TV is rotting our brains!

I was just alerted to an absolutely shocking new stat. Some of you may have heard about the Nielson Media Report, the group responsible for TV ratings, which highlights the fact that for the first time ever the average number of TVs in the average American home now outnumber the occupants of the home.  The typical household in America now has 2.73 TV while only housing 2.55 people. What is going on?

That fact is less appalling to me than the new numbers on how much TV the average person watches in a day.  In 1996, the average American spent 3 hours and 59 minutes a day in front of the tube. As if this wasn’t horrible enough, that number has now increased to 4 hours and 35 minutes a day! That’s 1925 minutes, or just over 32 hours a week, or 100,100 minutes = 1,668 hours = 69.5 days of TV a year!

I will say it again, as if these numbers weren’t shocking enough these numbers only include time spent watching BROADCAST TV; it doesn’t even factor in time watching DVDs, playing video games, or going to movies! I can’t even imagine what the number would jump to if these “activities” were factored in.

No wonder 33% marriages end in divorce, and kids are alienated from their parents! To my mind, this is a huge problem, one of the biggest threatening the survival of this country today. I am proud to say that my family doesn't have a broadcast TV signal coming into our home. I love watching sports and the history, TLC, and Discovery channels, but the removing the temptation to flop down in front of the tube completely is well worth it.

I can’t say any more right now, just wanted to vent for a moment.

Currently Reading Hideaway By Dean Koontz see related

Problems with ADHD activiest's position

I want to take a brief brake from the issue of christian decision making for the moment. Recently I spotted an article on ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) posted in the health section of MSN.com which purported to highlight myths and truths regarding the disorder.  The author claims to have written the article as a response to “ADHD Skeptics” and to equip readers to become “ADHD activists;” arming them with the “facts” so that they can respond skeptics (like myself) and convert them to full ADHD believers.

This fact-providing article did very little of what it claimed to and instead provided high doses of conjecture and speculation wrapped up in the mantle of “fact.”

I just wanted to address this article here for two reasons:

1. I have a problem with ADHD in general.
2. I believe that it is difficult to teach how to think and make rational arguments, but it isn’t too difficult to learn how to do those things if one observes both good and bad examples of developed arguments.  This is a very bad example, thus I wanted to use it a mini casestudy and demonstrate the error that this author has made in trying to present “the facts.”

I have reproduced the article and it’s lead-in below. My comments are written in green.

ADHD: Myths and Truths

Skeptics don't believe that ADHD is a real medical condition. Are they right? Here are seven myth-busting facts that dispel common misconceptions about the disorder. (emphasis added)

Dispelling the Myths of ADHD

By David Freeman, provided by ADDitude for iVillage

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is a medical condition that affects more than 15 million Americans. Its symptoms -- including distractibility, impulsivity and hyperactivity -- can seriously interfere with a person's ability to function from day to day. With the right support and treatment, children and adults with ADHD often lead successful lives.

Plenty of ADHD naysayers, however, don't recognize the condition. Become an activist, just in time for ADHD Awareness Day on September 20, and the next time you encounter a skeptic, provide him or her with some fast facts. Below is the truth about ADHD -- use it to dispel common myths and misconceptions.

ADHD is a real medical disorder.
It has been recognized as a legitimate diagnosis by major medical, psychological and educational organizations, including the National Institutes of Health, the American Psychiatric Society and the U.S. Department of Education.
Since when do educational organizations, such as the U.S. Department of Education, get to decide what is a legitimate medical condition and what is not? It may be that they have officially recognized the disorder, but that really shouldn’t carry any weight with anyone, seeing as that recognition is well outside that organization’s purview.

The organization listed above that carries the most weight on this subject would be the American Psychiatric Society, which the author is proper in mentioning. However, it should be noted that that organization is not monolithic. If 51% of the members of the APS decide one way on any given issue, then that becomes the organization’s official position on that issue.  Thus, there may be a slight majority of doctors who take the APS position, but there very well could be a large minority who disagree.

I don’t know what percentage of doctors in the APS support it’s position on ADHD, it could be nearly unanimous for all I know, but I would be extremely surprised to discover that it is.

