My Will Can Beat up Your Will

There is an odd idea that seems pervasive throughout U.S. culture and exists without much context or discussion. You may readily think of any number of examples where that could apply, but I refer to the notion of "will-power" as the determining factor in a conflict or contest. It struck me quite profoundly as I watched a scene in Marvel's movie Avengers: Infinity War. It has been mentioned elsewhere online and likely argued over by nerds everywhere since its release in 2018. The scene happens towards the end of the film, where Captain America holds back Thanos for a second. It has been established that Thanos is  a super-humanly powerful being, and him being the only one with the will to see his plan through. While Rogers is an enhanced human, he should be no match for Thanos. Yet, what defines Captain America is his refusal to stand down; he has faced unfair odds all his life and never hesitated to fully commit to the fight. The message is clear: this moment is not about objective or physical strength, but all about a will to win. Those few moments of struggle convey much of the idea which I am suggesting is problematic in real life.

Fantasy may be a grand place for such notions, where the very desire for an outcome creates the result one wants. However, it is too easy for people to delude themselves that such things are possible in reality. If you think no one could fall for this nonsense, remember that people pray for things or talk about "manifesting" their desires. I will include another aspect of comic/superhero tropes: the strength, agility, stamina, and other attributes that characters have without having to work at it. On a practical level, it allows the story to move quickly and focus on drama or action within the limited time of a book or movie. However, this also conveys ideas around innate, rather than learned and trained, skills. It seems connected to this "I should have this because I want it" ideal. Also, it is important as it relates to "fixed" and "growth" mindsets, which are worth exploring outside this post. Both these notions (will-power and innate talent) reflect ideas of worthiness and competition. I also recognize that we are dealing with the influence of media and entertainment upon consumers, and how people integrate the ideas they are exposed to from an early age. This is another topic for its own discussion. You may notice I am also not criticizing willpower in general. Grit has recently had a turn in the spotlight, and received a deserved discussion; we do not need to examine that here.

To return to the subject at hand, the psychological term for the belief that we can get something just by wanting is "magical thinking". This term is usually applied to and descriptive of the minds of children. Simply put, a child thinks of something they want and it then happens: someone they were mad at gets hurt or the sky clears of clouds when they want to go outside. There are a number of cognitive fallacies having to do with cause-and-effect, which are abandoned as we learn about the world. Magical thinking can be pernicious because of social pressures and/or personal experiences. Another component of this is children being egocentric. It is normal development for young humans to have no innate understanding that parts of the world are separate from them and their concerns. To a child, everything that they experience is about them and because of them. It is estimated that we develop empathy (here meaning an ability to consider others' experiences) by roughly 8 years of age. As with all abilities, empathy requires support to fully develop, so this depends on individual experience. Along with empathy, it is likely we also differentiate our self from the rest of the world during the same process. After all, it requires understanding that others are separate from ourselves in order to empathize with their differences. To believe that I should get what I want simply because I want it, or want it "more" (what scale measures that?) than someone else, is a selfish and egocentric belief. Once we are able to understand that others have similar desires, we can start to outgrow this tendency. We find it is just part of living with other humans that only sometimes do we get what we want. Unless there is an unlimited supply of something, we must take turns. This knowledge can inform our social development, as how we seek to fulfill needs comes into contact with others.

Above, I mentioned "worthiness and competition", and now these ideas come into focus. We must have methods for sharing, determining whose turn it is, and mitigating disappointment. These "wins" and "losses" can influence how we see ourselves, and how deserving we believe ourselves to be. It may be tempting to construct some superhuman entity which makes these determinations, thus relieving us of the burden of being the winner. Seeing others lose out hurts us because it is natural to empathize with them. We also know what it feels like because of our own turns as the loser. However, that magical thinking denies our agency in the very things we want because it eliminates the work and sacrifice of "taking turns". It gives up our self-determination, as it becomes a matter of some "universal force" making those decisions. While it can be a mitigating strategy ("I just was not meant to win" or "God willed it so"), it allows little room for improvement and skill-building. This is why it is so closely tied with fixed and growth mindsets. For any number of reasons, the creation of a supernatural force determining who "wins" is problematic. Now that we have arrived at some understanding of the developmental and social factors involved, we have opportunities to influence what sort of world we live in. Do we prefer a competitive world where each must develop methods of manipulation (of both self and others) to achieve goals? Do we prefer a cooperative world where we accept and encourage rational and honest ways of interacting?

