The writer, as I see it, has the right of way, so it's up to the reader to look out.
If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason not to think your faculties are reliable.
Suppose we concede that if I had been born of Muslim parents in Morocco rather than Christian parents in Michigan, my beliefs would be quite different. [But] the same goes for the pluralist. . . If the pluralist had been born in [Morocco] he probably wouldn't be a pluralist. Does it follow that. . . his pluralist beliefs are produced in him by an unreliable belief-producing process?
There is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic religion, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism
If we don't know that there is such a person as God, we don't know the first thing (the most important thing) about ourselves, each other and our world. This is because the most important truths about us and them, is that we have been created by the Lord, and utterly depend upon him for our continued existence.
But lack of evidence, if indeed evidence is lacking, is no grounds for atheism. No one thinks there is good evidence for the proposition that there are an even number of stars; but also, no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is that there are an uneven number of stars. The right conclusion would instead be agnosticism.
In religious belief as elsewhere, we must take our chances, recognizing that we could be wrong, dreadfully wrong. There are no guarantees; the religious life is a venture; foolish and debilitating error is a permanent possibility. (If we can be wrong, however, we can also be right. )
Arbitration is justice blended with charity.
You can create fashion everywhere in the world, but the place where you are crowned is Paris.
Anytime you have to rely upon your enemy for a job you're in bad shape.
A fundie claimed "God invented science". All of science is tentative and approximate, also sometimes mistaken. Is that the best God can do?