I should also note that the statement “ADHD is a real medical disorder” is not proven by his citation of it’s recognition by various organizations. It would be more accurate to state, “ADHD is a real medical diagnosis.” More on this in a moment.

ADHD is biologically based (Nobody knows this for sure, this is speculation). Research shows that it's the result of an imbalance of chemical messengers, or neurotransmitters, within the brain (I don’t believe this sentence to be accurate, and the author does not cite any research to back up this claim. It is clearly the current theory, but then again, this is the theory for the cause of virtually every “mental disorder.”). Its primary symptoms are inattention, impulsiveness and, sometimes, hyperactivity. People with ADHD have a great deal of difficulty with some aspects of daily life, including time management and organization.

If we were actually able to measure the “chemical imbalance” supposedly suffered by those diagnosed with ADHD, then a set of lab tests could be developed to objectively test for the disorder. The fact is that ADHD is diagnosed, like virtually all mental disorders, by observing symptoms. A list of symptoms has been developed and is referenced by psychologists and school teachers (many ADHD diagnoses are made in school, not in a medical office) and if an individual displays enough of the symptoms on the list he or she will be “diagnosed” as suffering from ADHD.

The “chemical imbalance in the brain” has become the standard theory for virtually every mental disorder ever diagnosed. When you see this statement made about a mental disorder, it basically means they don’t know what causes it; but they are unwilling to attribute the problem to parenting or any other environmental or social shortcomings.

Accommodations for students with ADHD are meant to level the playing field.
The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that public schools address the special needs of all children with disabilities, including children with ADHD. Special accommodations, such as extra time on tests, simply level the playing field so that kids with ADHD can learn as successfully as their non-ADHD classmates.

The heading for this section is not a fact; it’s the author’s opinion on an institutional procedure. The author believes that these accommodations for ADHD suffers DO level the playing field and that such accommodations are necessary.

I would disagree with him on the appropriateness of many of the accommodations for ADHD suffers. I my opinion, it would be more beneficial for them to learn to cope with their symptoms in a protected environment; so that when they enter the work environment they will be in for the next 40-50 years they can manage there as well without the benefit of special accommodations. No employer is going to make the same accommodations for them as they got in school.

ADHD often persists through adulthood.
More than 70 percent of individuals who have the condition in childhood continue to have it in adolescence. Up to 50 percent will continue to have it through adulthood.

Although it's been estimated that as much as 6 percent of the adult population has ADHD, the majority of those adults remain undiagnosed, and only one in four seeks treatment. Without help, adults with ADHD are highly vulnerable to depression, anxiety and substance abuse. They often experience career difficulties, legal and financial problems and troubled personal relationships.

I have only one thing to say about this: how does the author know that the majority of adult ADHD suffers remain undiagnosed? Only the number of people diagnosed with the disorder can be measured; it’s impossible to measure the quantity of a something that hasn’t been identified, such as the number of people with a disease that have not had it diagnosed.

ADHD affects boys and girls equally.
Girls are just as likely to have ADHD as boys are, and gender makes no difference in the symptoms caused by the disorder. But because the myth persists that ADHD affects only boys, they are more likely than girls to be diagnosed with the disorder.

Same problem as above. The author is making a claim that, I believe, is based purely on political correctness.

He acknowledges that boys are diagnosed with ADHD more frequently than girls, but blames this shortfall in female ADHD diagnosis’s on doctors who have bought into the “myth” that boys suffer from ADHD far more than girls.

The fact is, there is no way to know whether the author’s claim is true, and a great deal of evidence to say that it is false.  As I stated before, it is impossible to know the number of people who suffer from an illness, but have not yet been diagnosed and therefore not yet counted.  It is pure speculation.

The fact is, that boys ARE diagnosed with ADHD far more frequently than girls (I believe the ratio is something like 10:1). What the author is actually saying in these two sentences is that he wants ADHD to affect boys and girls in equal numbers (because if it doesn’t, it could cast serious doubt on whether ADHD is actually caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and might actually have more to do with environment, parenting, or social institutions like public school). 

