[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by deccan:
Um, sorry I don't quite catch your point here. My point about the Carl Sagan statement is that often some theists (especially creationists) like to claim that their beliefs are supported with either empirical evidence or logical arguments that are comparable in quality to that of conventional scientific theories.

That is their goal, yes. Whether they attain it or not is entirely up to the quality of those arguments and evidences. But the question here is, as I understand it, about the very existence of God and/or supernatural dimensions to the universe, and these questions are dealt with more on a philosophical basis than determining how old rocks and starlight are. Note I say "more", not "entirely".

However the cost of bearing the scientific Cachet is that you have to be prepared to defend your arguments on a variety of fronts, i.e. the quality of your data, whether or not arguments are logically sound etc.

I would agree.

From personal experience, I've simply found that many theists who do make the claim that their arguments are logically and perhaps scientifically sound, when pressed, often fall back to the line that their beliefs simply don't have to be held to the same standard as the rest of science because they're based on faith.

I'd have to see the particular arguments being made to judge whether or not they would really be a "cop-out". That's what I was trying to get at in my prior reply to you - I have found that many agnostics/atheists base their doubts about God more on "Well, if God does exist, why doesn't He do this or that?" But questions of what God should be doing (in ones' opinion) are separate from whether or not He actually exists.

I do read philosophy books. My standard reference on Western philosophy is Frederik Copleston's "A History of Western Philosophy", which I believe is still the most authoritative reference even today. I'm also a great fan of Daniel C. Dennett and I regularly read new entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I also greatly admire the articles on The Proceedings of the Friesian School. If you're interested, my own website is Calltoreason.org but I haven't bothered to update it in like forever. Too lazy I guess.

Copelston and Dennett certainly cover the bases (Copelston the Catholic, Dennett the agnostic [if I'm thinking of the same Dennett you are).

Actually, what I meant was that when people use terms, especially terms that are so common and have so many varied meanings that they are prone to abuse, such as "love", "good", "soul" etc., they ought to define precisely and unambiguously what they mean when they are using that term. The fact that certain concepts may be innately ambiguous or fuzzy doesn't, in my opinion, exonerate one from that responsibility.

OK. Put this way, I would agree (cf my post to Dogscoff earlier).