Exactly.
I believe that is very much what I said in different words.
“a person may be well within epistemic rights to believe in God even in the absence of any evidence or arguments to support it”
Just as many of us are or have been. I didn’t come to belief in my Savior because of savvy arguments or apologetic evidence. I was a little kid who learned about the great love that Jesus and the Father have for me and that I needed a Savior. That is, by modern apologetic standards, no apologetic. Likewise, it’s the way that Craig and many, many (maybe most) Christians have come to faith. C.S. Lewis described his experience in “Surprised by Joy” as something like, when he started walking to class he was an atheist, and by the time he got there, he was surprised to have faith. I give credit the the Holy Spirit. Others will see and explain the process differently. Richard Dawkins would just laugh.
As a member of Kierkegaard’s crowd I have no brilliant arguments to offer. By modern standards I am unable to provide evidence or arguments to support my faith. So to return to Penner’s questions:
What happens when Kendel is unable to artiulate this epistemological thesis and make it intelligible? What is the status of Kendel’s belief in God in these circumstances? And how is the apologetics agenda affected by this?