This is fairly likable, if you like this sort of thing, but there is an element of fish-in-a-barrel dynamiting about it, and it is not clear exactly what the intended audience is: the fish are certainly not paying attention, and the prose hews more closely to the style of professional analytic philosophy (i.e. it reads more like a discussion of complex but remorseless end-game strategy in chess - if your opponent moves his knight here, then you can move your pawn here, if, on the other hand, he moves is queen here, then you move your bishop there...) than popular journalism. I wonder how much of a popular appetite for this sort of thing there is. The sort of people who are likely to read it (people with decent degrees, who do not believe in god, or crystal power, or the Daily Mail, but who sometimes, and more often than they would admit, have a weakness for homeopathy), are not likely to find a lot to disagree with, or to be surprised by: what they will get, and it is worth having, is everything in one place.
I was not expecting the focus to be so much on attacking theological arguments. I was, to be honest, expecting a more general discussion of intellectual hygiene. But it is fairly short, and, as I said, if you like this sort of thing, then it is worth the read. Or at least most of it: I suspect that only a professional philosopher would bother to stop to take a swing at Alvin Plantinga, and I'm a bit skeptical that reliabilism has quite carried the field in epistemology to the extent that Law implies.