Does helping others help you?

Posted on January 16, 2016 by cedwardpitt

John Holmes wrote “There is no exercise better for the heart than reaching down and lifting people up.”

We all know that exercise is good for us, but is the exercise of the heart, “reaching down and lifting people up” just as good for us?

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. Her meme of the day today was a claim that “Helping others can increase your lifespan.” She explained that “Researchers found a link between serving others, improved health and decreased mortality! See more at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780662/pdf/AJPH.2012.300876.pdf”.

The journal she referenced was a 2013 article by Poulin et al in the American Journal of Public Health [1]. Poulin and his colleagues examined data from nearly 850 people in the Detroit area. At the start of their study, they asked their participants about stressful life events in the last year and whether they provided tangible assistance to friends or family members. They then followed their participants for five years and analysed the characteristics of who died in that time.

According to the study by Poulin, those who helped others were younger, healthier, more likely to be White, of higher socioeconomic status, and higher in social support and social contact than those who didn’t help, all factors that have been shown to influence mortality. They also noted that 70% of their cohort didn’t experience any stressful life events. While they adjusted for these variables, their statistics would still be affected by them. As it turns out, while their results were significant, their numbers had broad confidence intervals, so the effect they found is very weak.

What about other studies looking at the same question but in a different way? Well, there are mixed findings. Roth and colleagues published a study in 2013 in the American Journal of Epidemiology which also showed that care-givers had better life expectancy than matched controls [1] but then a number of other studies show the opposite. The Caregiver Health Effects Study found that those who were providing care to a disabled spouse and who reported some strain associated with that care had a 63% elevated risk of death compared with non-caregiving spouses [2]. Other studies suggest that caregivers have poorer mental and physical health status than non-caregivers [3], and caregiving has been widely portrayed as a serious public health problem in the professional literature [4, 5].

So while Poulin found a loose association between helping others and decreased mortality, Dr Leaf has taken that a step too far:

> Firstly, correlation does not equal causation. Just because a study found those who helped others had a decreased mortality doesn’t mean that the reverse, helping others increases your lifespan, necessarily holds. There may be other explanations.
> Secondly, other studies show conflicting results, so Poulin’s study may be a statistical hiccough.

It’s not clear that helping others is actually good for our health. That doesn’t mean to say we shouldn’t help others. I think we should, if for no other reason than the golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” But we can’t definitively say that helping others will help us directly by making us live longer. That’s scientifically still up in the air.

References

[1]        Poulin MJ, Brown SL, Dillard AJ, Smith DM. Giving to others and the association between stress and mortality. Am J Public Health 2013 Sep;103(9):1649-55.
[2]        Schulz R, Beach SR. Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: the Caregiver Health Effects Study. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association 1999 Dec 15;282(23):2215-9.
[3]        Pinquart M, Sorensen S. Differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: a meta-analysis. Psychol Aging 2003 Jun;18(2):250-67.
[4]        Talley RC, Crews JE. Framing the public health of caregiving. Am J Public Health 2007 Feb;97(2):224-8.
[5]        Centre for Disease Control and Prevention. Caregiving, A Public Health Priority. 2010, 7 Dec 2010 [cited 2016 Jan 16]; Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/aging/caregiving/index.htm

The Prospering Soul – Christians and Anxiety

Posted on October 31, 2015 by cedwardpitt

When you say the word “anxiety”, it can mean different things to different people. To a lot of people, anxiety is the same as being a little frightened. To others, it’s being really scared, but with good reason (like if you have to give a speech and you’re afraid of public speaking).

Medically speaking, anxiety isn’t just being frightened or stressed. After all, it’s normal to be frightened or stressed. God made us so that we could experience fear, because a little bit of fear is actually protective. There are dangers all around us, and if we had no fear at all, we’d end up becoming lunch for a wild animal, or road-kill. So there’s nothing wrong with a little bit of anxiety – in the right amount, for the right reason.

But anxiety in the wrong amount or for the wrong reason, can disrupt our day-to-day tasks and make it hard to live a rich and fulfilling life. That’s the anxiety that we’ll be talking about today.

The official description of anxiety reflects this idea of the wrong amount of anxiety about the wrong things: “… marked symptoms of anxiety accompanied by either general apprehension (i.e. ‘free-floating anxiety’) or worry focused on multiple everyday events, most often concerning family, health, finances, and school or work, together with additional symptoms such as muscular tension or motor restlessness, sympathetic autonomic over-activity, subjective experience of nervousness, difficulty maintaining concentration, irritability, or sleep disturbance. The symptoms are present more days than not for at least several months and result in significant distress or significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.” (This is taken from the beta-version of the latest WHO diagnostic guidelines, the ICD-11, but has yet to be formally ratified).

