The person who wrote this book does not have a good grasp on a lot of the topics and the type of Discussions which are central to them.

For example, as an explanation of “purpose” he weighs the existential issue against evidence for evolution, and concludes that the latter is an acceptable answer to the very human question of our purpose or the design of the universe. He proposes that not having a teleological function is at the crux of the topic of our lives having meaning. Compare this to Earnest Becker for example, who theorised that our need for a sense of purpose is engendered by the indifferent universe, and that creating books with answers goes a long way to meeting that need.

It seems that in attempting to include a slight against religion by unnecessarily introducing an argument against Creationism from evolution theory, that the writer of this book has ironically created some sort of “open ended meaning” for himself.

And that is just one page of this book!

I understand that the writer could not cover the full scope of a topic in a single page, but such tangential, almost whimsical entries as above mean that the reader is left without an understanding of what is the crux of the topic, academically speaking.

In other words, this little book missed has seemed to miss it's very own “purpose” for publication!