The new Canadian Mental Health Commission is “a wonderful opportunity” for Christians to be involved in dealing with one of the most pressing issues in our society, according to one of its members.
Chris Summerville is one of 11 non-government members of the new Commission’s board of directors.
Summerville said he hopes to bring a holistic approach to the issue that addresses body, mind, soul and spirit. Summerville said one of his goals is to “bring the presence of Christ” into the different perspectives that will be present in the Commission.
There has been a “prejudice against religion” on the part of some mental health professionals, he said, and “historically clinicians have been reluctant to discuss religion with their clients.”
Satan will use any opportunity to attack, including mental illness, said Summerville, but mental illness and spiritual should not be equated. Summerville said churches often don’t do a good job of dealing with mental illness because they tend to “treat it as a spiritual problem exclusively.”
Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the formation of the commission on August 31. It grew out of a study by a Senate committee chaired by Senator Michael Kirby, who will chair the new Commission. The Commission’s board of directors includes 11 non-government experts and six government representatives. The Commission will receive $10 million in start-up funds until mid-2009 and then $15 million a year after that.
From Canadianchristianity’s website here.
tildeb
Questionable Motives 
Not my tax system.
However, I do welcome some studies that are there to measure the effect of religion from a psychological perspective. Work in this area does happen – occasionally, with some pretty ‘insightful’ conclusions.
Here is a nice summary of one: http://saltysleveen.blogspot.com/2007/01/joshua-jericho-genocide-and-fallacy-of.html
I would say that the tendency to commit ‘genocide’ is a good indicator of whether an individual is a ‘psychopath’ and being a psychopath, means that such people with such tendencies; could be labelled as ‘mentally-ill’ – therefore, I think research into this area is needed. Especially as we have some sections of society who believe that they can fly planes into buildings, and blow themselves up on the metro – because god ‘told’ them to do it.
So any funding into the religious affect on society and the mentally ill, or as a cause or prevent-er of mental illness is welcome in my book – so long as it does not consume the whole budget allocated to research or in anyway form a majority. (I should add that this is the same principle that should apply to any area of research until such areas of research are proved to be beneficial to society as a whole).
Comment by misunderstoodranter — January 25, 2010 @ 5:40 pm |
What bothers me the most is how often and without any real criticism religion is granted a position of authority at a discussion table as if it naturally adds anything meaningful. Imagine if every time a committee was struck or an issue brought forward a chef had to be included and consulted for his or her professional opinion, as if the culinary arts add so much meaning to one’s diet that its earthly representative must have something meaningful to say about whatever the issue may be.
In this particular case – mental health – the very last person on earth who should be consulted is one who is deeply religious… and who assumes that religious belief can add a functioning and helpful sense of reality to a person who may very well be delusional… which is a clear indication that what is real and honest and true matters to this person not one whit.
Comment by tildeb — January 25, 2010 @ 8:38 pm |
I welcome research into religion – I want the churches of the world to build a business case and pay for research into religion and the testing of religious artifacts – however, if it is at the scientific table they must use the scientific method, and it must be peer reviewed.
Time and time again there have been experiments, social, physical, supernatural etc that have shown religion and belief to be nothing more than chance – and time and time again the religious people have shrunk into an abyss of embarrassment, after they have spent thousands if not millions of dollars on the research which has failed to prove anything.
This is good – because it puts a material cost on the folly of religion – which although is blindly obvious to us, it is not apparent to others until it starts to hit their pockets.
I admit this would be costly – but if that is what it takes, to drag humanity into the modern world then so be it.
Comment by misunderstoodranter — January 25, 2010 @ 10:19 pm |
You may be interested in Sam Harris’ doctoral thesis (neuroscience) and findings using fMRI scans about how the brain works regarding questions of belief: A comparison of both stimulus categories suggests that religious thinking is more associated with brain regions that govern emotion, self-representation, and cognitive conflict, while thinking about ordinary facts is more reliant upon memory retrieval networks.
You can read the entire paper here: http://www.reasonproject.org/images/uploads/contest/Harris_Kaplan_2009.pdf
Comment by tildeb — January 26, 2010 @ 4:51 am |
Time and time again there have been experiments, social, physical, supernatural etc that have shown religion and belief to be nothing more than chance – and time and time again the religious people have shrunk into an abyss of embarrassment, after they have spent thousands if not millions of dollars on the research which has failed to prove anything.
