This will probably be my last post about this debate; both of the participants are now repeating themselves (as am I). I don't think there's much new remaining for any of us to say in this context.
I very quickly skimmed through most of Sullivan's post. It's just a restatement of the position he established earlier: He builds his personal narrative around some vague notion of "God", and that's just the way he is. Somewhere in there he throws in some unspecified notion of "doubt". Fine. Whatever. We get it.
Towards the end, though, Sullivan asks,
In fact, people of faith who are not fundamentalists may be the most important allies you've got. Why don't you want us to help out?We'd love for religious moderates to help out, but they're not helping. By using the words "truth" and "reality" to label opinion, which is not and cannot be rationally substantiated (and for which Sullivan disclaims rational substantiation), moderates such as Sullivan make it that much harder to insist on rational discourse on the basis of fact. Religious moderates, according to Sullivan, rely on scripture, religious authority and spiritual experiences to establish truth and reality. But these components are the exact same components which fundamentalists rely on to establish their truth, their reality. And the fundamentalists' case is far stronger than the moderates'.
The conflict is between rationality and superstition. Sullivan defends his unquestioning superstition with the considerable eloquence at his disposal. He compromises the only tool available to rationalists: reasoned, principled discourse based on fact. He begs for a tolerance of his superstition which, for any principled person, ought equally to apply to the fundamentalists.
And he asks us why we don't want his help.
I want to ask Andrew Sullivan the following question, and I hope he will consider it deeply:
Why have fundamentalists in the West so successfully hijacked conservatism and religion, the foundations of Sullivan's belief system, instead of atheism, secularism, and/or liberalism?
I submit is is precisely the tendency of both religious moderates and moderate conservatives to confuse truth, fact and reality with opinion and preference which has rendered these movements vulnerable to the fundamentalists.
Update: How religious moderates can help
 Sullivan throws "reason" in that list, but he's been utterly silent in this debate about how he actually employs any sort of reason in his religious beliefs.