ADHD is a matter of brain chemistry, not bad parenting.
When a child with ADHD blurts out comments or gets out of her seat in class, it's not because she hasn't been taught that these behaviors are inappropriate. It's because she can't control her impulses. The problem is rooted in brain chemistry, not discipline. In fact, overly strict parenting -- which may involve punishing a child for things she can't control -- can sometimes make ADHD symptoms worse.

The claim that ADHD is a matter of brain chemistry is the current theory of the moment, and it is as yet unprovable.

Being treated for ADHD decreases the likelihood that a child will abuse drugs as a teenager.
Having untreated ADHD increases the risk that an individual will abuse drugs or alcohol. Appropriate treatment reduces this risk.

The medications used to treat ADHD have been proven safe and effective for more than 50 years of use. The drugs do not turn kids into addicts or "zombies," and they don't cure ADHD, but they are highly effective at relieving symptoms of the disorder.

I have never heard the claim made by anyone that the medications used to treat ADHD will increase the likelihood that those children suffers of ADHD will use illegal drugs.  However, I have heard firsthand from many parents who tried putting their children on ADHD meds that their kids became listless and uninterested in anything. The drugs calmed the kids down, but did so by reducing the kids to something similar to a catatonic state. These parents said the state was so bad they took their kids off the drugs.  Better to be hyperactive than be “zombies” (to quote the author).

To be fair, I also know of parents who have reported that their children became more focused and attentive after going on the drugs.  It may be (and is probably likely, in my opinion) that the drugs affect different kids differently. I have heard enough parents report very different results from the same drug to conclude that drugs might be helpful in some cases, but completely unhelpful, and even harmful in others.

I would also note that Dr. Dean Edell, host of the most popular medical call-in radio show on the air and the second most popular syndicated radio show in the nation, refers to the primary ADHD drug Ritalin as “Kiddie-Crack,” and that it’s main ingredient is cocaine.

The question in my mind, which the author of this article does not address, is whether the drugs are necessary at all. I believe that drugs should be an absolute last resort, but it appears that all too frequently schools are asking for the drug option earlier and earlier.

ADHDers can be highly successful.
People with the condition are generally of above-average intelligence, recent studies show. In fact, a number of well-known, high-achieving individuals from the past are thought to have had ADHD, including Mozart, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, George Bernard Shaw and Salvador Dali. The list of successful ADHDers in business today includes top executives such as David Neeleman, founder of JetBlue Airways, and Paul Orfalea, founder of Kinko's.

I have no problem with this section, except to note that the examples the author cites are of people who have learned to focus their energy in constructive directions, rather than doping themselves with drugs. Shouldn’t this be the approach we also take with our kids?

Aside from being a myth buster, there's plenty more that you can do to spread ADHD awareness. Write a letter to the editor or an op-ed piece for your local newspaper, lobby your library to carry and display leading ADHD books, or work with the PTA at your child's school to create an educational workshop about the condition.

Here’s the problem I have with ADHD: There may very well be a real disorder that makes certain people so hyperactive that they are unable to function in normal life, I have no problem with that possibility. However, I believe that the ADHD diagnosis has been abused by both parents and schools as way of dealing with difficult children.

Children who are very high energy, mostly boys, who need to just get out and play more than they are allowed, are expected to behave like girls (the public school system has been turned into a system for girls by women; is it any wonder that women now completely dominate the average college population? But that’s a different blog) and when they don’t, they are told they have a chemical imbalance and are told to go some on some sort of drug.

I believe that most kids diagnosed with ADHD DO have a chemical imbalance; that chemical is called TESTOSTERONE.

To sum up this article, I would like to make a few observations about the errors the author made.

1. The author has confused ‘Truth’ with ‘Opinion.’
            He says at the very outset that he is going to provide seven myth-busting truths about ADHD, but actually ends up making statements about his opinion on the disorder. I would have had no problem with this article if he hadn’t stated that he was communicating truth.

