I wouldn’t be a Christian

[vulcanlogician]

That must be so. It's kind of a survey course, right? So it covers both the see-our-truth-through-nature elements as well as the more transcendent approaches. 

Very much so. I think a "survey course" is an apt descriptor. He indicates early that he intends not to examine religious experiences as they relate to a specific doctrine or societal entity. Rather he examines the relation of an individual to a body of symbols (whether theistic or atheistic), giving special attention to transcendental aspects of belief/adoption of a given body of symbols.

For the purposes of his discussion, he defines religion thusly:

Religion, therefore, as I now ask you arbitrarily to take it, shall mean for
us THE FEELINGS, ACTS, AND EXPERIENCES OF INDIVIDUAL MEN
IN THEIR SOLITUDE, SO FAR AS THEY APPREHEND THEMSELVES
TO STAND IN RELATION TO WHATEVER THEY MAY CONSIDER
THE DIVINE. Since the relation may be either moral, physical, or ritual,
it is evident that out of religion in the sense in which we take it,
theologies, philosophies, and ecclesiastical organizations may
secondarily grow. In these lectures, however, as I have already said, the
immediate personal experiences will amply fill our time, and we shall
hardly consider theology or ecclesiasticism at all.
We escape much controversial matter by this arbitrary definition of our
field. But, still, a chance of controversy comes up over the word “divine,”
if we take the definition in too narrow a sense. There are systems of
thought which the world usually calls religious, and yet which do not
positively assume a God. Buddhism is in this case.

https://csrs.nd.edu/assets/59930/williams_1902.pdf

---

Maybe Plato wasn’t all one author, or changed his mind over time?

That very well might be, Rob. A few of "his" works are considered spurious by scholars generally. For some others, it's a matter for debate.

But even among the least controversial of his works, one finds Plato testing the strength of dissimilar ideas... making arguments in one book that are incongruous with arguments he makes in others. To me, this suggests that Plato is more "Socratic" than he is commonly given credit for; ie. his works are more about asking questions than providing answers.

It's true that as Plato matured as a philosopher he became less Socratic... though to what extent is debatable. If anything is true, however, it's this: Plato does not want his statements to be accepted on Plato's own authority. As sure as he is of himself sometimes, he knows that he isn't really convincing his reader of anything unless he puts together a sound logical argument.