It sounds profound, but he is basically bringing up the question of epistomology. And he answers it very badly, at least in the sense that the subjectivist epistomology he is implying has been discarded as grossly flawed (by those who pay attention to such things) a very long time ago.
In fact, one of the best works on rational epistemology was written by the Protestant theologian William Bartley in his book "The Retreat To Commitment", which was actually a study of rational thought within the framework of Protestant theology. Bartley's ideas on epistemology were an important advance in the field (his epistemology is usually called "pan-critical rationalism"), and he specifically tried to eliminate the gross blunders in Protestant thought that the fellow above is making. Many of the smarter breed of atheist and agnostic subscribe to Bartley's pan-critical rationalism as well (as opposed to Rand's Objectivism, which has some theoretical flaws). While Bartley wrote his book with religious intent, many of his ideas are universally applicable and well thought out.
My point being that I find it hard to give Mr. Johnson much creedence when his ideas on rational thought are crusty, poor, and way out of date, even by the standards of the philosophers and theologians of his own religion. In this sense, he is basically making an argument from ignorance. At the very least, time would be much better spent discussing this topic with someone who had more of a clue as to the real points of contention than Mr. Johnson.
This is quite Aristotelian. It's in his Analytics, and Metaphysics and Nicomachean Ethics. It deviates somewhat because Aristotle will allow for the admission of some first premises by logical reasoning. But even this is not sufficient by itself, and supreme wisdom belongs the one who has access to first principles and is characterized by phronesis and sophia.