2. The author made a number of unsubstantiated claims.
            As an “ADHD skeptic,” I found several of his opinions highly questionable. If the author had only cited some reputable studies, he might have given some of his opinions some weight, which might have pushed the claims further from the realm of opinion and closer to the realm of fact.

Basic rule of argumentation and logic: The one making the claim bears the burden of proof.

3. The author committed several “straw man fallacies.”
The author addressed a ‘concern’ of the ADHD skeptic without understanding the argument. In the section on the potential for drug addiction the author attributed a false concern to ADHD skeptics and then addressed that concern. The problem with this is that by misunderstanding my position on ADHD drugs the author has rendered his entire statement on the subject useless and has lost credibility in the eyes of those he wants to convince.

4. The author never acknowledges the descenting views in the medical community.
I know that this is a highly controversial issue even in the medical community and that there is nowhere near a consensus on ADHD among doctors.  By claiming that everything in this article is true (which is certainly a possibility, although an unlikely one IMHO) the author clearly implies that there is complete unity on this issue in the medical community, which is simply not the case. Again, the author loses credibility on the issue in the eyes of the people he is trying to convince.

In a matter with no consensus and little empirical evidence to support his view, the author should not be making such a truth claim for his position.

Currently Watching Cinderella Man (Widescreen Edition) By Russell Crowe, Ren�e Zellweger, Paul Giamatti, Craig Bierko, Paddy Considine, Bruce McGill, David Huband, Connor Price, Ariel Waller, Patrick Louis, Rosemarie DeWitt, Linda Kash, Nicholas Campbell, Gene Pyrz, Chuck Shamata, Ron Canada, Alicia Johnston, Troy Amos-Ross, Mark Simmons, Art Binkowski see related

How Christians hear from God (Part 3)

It’s been about two weeks in coming, but I’m finally done considering this third installment of this little series and I am now ready to write it.

I stated last time that this 3^rd installment would cover unrighteous desires for righteous or allowable things. Since writing the first two parts I have been asked questions like “So, no such thing as a Spirit Filled life (this was the most common, and I will cover this later)?"

First, is it possible to desire, in a sinful manner, something for our life that God has said is good and righteous? Like marriage, or even better, like serving in the mission field (Take the famous missionary William Carey, for example)?  Of course it can be! Some things, like marriage, require more than just a desire to make it happen. Marriage requires another person that is willing and able to marry you. If that person is not forth coming at the moment, then marriage is not possible right now and you should be content with your marital status.  Other times, as is William Carey's situation, one could argue that Carey was not fulfilling a number of commandents and responibilities that God has placed on husbands and fathers (and his family certainly suffered for it). I'm not saying that God didn't use William Carey, he was used mightily, but it is my opinion that Carey was outside of God's will in going to India and letting his family suffer for it (I believe that Carey was sinning in what he did, but God still used him; after all, if God can't use sinners he wouldn't get very much done).

God hasn’t told us that it’s wrong to get married, or even to desire marriage, but He has told us that we should be content with what we are given (1 Timothy 6:6-7), and that in every circumstance we should give thanks (1 Chronicles 16:34, 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18). That’s not to say we must give thanks for the situation we’re in, but the Bible is full of passages telling us to give thanks to God, because He is God (Just read the Psalms, especially Psalm 107, 118, 136).

I wrote last time, as an example of a Biblically grounded decision making process, about whether it is right to desire marriage. But I am hearing from Christians who are asking about WHO they should marry, doesn’t God care about that? 'I don’t know if the guy I’m with is the right one?'

This is an issue of God’s moral will; everything that we, as Christians, are allowed to do is inside that circle of moral will, and everything we are not allowed to do is outside that circle. God does care about who you marry and has a great deal to say about it:

1. Well, you have to marry a Christian (Alright, that eliminates about 5 billion people right there)
2. You must marry someone of the opposite sex (There’s another 500 million that are now out of the question. See how easy this is!)
3. You can’t marry someone who is already married (There aren’t that many left now!)

