No reason justifies disbelief.

[downbeatplumb]

This statement seems a little peculiar to me, and I'd like you to clarify on it.  Is science really the vehicle by which you know what exists?  Like, are you suspicious of putting books on a new desk until you confirm the hypothesis that it's a real desk?

Also there may well be a built-in contradiction to the alleged open-mindedness.

If by "reliable" she means a way of knowing things exist that can be confirmed by intersubjective empirical evidence, then what she's really describing is already science. In other words, she defines reliability in such a way that only science meets the definition. 

How do we know that knowledge through revelation isn't reliable? Because it isn't confirmable through science-like methods. But that doesn't in itself mean that it's false. Only that it's not science. 

Note to Deesse, who jumps to conclusions: this doesn't mean I'm saying we should take revelation seriously. Only that there may well be a trouble with Mrs. Camus' alleged metaphysical open-mindedness.

"knowledge thorough revelation" is NOT reliable. 
The brain is an extremely unreliable tool. 
Much of what people think is real is the brains interpretation of what it thinks its experiencing which can be confused and miss led by many many things.
Even Dickens knew this "there is more of gravy than of grave about you!".
So everything that is experienced only through the brain needs backing up by other means.
So in order to be trustworthy anything must be detectable by something other than the human mind.
Revelation is not and so is unreliable.