The best way to review this book is by reading it objectively. In this world, it is almost guaranteed that most people would not agree on most topics, particularly profound issues that span over the fields of philosophy, theology, ethics, etc... There is so much to learn out there, and perhaps the best strategy would be to observe and acquire as much as possible; quite often, those who have too much to say end up regretting their positions. Accordingly, although I disagree with most of what has been said in this book, I made sure to review it objectively. Plus, it is always enlightening to be mentally challenged, and this is exactly where this book dissatisfied me the most.

As a start, I do not think that the whole thesis of this book has been addressed adequately, at least in a philosophical manner. If one were to discern the acceptance of religion as a transaction, and since all choices require a prominent leap of faith, establishing a game-theoretical approach would explicate the presence of a myriad of gaps in the author's arguments, especially the ones related to the afterlife. If I want to be honest and fair, I would say that the philosophical discussion was not profound and somehow lacking in maturity; it is nowhere close to the required philosophical league which adheres to these issues. For example, any deistic philosopher (and a few readings by Immanuel Kant) -and here I employ deism instead of classical theism because it was not considered in the book; countless individuals have employed reason to arrive at comparable conclusions as those found in theology, especially ones related to the afterlife- could easily refute almost everything that has been said about this transaction, and this is mentioned to point out the philosophical immaturity that was presented, in addition to the absence of any profundity in the discussion. Here lies my disappointment: at countless occasions, it was unchallenging, even repetitive, and quite expectable, which are all signs we would not wish to see in a book discussing a topic of this magnitude. In addition to that, the main challenge that faces the transaction was not properly adhered to nor properly assessed. Yes, it still appears that the gains of this world are quite finite and negligible in comparison to those of the afterlife, and the suffering there seems infinite in comparison to the one here; thus, why should we not make that leap? The fact that there are many options or one could 'create' a god which would punish us for believing in other gods does not really answer anything; the topic still requires a much more thorough discussion.

Another point I would like to discuss is the following: the writer tried to chew some very big chunks. Choosing only one of those religions discussed briefly and trying to cover their philosophical and theological dimensions would fill up volumes, and just refuting them in a few paragraphs would not really mean anything from a theological perspective. For example, the two discussed religions in which I consider myself to be somehow informed about, namely Judaism and Islam, are infinitely more profound than what has been mentioned. For instance, the problem of the afterlife in Judaism is extremely much more intricate than what has been very briefly discussed. Many books and papers discuss that, and a well-informed theologian would not dare make the decisive statement made in this book about the afterlife in Judaism. This implies a lack of knowledge in what the author was talking about, and it just gave off signs of a shallow reading of the religion. Another instance where that was evinced too was when he discussed Islam. I have many points to discuss from a scholarly perspective, but that is not the aim of the review. It just appeared that the author was not sufficiently informed about the profundity of the religion (from an objective perspective) and the topics which he cherry-picked and presented decisively. For example, an instance of an absurd narrative presented in the Quran from the author's perspective is Alexander the Great's establishment of a great wall of iron. However, theologians who are aware of the countless debates in the religion would tell you that no one is sure that Thu-Al-Karnayn (as mentioned in Surat Al Kahf) is actually Alexander, and the nature of that wall he built is also a matter of debate. The fact that the author presented this is to be a decisive event (and this is meant to serve as an example of other instances where the same lack of information was manifest) makes the whole intention questionable. Also, the criteria upon which God places people in heaven or hell appears to be different in the Quran from what the author claimed it to be; the Islamic view on that instead is something completely different, and that is supported by many pieces of evidence in the Quran. It appears as if the author did not venture on 'studying' those religions to stumble upon the truth or learn something new; it somehow appears that this whole study is flawed by the fatal error of confirmational bias, a mistake many people make. It truly leads to a parochial study, and the person doing that would be missing out on a lot. The author was initially convinced with something due to his experience of losing faith, and then he ventured out on proving it in other realms that should have been studied in a much more profound and thorough manner.

I salute the author's efforts, and I do not intend to undermine him or his work. It was just that the whole discourse of the book was generally dissatisfying and truly unchallenging. Instead, I encourage him to venture on perpetually questioning his conclusions and trying to study everything in the absence of any previously present bias. Eventually, we are all somehow trying to find the same thing, and it is our attitude towards it that defines who we are.