There are six main disorders that come under the “anxiety disorders” umbrella, reflecting either an abnormal focus of anxiety or an abnormal intensity:
1. Panic Disorder (abnormally intense anxiety episodes)
2. Social Anxiety Disorder (abnormal anxiety of social interactions)
3. Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (abnormally intense episodes of anxiety following trauma)
4. Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (abnormally intense and abnormally focussed anxiety resulting in compulsive behaviours)
5. Specific phobias (abnormally focussed anxiety on one particular trigger), and
6. Generalised Anxiety Disorder (abnormal anxiety of everything)

The common underlying theme of anxiety is uncertainty. Grupe and Nitschke wrote, “Anxiety is a future-orientated emotion, and anticipating or ‘pre-viewing’ the future induces anxiety largely because the future is intrinsically uncertain.” [1]

The dysfunctional approach to uncertainty that underlies anxiety is in turn related to genetic changes which affect the structure and function of the brain, primarily in the regions of the amygdala and the pre-frontal cortex, which then alters the processing of our brain in five different areas:
> Inflated estimates of threat cost and probability
> Hypervigilance
> Deficient safety learning
> Behavioural and cognitive avoidance
> Heightened reactivity to threat uncertainty

In simpler language:
> the brain thinks that threats are more likely and will be worse than they are
> the brain spends more time looking for possible threats
> the brain fails to learn what conditions are safe, which is aggravated by
> the brain over-using avoidance as a coping mechanism, and
> the brain assumes that unavoidable uncertainty is more likely to be bad.

It’s important to understand at this point that anxiety disorders aren’t the result of poor personal choices. They are the result of a genetic predisposition to increased vulnerability to early life stress, and to chronic stress [2].

The other way of looking at it is that some people are blessed with amazing tools for resilience [3, 4].

It’s not to say that our choices have no impact at all, but we need to be realistic about this. Everyone will experience stressful situations at some point in their lives, and everyone will also make dumb choices in their lives. Some people are naturally better equipped to handle this, whereas some people have genes that make them more vulnerable. It’s wrong to blame yourself, or allow other people to blame you, for experiencing anxiety, just as it’s wrong for other people to assume that if one person can cope with the same level of stress, then everyone else should too.

It’s not to say that you shouldn’t fight back though. Just because your facing a mountain doesn’t mean to say you can’t climb it. It will be hard work, and you’ll need good training and support, but you can still climb that mountain.

Managing anxiety is very similar to managing depression like we discussed in a previous post. Following the tap model, there’s overflow when there is too much going into the system, the system is too small to handle it, and the processing of the input is too slow. So managing anxiety involves reducing the amount of stress going into the system, increasing the systems capacity through learning resilience and coping skills, and sometimes by improving the systems processing power with medications.

Reducing the input – stress management

Sometimes the best way of coping with anxiety is to reduce the stress that’s fanning the flames. It mightn’t seem to come naturally, but as we discussed in the last chapter, there are a few basic skills that are common to all stress management techniques that can form the platform of ongoing better skills in this area.

Engaging the “vagal brake” as proposed by the “Polyvagal Theory” [5] is as important in anxiety as it is in depression. By performing these techniques, the activity of the vagus nerve on the heart via the parasympathetic “rest-and-digest” nervous system is increased, which not only slows down the heart, but enhances the activity of other automatic parts of our metabolism. Some of the techniques allow a relaxed body to have a relaxed brain which can cope better with whatever is confronting it. The full list will be a blog for another time, but the simplest technique is to breathe!

It’s really simple. Sit in a comfortable position. Take slow, deep breaths, right to the bottom of your lungs and expanding your chest forward through the central “heart” area. Count to five as you breathe in (five seconds, not one to five as quickly as possible) and then count to five as you breathe out. Keep doing this, slowly, deeply and rhythmically, in and out. Pretty simple! This will help to improve the efficiency of your heart and lungs, and reduce your stress levels.

Remember, B.R.E.A.T.H.E. = Breathe Rhythmically Evenly And Through the Heart Everyday.

