This is by far the most absurd article I have ever laid my eyes upon. He questions the categories such as “believer” and “atheist” and states they are useless. He then asserts that a new category is needed. wouldn’t this new category be just as useless since people lack the objectivity? He seems to question truth by stating, “Who is the objective observer to define these terms?” He seems to be alluding to there being no such thing as objective truth, which is false.
This authors logic is easily refuted:
For instance, is the statement “1. There is no such thing as truth” true? If not, then no need to be concerned On the other hand if (1) is true, then it also follows that (1) is not true, since there is no truth, according to (1). So if (1) is false, it’s false; and if (1) is true, it’s false. So either way (1) is false. The author’s position is self refuting.
Also, the author again, contradicts his own philosophy by stating that, “For instance they take Bible stories we read at face value, and yet I see a flicker in their eyes that tells me that they already know the stories are not true in the same way boiling water is true and can be tested—it’s hot!” Now this statement is very telling, for the author does not think historical studies in the Old or New Testaments can be verifiably correct.
Also, he contradicts his earlier presuppositions regarding objective observation. That is to say, who is the objective observer watching the boiling water? He states, “it’s hot” according to his philosophy he cannot make that observation. So my question is, what is the objective truth to his article? Who objectively observes that his words are true of what he wishes to convey? For instance, I can say I think his article is about “mashed up turtle spit” as my pastor has said before and there is nothing this author can say to refute my statement according to his philosophy.