Here's the issue as I see it, if your complaint is with someone's metaphysics, don't complain about his physics. THAT is the issue, as I see it. It would be nice, Steve, if these distinctions were always made, but they're not. That is really the crux of RITB, which I recommend to you.
Empirical evidence is the primary way that belief is justified in the arena of science.
When you phrase it that way, fine. The alternatives Jim presents above are not necessarily mutually exclusive. This is not readily admitted by either Dawkins and Sagan, or by Bell and Johnson. With this we are back to my quote in the first sentence of this post. The alternatives ARE mutually exclusive.