> 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.
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.