If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason not to think your faculties are reliable.

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.)

Most of us form estimates of our intelligence, wisdom, and moral fiber that are considerably higher than an objective estimate would warrant no doubt 90 percent of us think ourselves well above average along these lines.

There is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic religion, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism

Reason is the power or capacity whereby we see or detect logical relationships among propositions.

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.

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.

To show that there are natural processes that produce religious belief does nothing, so far, to discredit it perhaps God designed us in such a way that it is by virtue of those processes that we come to have knowledge of him.

The Christian philosopher has a perfect right to the point of view and prephilosophical assumptions he brings to philosophic work the fact that these are not widely shared outside the Christian or theistic community is interesting but fundamentally irrelevant.

Hence our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion.

Things don't look hopeful for Darwinian naturalists.