Does it focus mainly on the traditional so-called proofs? I was told on my metaphysics course that those were intended to demonstrate the internal coherence of the theology of the time to people who already believed rather than to provide proofs as we would normally understand the term, and I don't base my faith on any of them (I know exactly what's wrong with each of them.) If there's more to it than that, and especially if it addresses the argument I've made to you about the axiomatic character of my faith, I might have a look at it later in the year and let you know what I think (my existing bookpile is still quite large, and I have some reading goals for the year for which books by white men aren't terribly helpful, which is why I won't make a more definite promise.)