Please prove this!
Comment by 4amzgkids — January 29, 2010 @ 3:15 am |
http://www.examiner.com/x-7780-Houston-Science–Religion-Examiner~y2009m4d10-Scientific-Studies-on-the-Effectiveness-of-Intercessory-Prayer
STEP study: The study cost $2.4 million, and most of the money came from the John Templeton Foundation, which supports research into spirituality. The government has spent more than $2.3 million on prayer research since 2000. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all
Comment by tildeb — January 29, 2010 @ 4:57 am |
Great resources you have Tildeb – LOL
Comment by 4amzgkids — January 30, 2010 @ 2:45 am |
http://1stholistic.com/Prayer/hol_prayer_proof.htm
Comment by 4amzgkids — January 30, 2010 @ 2:49 am
Check mate.
Comment by misunderstoodranter — January 29, 2010 @ 7:23 am |
Dawkins Fans:
Richard Dawkins: “You only need to use the word ‘faith’ when you haven’t any evidence.”
John Lennox: “No, no, not at all. I presume you have faith in your wife. Is there any evidence for that?”
Dawkins: “Yes, plenty-”
Lennox: “Hmmm”
Just watched the first debate between Oxford professors Richard Dawkins and John Lennox (DawkinsLennoxDebate.com) – it was fantastic. The format was frustrating (favouring Lennox), but I thought Lennox dealt some very powerful blows to Dawkins’ straw-men and false dichotomies, while agreeing with his (many) valid points.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Dawkins’ assertion that faith is irrational will never be persuasive to anyone outside his fan club while-ever he persists in using his own definition of faith – as the above quote demonstrates. He is on safe but unpersuasive ground saying “Faith is irrational” having already defined it as such.
By my assessment, Lennox dealt deftly and swiftly with the 8 ‘theses’ of The God Delusion, dismantling them with precision. While I should like to hear the responses of my atheistic readers to Lennox’s critique, I simply cannot believe The God Delusion has been so celebrated. Were I an atheist, I could say it no better than philosopher Michael Ruse: ‘The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.’
The comments from Team Atheist at RichardDawkins.net show not everyone shares my assessment – but perhaps this could be proof that one can be just as blindly dogmatic and indoctrinated against religion as by it.
Don’t forget to watch the debate (or listen). Further reading: Lennox’s book ‘God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?’
I’ll conclude with a quote from a very famous scientist:
A serious case could be made for a deistic God. (Richard Dawkins, 2008)
Filed under Uncategorized . Don’t forget to ShareThis. Scroll down for comments.http://www.thecrazyaustralian.com/richard-dawkins-and-john-lennox-head-to-head/
Comment by 4amzgkids — January 30, 2010 @ 2:52 am |
I’ll conclude with a quote from a very famous scientist:
A serious case could be made for a deistic God. (Richard Dawkins, 2008)
DID YOU SEE THAT????
Comment by 4amzgkids — January 30, 2010 @ 2:53 am |
But he doesn’t have a split personality or anything? Maybe Delusional?
Comment by 4amzgkids — January 30, 2010 @ 2:53 am |
Is Richard Dawkins still evolving? Read about it – it’s the article where he quoted “A Serious case could be made for a deistic God” Wow!
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2543431/is-richard-dawkins-still-evolving.thtml
Comment by 4amzgkids — January 30, 2010 @ 2:55 am |
There is a God, leading atheist concludes
Philosopher says scientific evidence changed his mind
NEW YORK – A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God — more or less — based on scientific evidence, and he says so on a video released Thursday.
Read the rest here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/
Comment by 4amzgkids — January 30, 2010 @ 3:02 am |
“NEW YORK – A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God — more or less — based on scientific evidence, and he says so on a video released Thursday.”
You see, this is where you need to do some research before you comment – (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew) – he went mad, and a Christian author wrote a book with his name on it. More intellectual dishonesty, and twisting of facts, the man was 81 and was going mad and a Christian took advantage of him.
Typical.
Comment by misunderstoodranter — January 30, 2010 @ 7:34 am |
You can’t be serious
Comment by 4amzgkids — January 31, 2010 @ 12:06 am |