@Jebediah,
Think is a fine introduction to popular topics in philosophy. The only serious problem, aside from favoring certain schools of thought thereby neglecting to introduce the reader to other equally significant accounts, is that Blackburn's bias deflates the book's usefulness. What is the point in discussing the significant schools of thought regarding God, for example, in an introductory text if the introduction essentially levels God to a child's fantasy? In doing this, Blackburn presents very serious thinking as small-minded gibberish - well, okay, he isn't
that bad, but it's obnoxious and misleading enough to warrant a cautionary clause. All this in spite of Blackburn's claim to even-handedness. And it isn't just God - why so much Hume and a complete disregard for Kant?
Worth reading, but you need to take it with a pound of salt.
So maybe I should say something about Inwagen's book having recommended it. He does have his own bias, but at least this professor admits to it. His purpose is to show that metaphysics is meaningless, or at least impossible; that is, that metaphysical statements cannot be true in the same way that we can say that water is composed of two hydrogen and one oxygen molecules. I found the book to be eye opening, and it has led me to a slightly different take on the matter, although I generally agree with him. If you check out the Metaphysics article on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy web site you will find basically an abridged version of the book. It should give you a feel for his perspective, then you can decide for yourself if his book is the right metaphysics primer for you.
As always, nothing can replace the classic, foundational texts for any given subject, including the issues central to philosophy. Enjoy.