I believe in the laws of
thermodynamics:
Zero – If two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium
with a third, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
First – Energy is conserved, it can neither be created nor
destroyed. It can only change forms.
Second – The disorder of an isolated system will tend to increase
over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
Third – As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a
system approaches a constant minimum.
I believe in the fundamental forces of
gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong
nuclear force. I accept the existence of the nuclear forces (and some
of the following points, as well) on my faith in the social dynamics
of Science. (physics)
I believe the periodic table of
elements is an accurate description of the primary material
properties of the world. (chemistry)
I believe that the basic unit of life
is the cell. (biology)
I believe that all cells that exist
today came from parent cells. (non-spontaneous generation)
I believe in the DNA/RNA molecules,
that they encode proteins, and that they are central artifacts for
cellular reproduction.
I believe that DNA/RNA can be changed
because of random environmental factors, such as radiation. (random
mutation)
I believe that mates are selected based
on features that the selecting animal finds attractive. (nonrandom
mating)
I believe that the gene pool of a
population changes across time because of the mixing of parental
genomes in sexual reproduction. (semi-random mutation/ genetic drift)
I believe that in populations certain
characteristics of organisms and by logical extension the particular
molecular sequences that encode those characteristics survive at
different rates. (natural selection)
I believe that certain characteristics
encoded by DNA (technically called alleles) can die out from and
enter into the gene pool of a population when individual organisms
that contain those characteristics leave or join that population.
(gene flow/ formerly known as migration)
The preceding beliefs cover the central
tenets of the material and life sciences. The following beliefs are
drawn from psychology and related fields. Psychology and those
related fields have not yet come to the same level of consensus that
these tenets are central, though they should consider the possibility
(IMHO).
I believe that animals with brains have
consciousness, though not all are conscious in the same way.
Following the lead of scientists like Antonio Damasio, V.S.
Ramachandran, and Terrence Deacon I believe there are levels of
consciousness that correspond to the ability of the brain to map its
own operations. We, humans, have the most developed ability to map
the operations of our own brains, as attested to by these words. The
human ability to actively conceive of and communicate about the deep
past and the deep future (beyond the scale of a day or so) represents
an activity of consciousness that appears to be unique in our
species. The self is a concept that derives from the maps of
consciousness by consciousness and is the central frame of reference
for the creation of both the deep past and the deep future.
The activities of human consciousness
are shaped significantly by primary needs for oxygen (air), water,
material nutrients (food), sleep, protection from extreme
environmental conditions (shelter), relatedness, competence, and
autonomy. Needs are primary when they are universal within the
species, have non-neutral effects on well-being, and are not derived
from any other needs. The latter three psychological needs are mapped
in reference to the self as a locus of causal, volitional, and
relational goals and activities.
Based on all these beliefs, I also have
beliefs about belief itself. I make a distinction between how we use
language to refer to things and ideas and how phenomena occur in the
world. The phenomena in the world exist independent of all language
that refers to them. Therefore, beliefs are irrelevant except to the
degree that they inform decisions that rely on accurate causal models
of the world. This belief tempers my faith in both science and all
the forms of metaphysics including religion, philosophy, and any
other social constructs that may consider issues of causality,
volition, and relationships between beings with agency.
Science is a product of human
interaction and the use of language to mediate those relationships.
So is metaphysics. As human products they are inherently fallible.
The best we can hope for is to extensively triangulate on our causal,
volitional, and relational goals and activities via language to
arrive at increasingly shared understandings.
I also believe in God, but not in
personified terms. I believe the term “God” is a placeholder for
unspecified causal, volitional, and relational forces.
Using personifications of God in a
discussion can be a useful gambit for conveying emotional and
non-causal ideas. But if consequential decisions are being made that
depend for their efficacy on a personification being an accurate
description of some causal forces in the world then those decisions
are unlikely to be good decisions. If the causal forces that need to
be described in the course of a decision making discussion are
utterly inaccessible then reliance on god-language may be acceptable.
However, whenever it is practical to do so, it is better to formulate
and test hypotheses about the causal forces involved rather than
surrender to ignorance from the start.