Before considering whether to buy this book or not you need to learn something about its title. It's completely wrong. It should've been called "Tom Morris' Religious Philosophy for dummies."
This is indeed not an introduction to philosophy book for two simple reasons. The first is that it hardly covers any areas of philosophy other than the religious aspect. For example, superficial mentions of social philosophy are scattered across a couple of chapters, hardly any serious discussion of logic can be found anywhere, and not even the slightest footnote was dedicated to political philosophy at all. One look at the book's table of contents should demonstrate that to you.
The second reason this is not an introduction to philosophy book is that Tom Morris is a heavily biased author to the extent that clearly makes this book a prejudiced study in religious philosophy. Plus, the author devotes long chapters to discussions of some of his own ideas that has nothing to do with mainstream philosophy, which is why I think the title should explain that this is a book about Tom Morris' philosophy.
The book's first part is typical of the "For Dummies" series in its humorous layman's definition of philosophy and its initial discussion of the applications of philosophy in real life. The second part jumps directly into the most daring and basic issue of philosophy, which is skepticism. The author discusses how skepticism attacks our basic beliefs about the notion of evidence and the whole personal experience with its absolute reliance on memory, testimony, and senses. Then he suggests a solution to live with skepticism without annihilating the whole body of human knowledge. He also explains why relativism is popular among students of Philosophy 101 even though it's evidently self-defeating.
Up to this point the book was up to par as per my expectations and my experience with several books about the history of philosophy. The part about skepticism is very good and if you are planning to buy the book and read up to there only then that would be fine. If you decide to carry on, however, like I did then you'll be amazed at how fast the quality of the discussions deteriorates as you go along.
The author begins a discussion of what "good" is and the meaning of happiness according to philosophical studies. Ethical philosophy and the study of morals are deep subjects and the majority of philosophers dedicated great portions of their works to the study of ethics. This is why it was very disappointing to realize that the author limited his discussion to a very narrow perspective of linguistic philosophy and didn't even talk about popular theories for the sources of moral code such as utilitarianism and objectivism. In addition, his brief remark about the religious sources of moral code turned on bias-warning lights in my head, although his bias doesn't get clearly manifest yet at that point.
Subsequently, quality takes a nosedive as the author takes on complex and controversial topics such as the free will, materialism versus dualism, the existence of god, and the meaning of life.
Mr. Morris' bias in these discussions is striking. But you can't expect anyone to be completely unbiased, one might argue. I agree to that, and I have my own biases in these discussions just like everybody else. What disturbed me though is the fact that Mr. Morris' bias is demeaning to the intelligence of the reader at best and is a betrayal at worst. As a rule of thumb, Tom will commence the discussion with the views that he disagrees with. I was able to come up with two explanations only to excuse the superficiality of the arguments Tom extends in favor of those views, and both are disappointing since you can either conclude that Tom does not understand those views appropriately, or that he does not wish to burden himself with harder arguments to refute. Sometimes you can even sense a tone of ridicule and belittling in the author's tone as he extends positions not in line with his beliefs. Needless to say, it's not too hard to prove your point when you make the other viewpoint seem so shallow and silly.
The only plausible argument he extends in favor of an idea that he opposes is the scientific argument for materialism. He laid the grounds for that point rather fairly even though his tone was demonstrative of his disagreement. I was looking forward to see how he'll come back at such a strong argument only to be disappointed (I got used to that by then) by arguments such as asserting that this is how he feels about it although he can't explain it or that evidence is not necessary since it is common knowledge!
Surprised? Don't be. Once you read stories about the author's unbelievable psychic abilities and the alleged ability of some of his relatives and acquaintances to see vividly and consistently into the future or to communicate with dead people you'll realize what kind of a person wrote this book. Be also prepared for boring lengthy anecdotes that hardly have any connection to the topics being discussed.
You finish the book with the feeling that you have been dragged unsuspectingly into a church or a missionary base and was ordered to suspend reason and take whatever you are being taught. In fact, I felt a little irritated by the author's attitude.
I realize that I might have sounded prejudiced myself in this review, but in my defense I have nothing to be prejudiced about. I do not have firm opinions (yet) about the controversies in philosophy as I'm still learning about all viewpoints out there. I was hoping that this book would teach me more about mainstream ideas in philosophy. Instead, it taught me about the religious philosophy of Tom Morris. A person, based on the character and the mind that the book reveals, I do not expect to learn much from.