You need only look at the dictionary definitions of "object" to see the point I was making. An object in the senses that are relevant to objectivity is "anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form," "a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed," or "anything that may be apprehended intellectually."

Which of those apply to God? Do you really want God to be an object? Is God just a thing or a person? Is God the subject of human thought or does he transcend our comprehension? My upcoming article on the clash between classical theists and theistic personalists explores this problem further.

"Objective" means unbiased. Does that mean you're perfectly neutral about God? You have no emotional response to the gospel?

No, objectivity isn't for Christians. If you're interested in objectivity, you're on your way to a science-centered view of the world, to one which is methodologically naturalistic and therefore atheistic.

Mind you, if you look more closely at objectivity, you end up with a more pragmatic view of truth, as I argue elsewhere. So it's only a myth that we can be objective in the sense of being absolutely neutral.

In practice, objectivity is about understanding things to control them. That's the norm of human cognition, which is only relatively neutral because of its historic and biological universality. So we're being objective when we set aside our personal, idiosyncratic preoccupations, and focus on the species' concern with using reason to dominate nature. That pragmatic kind of Promethean objectivity, too, is antithetical to the spiritual core of religions.