Increasing capacity – coping and resilience

Like with depression, anxiety responds well to psychological therapies which help to increase coping skills and enhance our innate capacity for resilience. And like depression, anxiety improves with CBT and ACT [6, 7], which enhance the activity of the pre-frontal regions of the brain [8]. For anxiety, CBT teaches new skills to handle uncertain situations, and to re-evaluate the chances of bad things happening and what would happen if they do. ACT puts the train of anxious thoughts and feelings in their place, and teaches engagement with the present moment, and a future focusing on values, and accepting the discomfort of uncertainty by removing the distress associated with it.

Practicing each of these skill sets is like practicing any other skill. Eventually, with enough practice, they start to become more like a reflex, and we start to cope with stress and anxiety better automatically.

Increased processing – Medications

Sometimes, to achieve long-term successful management of anxiety, a little extras help is needed in the form of medication. Like depression, the main group of medications used are the Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (or SSRI’s for short). Medications appear to reduce the over-activity of a number of brain regions collectively called the limbic system [8], which are involved with many innate and automatic functions, but in its simplest form, the limbic system controls many of our emotions and motivations, including fear, anger and certain aspects of pleasure-seeking [9]. So essentially, SSRI’s help the anxious brain to make better sense of the incoming signals.

There are other medications commonly used for anxiety treatment, collectively called benzodiazepines. Most people wouldn’t have heard that term before, but would have heard of the most famous member of the benzo family, Valium. Benzos are like having a bit too much alcohol – they slow down the activity of the brain, and induce a feeling of relaxation. When used appropriately (i.e.: in low doses and in the short term), they can be helpful in taking the edge off quite distressing feelings of anxiety or panic. But benzos are not a cure, and after a while, the body builds a tolerance to them, where a higher dose is required to achieve the same effect. Continued long term use eventually creates dependence where a person finds it difficult to cope without them.

The final way to help manage anxiety is prayer. Like for depression, there is limited scientific information on the effects of prayer on, although a small randomised controlled trial did show that prayer with a prayer counsellor over a period of a number of weeks was more effective than no treatment [10].

Though given that anxiety is a future orientated emotion, excessively anticipating possible unwelcome scenarios and consequences, it’s easy to see why prayer should work well for anxiety. Trusting that God has the future in hand and knowing “that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28) means that the future is less uncertain. The Bible also encourages us, “Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 4:6-7) When we give the future to God, he will give us peace in return.

Again, like in the case of depression, it’s sometimes hard for Christians to understand how strong Christians can suffer from anxiety in the first place. After all, we’ve just read how God gives us peace. And the Bible says that the fruit of the Spirit is peace (Galatians 5:22).

So when you’re filled with the opposite, when all you feel is overwhelming fear, it makes you feel like a faithless failure. Christians without anxiety assume that Christians with anxiety aren’t living in the Spirit. And it’s the logical conclusion to draw after all – if the fruit of the Spirit is peace, and you’re not filled with peace, then you mustn’t be full of the Spirit.

But like depression, when you look through the greatest heroes in the Bible, you see a pattern where at one point or another in their lives, they went through physical and emotional destitution, including mind-numbing fear … Moses argued with God about how weak and timid he was (Exodus 3 and 4), Elijah ran for his life in panic and asked God to kill him, twice, over the period of a couple of months after Queen Jezebel threatened him (1 Kings 18 and 19). Peter had spent three years with Jesus, the Messiah himself, hearing him speak and watching him perform miracle after miracle after miracle. But Peter denied his Messiah three times when he was confronted with possible arrest (John 18).

For the same pattern is also seen in King David, Gideon, and a number of other great leaders through the Bible. The take home message is this: it’s human nature to suffer from disease and dysfunction. Sometimes it’s physical dysfunction. Sometimes it’s emotional dysfunction. It’s not a personal or spiritual failure to have a physical illness. Why should mental illness be treated any different?

As the stories of Moses, Elijah and Peter testify, being a strong Christian doesn’t make you impervious to fear and anxiety. Hey, we’re all broken in some way, otherwise why would we need God’s strength and salvation? Having anxiety simply changes your capacity to experience God’s peace. As I said in the last chapter, closing your eyes doesn’t stop the light, it just stops you experiencing the light. Being anxious doesn’t stop God’s peace, it just makes it harder to experience God’s peace.

In summary some anxiety, at the right time and at the right intensity, is normal. It’s not unhealthy or sinful to experience some anxiety. Anxiety at the wrong time or at the wrong intensity, can disrupt our day-to-day tasks and make it hard to live a rich and fulfilling life. Anxiety related to a dysfunctional approach to uncertainty, and is a future-orientated emotion because anticipating or ‘pre-viewing’ the future induces anxiety largely because the future is intrinsically uncertain. Anxiety disorders can be debilitating.

