Theists- do you believe without evidence?

[Lord Privy Seal]

Stating the obvious...

The cornerstone of modern atheism is the belief that everything needing to be explained can be explained in terms of physical phenomena, i.e. physical reduction. Mental phenomena are characterized by two things: raw sensation and intentionality (‘about’ness). These two aspects of reality do not fit within any physical paradigm.

How can you know this, without possessing omniscient knowledge of every possible physical paradigm? For one thing, quantum entanglement seems to me to be a rather direct example of one bit of energy/matter being "about" another, and vice versa.

With respect to raw sensation (qualia) modern atheism has two primary solutions. The first is to dismiss qualia by saying that it is actually an illusory by-product of brain processes. I.e. you aren’t actually experiencing anything. The second solution is to admit that raw sensations are real but useless. They do not causally interact with brain processes.

With respect to intentionality, intuitions, thoughts, and beliefs each have subject matter. They are about something. Your belief that the Lincoln Memorial is in Washington D.C. is about the Lincoln memorial. Unlike a belief, a physical thing is not ‘about’ anything. It just is whatever it is. As a physical object performing physical processes, neuronal systems in aren’t ‘about’ anything. Physical reduction cannot preserve the intentional properties of thought. Intentional properties must always be assigned from outside the physical system being described.

OK, let's say that our consciousness is in some way situated in something that is invisible, intangible, but gravitationally bound (the latter explaining why our consciousnesses don't get flung away or left behind by Earth's motion). We can call it "spirit." What, specifically, is it about this stuff that makes "about-ability" possible? Now let's talk about this same stuff--exact same properties (intangible, invisible, gravitationally bound)...but use a different label for it: "dark matter." Does it suddenly lose its "about-ability?" If not, how does the "about-ability" disappear if we dispense with the dark matter and go with quarks instead?

Physical theories do not explain everything that needs to be explained because they only consider things that can be quantified. The physical sciences deal only with physical processes without any consideration of the formal or final causes. Both are needed to explain mental processes.

Even if we grant that "formal and final causes" exist, I don't see how this leads to monotheism. Just one example, Rupert Sheldrake's "morphogenetic fields" would be an example of a system of formal causation that does not require Yahweh. If it's possible for one such non-theistic model to exist (even if that model isn't itself accurate), how do you know that no others can possibly be discovered?

The above relates only to issues of general revelation. Since atheism does not satisfy my intellectual curiosity about things that matter to me, I turn to theology. I believe people choose specific religious traditions largely for familiarity. Each has its own rich and varied history. At some point you must just dive in and see how far it goes.

This seems to me to be a pretty good argument against monotheism. The existence of so many different versions of theism--even monotheistic religions divide into irreconcilable sects--implies that theists are not "observing" the same territory. If they were, their maps would tend to converge on a more consistent, accurate picture over time. Polytheists could claim that their views are more consistent with religious variety: people experience many deities because there are many deities. However, polytheists don't seem to converge on a single consistent picture of plural divinity either. "Deities" just "happen" to be culturally bound: Thor never goes on vacation in India to hang out with yogis. Gods and goddesses come and go with the vagaries of human culture and popularity. This is exactly what we would expect to see if gods and goddesses are constructs of the human mind, rather than the other way around.