All other issues aside, the philosophy demonstrated in “It’s an absurd universe, Charlie Brown” is, at best, a minority view peppered with false assumptions.
While I believe Christianity to be wholly logically defensible (as do many other learned persons, which the article fails to state), the article presupposes that there are no assumptions in the exercise of logic. That simply isn’t true.
Not only do fallacies exist in logic that logic cannot explain, and which require intuition to inform, but most philosophers accept the concept of sense data, essentially that all perception is ultimately mental, and it cannot be known whether perceptions have any basis in reality.
Simply put, we could all be in a Matrix.
That said, Mr. Nowell is exercising a rather astonishing degree of “irrationality” when he presupposes that logic can be used to conclusively examine the claims of, for example, Christianity.
Indeed, he probably makes this “leap of ignorance” because, as a practical matter, one must approach the world as real and generally rely on the suitability of logic. Even if one doesn’t know that the world is real, one finds that, if one acts thusly, things work better.
This assumption-out-of-necessity is not too different from the very view he was criticizing; essentially, the practical benefits of the ends justify the means.
What practical benefits are there to Christianity? Oh, say, the spontaneous regeneration of approximately 1/3 of a baby’s brain. It happened to my sister, after prayer.