> By that logic, people should really value my review of the Bible where I excoriate it for encouraging a belief in invisible beings. Many celebrated works of

> By that logic, people should really value my review of the Bible where I excoriate it for encouraging a belief in invisible beings. Many celebrated works of philosophy has been written critiquing religion. Take Nietzsche, for example, or Camus. Your review would be unoriginal, but hardly wrong-headed. > The work has succeeded when it gives you an argument to engage with. No, being incorrect is a failure worth criticizing. I wouldn't celebrate (e.g.) a creationist text for being internally consistent and well-argued. No matter how good the writing is, it's still wrong. In fact, well-argued but incorrect arguments are the most important to critique, because (unlike incompetent arguments) they can deceive readers.