Their views on those issues are indicative of a general philosophical approach --, one that takes our common-sense conceptual scheme and our pre-theoretic intuitions as much stronger evidence than I think they actually are, and correspondingly takes the deliverances of our best scientific theories much less seriously than I do. I very strongly suspect that their arguments for theism will fit this pattern (reliance on a priori "common-sense" principles like the Principle of Sufficient Reason, for example).

So you're saying they practice non-naturalized philosophy? Are you sure these are philosophers of religion we're dealing with and not AIXI instances incentivized by professorships?