A Brief, Nonprofessional Opinion About Discrediting Science

It occurred to me that the way I have heard science attacked lately takes one main form.  What I hear is folks saying that science is not factual, that all science has to offer is theories and "guesses".  In turn these people are arguing that since science does not claim to be absolute, it is just another belief system.  In short, the way religious individuals are criticising science is by claiming that it is not any better than their own religions.  Therefore, ironically, they are actually supporting and even proving that religions are less valid than science.


Just because scientists do not claim to have "The Truth" does not mean that science is flimsy or disreputable.  Certainly the inability of laypeople to understand hard science has no effect on the validity of it.  In reality, scientists get into some pretty far-out areas of the universe.  Places where our everyday thinking about things like "water is wet' no longer apply.  These are things we just can't say we understand completely.  We still have microwave ovens and P.E.T. scans, G.P.S. and cell phones, refrigerators and genetically-modified foods.  That's all science-based, not running on faith.


I will state this as simply as I can:

1.  Belief systems (read: religions) are not rigorous and objective but are only as valid as the people who believe them.
2.  Religion precludes your involvement and testing; there is no way to go about "knowing" anything.
3.  Science is a series of observations, conjecture about what happened, followed by testing, and re-evaluation to make sure.  Repeat ad infinitum.
4.  Anyone and everyone can participate in science: make observations, hypotheses, test them, and show your data to others and you are a scientist.

CTR-Choose The Right

Something that we can comprehend is something we are equal with or superior to, I mean it is not beyond us, or our level of understanding. When we understand something it means that on some level we have to accept that we can understand it. If we cannot, or do not think we can, understanding then will elude us. I mean that we will never understand if we don't allow ourselves to, even if we have the capacity. This is such a fundamental concept it seems to be lost on most, people so often overlook it. It requires both that faith in ourselves as well as the basic ability to understand. It is actually in our nature to want to understand and be able to do so. Further it means the knowledge is accepted, something we become a part of and which becomes a part of us. Once we know something, once it is understood, we cannot be free of it and will never be the same as before we knew.

So, claiming to know the mind of God, to understand what the message or messiah (messenger) means is hubris. From the Judeo-Christian standpoint (as well as those of most other mono-theistic religions), there is no way to know these things. This is because to understand this, as we have discussed above, one would have to be on a par with The Creator. Placing oneself alongside God in this context is absurd, since the basis of the religion is the inherent unworthiness of humans. It is necessary to repent and/or make oneself worthy enough just to get into Heaven (or whatever it is called). The plan behind the Word is shrouded in mysteries we are not supposed to understand, according to most religions' acolytes. Yet somehow they have, at the same time, hit upon the solution to the mysteries while still remaining devoutly and totally observant of the religions' tenets, including the need to repent.

To live in a way that you will be accepted into your Great Reward, you cannot presume to know the mind of the Almighty. Yet one has to do just that in order to know what to do to be worthy. It is a Catch-22 that is absurd in its scope and consequence.

Hopes and Dreams

However you want to look at it, the strange thing about hopes and dreams is that they are all either true or false, there can be no in-between. These are concepts we are dealing with; intangibles that have no existence outside of our own minds, so they are very real to us, and yet separate from reality. We can be incorrect or overly optimistic about the outcome of a situation; we can hope to have a positive result from events that appear impossibly negative. Many times this is the only thing that will get us through tough experiences: the hope that it will be okay, or somehow better. Sometimes our hopes end up being disappointed and our dreams are crushed, but whether or not we are correct about the results it cannot be wrong to have these ideas in the first place. The positive effects of these self-deceptions (let us be clear that they are lies: we believe in them without actual proof of their existence) depend solely on how they make us feel and what they accomplish for us. So focus on that, don’t concern yourself with what it really means to have been wrong about whatever you thought.

