The text is a bit heavy going particularly in the early 2 chapters where the author lays down the parameters and definitions for the following discussion. Thoroughly enjoyable. Throughout the serious discussion, there is some well-placed humour that adds to the enjoyment of this wonderful read. Dawkins comes in for a bit-of-stick. Aristotle and Aquinas get recognition.
It's a one note rant. I was going to say 'and full of ad hominems' but that wouldn't be true. He doesn't dismantle Dennet's and Dawkins writings by attacking the man...he simply misrepresents them (I'm not sure if it's intentional or not). The personal insults are just that. Personal insults.
Fesser comes across as a fractious child who wants to know why nobody will listen to him. This book should explain why. Because what he does say is badly written, repetitive, weakly argued and mostly irrelevant. I don't mind some passion in what I read. I fact, it's a prerequisite. You must show you really care. But Eddy comes across as petulant and frustrated.