I am no expert on history or philosophy but this book was written well but has a huge number of logical fallacies and problems. I tried giving it a shot too but gave up after the first two chapters due to this. If people disagree that's fine but this is one I remember from the first chapter: 1. States perhaps indirectly that evolution is correct by starting with that as the start of his history. You can't do that at least from a philosophical perspective which this book has large parts of without proving that view point correct. I'm not Christian but that means his system is based on a already non proven theory at least systematically in his book. 2. States that the things we create as a society like laws are illusions due to them not being in the real physical world. But there is a catch if physical things are the only true things what happens when we create something physical like a computer? And if you want to use his example of a river, as it's only natural than he needs to define natural versus humankind and runs into the problem of if humans aren't nature, how did we evolution from nature a circular argument.