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

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.

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.

Things don't look hopeful for Darwinian naturalists.

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

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

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.)