Then the author is not consistent. He decrys that Objectivists do not model exemplary behavior. But why should they? The "objective" rule if we are only meat can only be "do whatever you want as long as the consequences don't outweigh the pleasure or survival benefit gleaned from doing as you choose." So murder is OK as long as you have a very low probability of getting caught. Or, if like Ted Bundy, the pleasure of murder outweighs the consequences.
I was an Objectivist many, many years ago. The author is starting down the same path that eventually lead me to the Cross.
It all depends on how you assess reality. As a non-Christian, I did not believe that reality included God. But then I looked hard at the evidence for the Resurrection and it is simply overwhelming. That's what made me a Christian.
Once you accept the Resurrection as a highly probable part of reality--that is, it really happened--your belief about what is real changes; not because you have become subjective and squishy, but because that's the verdict the evidence demands.
So I don't disagree with the author's basic approach. I disagree about what is the nature of the reality we confront. Back to my original question; if the nature of reality is that we are meat, why does the author concern himself with great questions? Why does he believe there is a standard of behavior that is exemplary other than: "do what'cha want; but don't get caught?" Why does he care that Objectivists do not model good behavior?