I'm cheating. Yet I'm not. I began reading what appeared to be a clever game with serious, open-ended discovery.
Although Anderson admits he's as biased as all of us, one thinks he understands that we understand he's coming from a particular religious perspective.
But the bias isn't (just?) that. It's in the 'binary' yes/no of it.
Following the book's rule, the first question that is meant to lead us to further exploration is 'The Truth Question'. EITHER, in the clearly explained set-up, you are to choose believing 'truth' resides institutionally, personally, culturally in equal measure loyal to where you are and who you are, subjectively, OR there are many things that are objectively true (or false) to anyone.
What the fuh?
But what does 'truth' mean? When we use the term, we use it in different ways. We base some truth on empirical proof, some on habitual practice, some on belief, some on logical 'demonstration'.
I reached the bottom of that simple page with its black-and-whiteness inviting me to turn to one of two particular discovery pages depending on my 'position' -- yes or no -- on the question whether there is 'any' objective truth.
My answer was possibly, probably, maybe, depends, yes, and no.
Well, I'm sure Dr. Anderson would dead-head me in any class he taught. But there I was, and am, unable to continue beyond the bottom of page 21, stymied by the rules only a logician would love.
Since the rules also say the book ends where it ends, I guess I've read it.
That's true, isn't it?