Read parts of it for a course on Classic Jewish Philosophy mainly covering this book and the Rambam's Guide of the Perplexed. I decided to finish it, but it was not rewarding, especially when compared to the Guide. If, on the one hand, it is more subtle about its criticisms against (Aristotelian) philosophers, not being overly anti-philosophical as I've heard this described, but more seeing the philosophical perspective as incomplete, and I do appreciate the tensions and dialectical movement that the dialogical format provides; on the other hand, the arguments that it states with so much authority and certainty are so flawed that it makes it hard to take it that seriously. More specifically, lots of arguments base themselves on the certainty of the science of HaLevi's time that now are completely undermined by knowing that that science was wrong. Other arguments are based on simply prefering the premise that God exists and created the universe as less absurd as any philosophical or religious alternative he criticizes. But the arguments he provide to believe in revelation are not convincing. He has a certain historical-empiricist line of argumentation that would certify the certainty of the Torah on a line of unbroken tradition that is utterly wrong when faced with historical, documental and archaeological evidence. If we go by this empiricist route to believe in tradition, HaLevi ultimately disproves himself. Despite my disagreements with the Rambam, I feel that his work has way better arguments that can be further developed than what HaLevi has to offer.