Perception As Reality

Getting back to something I mentioned earlier, what I say doesn't matter. What is important is what you will understand from what I say-that is, what you think I am saying. The world is what you make of it; if you think that it is a scary place where everyone is out to do you harm, then you operate from that premise and it is true...for you. Every perceived slight weighs on your mind and confirms your opinion, whereas all contradictory evidence is discarded. I think that many will recognize this person, who says "I can't do anything right, everyone hates me!" Conversely, you can go through your existence with the opinion that everyone likes and respects you, so that no matter what anyone says you think of it as a compliment. However we demonstrate it, what comes from this argument is true for all: what you think of as the truth, becomes the truth. But only for you! Thinking something does not make it so for others; for instance, we can believe that some deity caused a tsunami that killed 100,000 people. However, that belief doesn't change the fact that it was a natural phenomenon caused by verifiable and observable actions and reactions. Putting aside how insulting it is to the survivors of the catastrophe who we-supposing for the moment 'we' support this "explanation"-who we would have accept that their loved ones died on the whim of some "superior" being that they may never even have heard of before. Further, that those who died somehow deserved it, because that is what we would be conveying to these people by saying some being had killed them and it has a plan that we believe in. Leaving out the fact that these people were living their lives that day much as they had unmolested for many years before this event, even disregarding all the subjective information, we cannot support this argument. This claim is no different than if someone were to come forward and claim that they had, through 'mental powers', caused the tsunami. This person can believe it, even be completely certain that they were responsible. That conviction does not mean that they are correct. Indeed, it is often the case that after some major event has happened many people will come forward with explanations. Whether it be alien forces (the God of the East Wind, those "dirty Commies", a mutant virus, etc.) or something more mundane ("Little Bobby knocked over the fence on accident."), there are numerous possibilities to blame it on, with varying degrees of plausibility. People have a basic need to understand things, we call it "curiosity", but it can be dangerous in that it leads some to seek excuses or explain these events with very unlikely things. Since there isn't an easily-understood, directly human-based agency to blame for it, these people will concoct involved and far-reaching "reasoning". It is difficult for these people to believe that there requires no external or extraordinary explanation for events, that things happen for certain, predictable reasons-whether we understand those mechanisms or not. It seems strange that a person with so much faith in one explanation has so little left to give the benefit of the doubt to any other. Yet this may be the key, that some peoples' beliefs require them to remain doubtless; as a result they cannot accept the reasoned arguments of others if they would throw the smallest doubt upon the believers' faith. It seems that this system would create many problems, however, and seriously delay and retard the progress of understanding the natural world. For each new bit of information would need to be weighed carefully against established beliefs to see if it conflicts and if it does, the new is rejected for the old. Until the microscope, it was thought that there were supernatural reasons for diseases and death. An entire world was discovered and its previously unseen inhabitants were finally linked to infections, illnesses, and decay. Before, people had believed that the afflicted had either displeased, offended, or not supplicated a deity or demon and that presence had "struck them down". How many hundreds of people had to die before belief caught up with science and allowed physicians to treat illness with something other than parlor tricks and humbuggery? Nowadays, I like to think that the great majority of people realize what actually causes a disease, a tsunami, locust swarms, and the like. Still, there are those who will continue to proclaim that their own personal god was responsible, either directly or ultimately. It is that inability and need to understand that drives people to seek solace in faith, however limited an explanation it may offer. Whatever name you choose to give it, belief is not fact, it is opinion, and cannot change the facts of what happened, except in the mind of the believing individual. To insist that we must all accept one explanation as "The Truth" without question-or even factual basis-is irrational, unfounded, and runs counter to known human behaviour.