See! If the person you are with fits these requirements (and a couple others that we can find in the Bible), and you both desire to get married to each other, then God says go ahead and do it! With His blessing! (that's not to say that you won't have problems, we know that we will always have problems while we live on the current earth)

Some advise: Don’t beat yourself up by constantly trying to figure out what your “internal nudges” are telling you. Going back to the marriage example: marriage is a good thing! It’s also a good thing to remain unmarried! MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND! God has allowed us to make these kinds of decisions.

Changing gears: What about “no such thing as a spirit filled life?” I want to clearly say that I do believe in a Spirit filled life, I just think that the true work of the Spirit has been lost in much of the Christian church today, or been nearly smothered in christian-ese (Spiritual sounding language that doesn’t really mean anything or has no biblical basis).

The Holy Spirit:

Edifies the Church (Acts 9:31)
Testifies of Christ to us (John 15:26)
Imparts the love of God to believers (Romans 5:3-5)
Gives us hope (Romans 15:13, Galatians 5:5)
Assists in understanding (John 14:26)
Strives with sinners (Genesis 6:3)
He comforts (Acts 9:31)
He sanctifies (Romans 15:16, 1 Corinthians 6:11)
He guides (in discovering the truth in the Bible about God) (John 16:14)
(This list could go on, but I think that most of the things I could add would fall under the rubric of one of the things that I already mentioned)

Nowhere in the Bible can I find a single reference where the Spirit nudged believers toward some “life-blueprint” that God has for each one of us but never actually shares with us. Th e Spirit guides us in making choices that are Biblically based and pleasing to God according to what He has alreadyrevealed to us (in the Bible).

Hope that helps; more on this later…(a part 4?!?! OH NO…)

How Christians Hear from God, Part 2 (Or How to Make Christ-Like Decisions)

In Part 1 I asked the questions: Do we learn to hear from God? Does God actually speak today? And how should we as Christians go about making Godly decisions in our lives, especially when it comes down making “the big decisions?

I answered the first two of those questions with a resounding “No” and a “Yes,” respectively, and highlighted what I believe to be non-Biblical ideas prevalent in the Church today about God speaking and presented the Bible’s view of how God speaks.

Today I want give an example that will (hopefully) clarify the Biblical perspective on how Christians who desire to do God’s will for their lives need to go about making decisions in the absence of very explicit, unmistakable direction from God.

Mary is single and in her mid twenties. She wants to marry, has always believed that she would marry, but now she has no prospective relationship interests and is getting frustrated. She starts to wonder whether she should be married at all; maybe God has intended that she be single and use her life in service of him. She wonders whether these thoughts she has about perpetual singleness are God telling her that he intends her to truly be single and never marry, or whether they are just her active imagination.

In Mary’s case, the thoughts she is having are certainly from her imagination, and not from God (some might argue that it’s the Holy Spirit “whispering” to her, but I disagree; more on the Spirit later). To answer her questions she needs only two things:

1. She needs to be in a right relationship with God. This is exemplified by spending time with God in prayer, praising and worshiping him, but also bringing our troubles and our requests before him (i.e. Mary’s desire to get married). This relationship is also apparent in our proper (Godly, righteous , Biblical, Christ like) responses to the problems and circumstances we all come up against every day.

How do we know what the proper response in any given situation is? We need to get God’s Word inside of us (Colossians 3:16) and be in a right, vibrant relationship with Christ; knowing God’s Word so well that the Christian response becomes virtually instinctual. We shouldn’t even have to think about it (although most of us still have to, I know I do).

2. The second thing Mary needs is contentment with what God gives her (although this should probably be included under the heading of a God centered response to every situation). It’s alright to desire things and to want things (as long as they are compatible with Christianity), but we always need to be content, faithful, and thankful in all things, even when we don’t get what we want (Colossians 3:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18).

So how are these principles applied in Mary’s case? She should ask herself, “Is marriage Godly?” and “Is it Godly to desire marriage?” Let’s go to the scriptures:

First, is Marriage Godly?

