But isn't that exactly what Chapman is saying? That there is no RIGHT answer, that there is no certainty, that each view has merit but isn't universally true, etc.
It's highly likely I'm being too harsh on him. I probably have baggage from having read a lot of this kind of stuff and having it leave me less than satisfied. My apologies.
Perhaps what bothers me is that he spends a lot of time tearing down and differentiating from others, and less time telling us what he actually does believes in.