The one part that I think worth highlighting is towards the end:
Judged by the standards of any other scientific theory, the "God hypothesis" does not do very well, Carroll argues. But he grants that "the idea of God has functions other than those of a scientific hypothesis."And I think, this is where a lot of the misunderstanding between both sides of the fence occurs. Those outside of science (theologians) appears to not realize that to counter a scientific argument, one must use another scientific argument. Simply arguing that such-and-such must surely point to the existence of "god", without offering evidence (rather than not being able to falsify it) simply isn't convincing, nor can it be used as an evidence. The "god of the gaps" should no longer be used at this point, because history has shown that these gaps continue to diminish over time!
Certainly a thought-provoking article.