Criticized as atheist bashing by a Christian writer, Benjamin Wiker did chose books in which the subject matter defended materialism and hedonism over spirituality and carnal restraint.

What else could he have chosen? Most of the literature that he dissects are socially watershed pieces: Machiavelli, Descartes, Hobbes, Marx and Engels, Darwin, Nietzsche, Hitler, and others.

Altruism versus ego-centrism is a valid philosophical debate.

I never felt that he was forcefully touting a religious viewpoint. Wiker did, however, end his book with a "perhaps" that choosing a higher power, religious morality, etc. was the logical option. And he glaringly did not chose to dissect Judeo-Christian ethics and the injustices perpetrated in the name of religions.

As an historic touchstone, for the novice philosopher, this is a good start. To know all sides, you must seek alternate points of view. AND then decide think for yourself.