its lack of clarity and its absence of fair representation and careful analysis of theistic arguments. The third part contains simplistic versions of theistic arguments and cursory dismissals with significantly less carefulness and charity than one should expect from an academic philosophy book. It is worth noting that the level of care and effort in faithfully representing, objecting to, strengthening, and reexamining theistic arguments typical among philosophers of religion is not modeled by the brusqueness displayed in the second half of this book.<ref>[https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/systematic-atheology-atheisms-reasoning-with-theology/ JOHN R. SHOOK, ''Systematic Atheology: Atheism's Reasoning with Theology'', Reviewed by Chris Tweedt, Christopher Newport University]</ref>}}

== See also ==

== See also ==