Genesis 2:18 – Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

Genesis 2:24 – For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. (Marriage is divinely instituted by God)

1 Corinthians 7:28 – But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. (Emphasis added)

1 Timothy 5:14 – Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; (Marriage is encouraged in this specific situation)

Hebrews 13:4 – Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge. (Emphasis Added)

So from these few passages, we see that marriage was instituted by God and God instructed his followers to hold the institution of marriage in high regard. This is where the Holy Spirit and discernment come into play. The Holy Spirit in these situations is our guide, assisting us in discerning the Biblical and Godly path to take. Teaching us to properly “divide the Word of Truth,” helping us to properly apply what learn in God’s Word.

The second question, I think, is a no-brainer, “Is it Godly to desire marriage.” If God told us that something is honorable and good, and that it is not a sin to do that thing or to desire that thing after a Godly fashion.

Is it possible to desire a good and righteous thing in an un-Godly fashion? Yes it is, but I will write about that in the third, and what I hope will be the final part of this little series.

One final note, prayer cannot be understated. If we truly desire something which is good and righteous in God’s sight and we have not received that thing yet. We should be lifting it up in prayer, placing our desire before God. Lifting our righteous desires up to God doesn’t mean will get them right away, or even ever (although God is generous and enjoys giving us our righteous wants), but it will certainly helps bring us to a place of thanksgiving and contentment in the current situation.

As I said, more on this next time.

How Christians Hear from God, Part 1

It has become very clear to me over the last few days that there is a great deal of misunderstanding regarding the posts that I made on God speaking. The fault is mostly my own; in retrospect I think I should have named the original post something other than I did, as it has appeared to many that I am attempting to make the point that God doesn’t speak at all. This was not my intention. I will now attempt to clarify my position:

What I am attempting to address is a problem I have heard over and over in every Christian church I have ever attended. Christians, especially young ones, high school and college aged, frequently ask how they can differentiate God voice (in their heads) from their own imagination. A very similar problem in the church today is that many people are teaching that we can and should learn to “hear from God;” Henry Blackaby and his book “Experiencing God,” are prime examples. I do not have anything against Mr. Blackaby personally, he seems to be a very decent and learned man, but I believe that many of his points in his bestseller are experientially based rather than Biblically based.

Do we learn to hear from God? Does God actually speak today? And how should we as Christians go about making Godly decisions in our lives, especially when it comes down making “the big decisions?

To answer the first question, I don’t believe that we should be getting our answers to these questions by learning to hear from God. If God wants to speak to you, to give you direct and specific information or messages he will be very clear and explicite.

By speaking. He does speak to Christians today, I know many Christian’s personally who have been spoken to by God (I have not had that experience personally). And their experience is clear and perfectly in-line with the examples of God speaking in the Bible.

Most of the Christians I that have spoken to who (I believe) have genuinely heard from God describe the experience by saying that they literally heard a voice. Not imagined, not had an impression, they heard God’s voice as clearly as if I was sitting next to you talking aloud. I have also heard several people describe experiences with God speaking that were not audible, but were no less clear and unmistakable.

The point is this: when God speaks he makes himself clear. There will be no second guessing and absolutely no doubt. God reaches down and gets his message across when it suits his purposes, we shouldn’t be trying to learn how to hear his voice as if he is speaking all the time to each one of us and we are simply not paying attention.

As I pointed out in my previous posts, when God spoke to Samuel, Samuel heard an audible voice so clearly he believed it was his master in the next room calling to him. When God spoke to Peter in Acts 10 on roof top, to prepare him to bring the gospel to the Cornelius and his family Peter had a conversation with God and a vision. When Saul (Paul) was on the road to Damascus, when he wasn’t even serving God, he had a dramatic encounter with Jesus that was audible even to those who were standing nearby (Acts 9). When God spoke to Noah, the Lord gave him extremely specific instructions on how to build the ark, from the kind of wood to use to the precise dimensions the boat needed to be; this certainly wasn’t an impression that Noah got one day or anything he had to learn to do. It was clear, and precise and unmistakable.

That said there is a more basic way in which God “speaks” to each and every Christian, which I will attempt to cover in greater detail in my next post.

This is certainly long enough for now and probably a lot to chew on. I will look forward to posting more in part two.