Theists- do you believe without evidence?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Thanks for you serious and well thought out replies. Much of what follows comes from recent attempts to repair the schism that Descartes created. Most characterize this division as one between mind & body. That description only crudely addresses one aspect of the problem. What Descartes actually did was identify phenomena that could be described quantitatively in terms of just ‘material’ interacting through efficient causes. He removed from consideration any qualitatively defined phenomena.

…quantum entanglement seems to me to be a rather direct example of one bit of energy/matter being "about" another, and vice versa.

Yikes! QM. Quantum entanglement models a measurable relationship between two particles. That’s not the type of “about-ness” to which I referred (Why do I always type in reefer before the spell checker kicks in?). The best example, of intentionality I know is a painting. As a physical object, a painting is nothing more than colored pigments and oil on rough cloth. As an object of contemplation, a painting has a subject matter. A purely qualitative description of a painting cannot capture or convey the meaning of the painting.

OK, let's say that our consciousness is in some way situated in something that is invisible, intangible…call it "spirit." What, specifically, is it about this stuff that makes "about-ability" possible?

That seems like the wrong question. You don’t ask, “What is it about matter/energy & space/time that makes them measurable?” Rather these are phenomena that you can measure and describe in quantifiable ways. Conversely, physical phenomena cannot be described qualitatively without erroneously crossing Descartes line.

With respect to ‘mental/spiritual’phenomena, these cannot be measured and described quantitatively, but we have gotten very good at describing the qualitative interactions using linguistics, semiotic sign systems, Gestalt psychology, and aesthetics. Even then Descartes’s line keeps these studies isolated and they become self-referential. My guess is that this devolution into ungrounded speculation justifies the low opinion many literal and scientifically oriented people have of intellectual pursuits in these areas.

The way I see it, the artificial division created by Descartes creates problems on both sides of the line: meaningless nihilism on the physical side and unbounded relativism on the mental side.

Even if we grant that "formal and final causes" exist,…

I’m not convinced that we can even say efficient causes “exist”…at least not in terms of particles bumping into each other like billard balls. To my mind, efficient cause is a very Newtonian conceit. Various types of cause may serve as convenient fictions for expressing our impressions about reality.

I don't see how this leads to monotheism.

It may not. It takes many steps to go from there to a Supreme Being. I merely believe it to be highly likely, unlike the conviction of some atheists that someday, somehow science will explain all. I think there are good reasons, like those already stated, to consider the promise of scientism a false hope.

… Rupert Sheldrake's "morphogenetic fields" would be an example of a system of formal causation that does not require Yahweh.

Very true. That is one reason his work is ridiculed and dismissed by closed-minded skeptics. Morphic resonance would undermine the presumed causal closure of physical reality. If true, Sheldrake’s theory requires a much expanded notion of reality.

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.

This is a matter of interpretation. I do believe that some convergence has already started to occur. The breakdown of geographic boundaries has lead to a much more robust interest in comparative theology. Common spiritual teachings keep coming to light. Even on AF, I have found much more doctrinal similarities with other Christians than I would have expected just from my private studies.