Like depression, anxiety disorders can be managed in four main ways, by reducing the amount of stress coming in with stress management techniques, by increasing capacity to cope with psychological therapies like CBT and ACT, and sometimes by using medications, which help the brain to process the uncertainty of each situation more effectively. Prayer is can also useful to helping to manage anxiety.

Christians are not immune from anxiety disorders, and it’s important for the church to understand that Christians who suffer from anxiety are not weak, backsliding or faith-deficient. Having anxiety is not because of making poor choices. Though if you have anxiety, trust in the promises of the Bible, that God has the future under control.

References

[1]        Grupe DW, Nitschke JB. Uncertainty and anticipation in anxiety: an integrated neurobiological and psychological perspective. Nature reviews Neuroscience 2013 Jul;14(7):488-501.
[2]        Duman EA, Canli T. Influence of life stress, 5-HTTLPR genotype, and SLC6A4 methylation on gene expression and stress response in healthy Caucasian males. Biol Mood Anxiety Disord 2015;5:2.
[3]        Wu G, Feder A, Cohen H, et al. Understanding resilience. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience 2013;7:10.
[4]        Russo SJ, Murrough JW, Han M-H, Charney DS, Nestler EJ. Neurobiology of resilience. Nature neuroscience 2012 November;15(11):1475-84.
[5]        Porges SW. The polyvagal perspective. Biological psychology 2007 Feb;74(2):116-43.
[6]        James AC, James G, Cowdrey FA, Soler A, Choke A. Cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2013;6:CD004690.
[7]        Swain J, Hancock K, Hainsworth C, Bowman J. Acceptance and commitment therapy in the treatment of anxiety: a systematic review. Clinical psychology review 2013 Dec;33(8):965-78.
[8]        Quide Y, Witteveen AB, El-Hage W, Veltman DJ, Olff M. Differences between effects of psychological versus pharmacological treatments on functional and morphological brain alterations in anxiety disorders and major depressive disorder: a systematic review. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews 2012 Jan;36(1):626-44.
[9]        Sokolowski K, Corbin JG. Wired for behaviors: from development to function of innate limbic system circuitry. Frontiers in molecular neuroscience 2012;5:55.
[10]      Boelens PA, Reeves RR, Replogle WH, Koenig HG. A randomized trial of the effect of prayer on depression and anxiety. Int J Psychiatry Med 2009;39(4):377-92.

If you’re suffering from anxiety or any other mental health difficulties and if you want help, see your GP or a psychologist, or if you’re in Australia, 24 hour telephone counselling is available through:

Lifeline = 13 11 14 – or – Beyond Blue = 1300 22 4636

The Prospering Soul – Christians and Depression Part 2

Posted on October 11, 2015 by cedwardpitt

For most church-goers, putting the terms “Christian” and “depression” in the same sentence just doesn’t seem natural. In part 1, we looked at what depression is and why depression affects a lot more of the church than the church is aware of.

In this instalment, we’ll look at some general ways to handle depression, and what the Bible says about being depressed.

In the first blog, I explained how I understood depression as the end result of the brains capacity to deal with the demands of life. Too many demands or not enough resources overwhelms the brain and low mood is the end result.

So how do you manage depression? Well, if the system is failing because of increased demand or decreased capacity to cope, then it’s logical to manage depression by decreasing demand and increasing capacity to cope.

We can increase our capacity to cope by increasing our brains capacity to grow new nerve branches, and to make the cells more efficient at doing their job.

Increasing the growth of new nerve cell branches (in science speak – ‘synaptogenesis’) involves increasing the growth factors. BDNF has been proven to be increased by anti-depressant medications [1, 2] and by exercise [3, 4]. There may be some evidence that diet might improve depression in a similar way although the evidence is weak [5], so we should take that with a grain of salt.

The next way of managing depression is to increase the capacity to cope. The way we do that is through psychological therapies. There are several styles of psychological therapies, too many for me to discuss them all here. In the real world, most psychologists use a mix of a number of techniques that they tailor to the needs of their patient. I’m going to quickly outline the two most commonly used therapies.

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, or CBT for short, is “based on the theory that emotional problems result from distorted attitudes and ways of thinking that can be corrected. The aim is to treat difficulties by problem solving, finding better strategies for coping, and overcoming irrational fears.” [6] Essentially it’s the combination of two different therapies, Cognitive therapy, and Behavioural therapy. Cognitive therapy, as the name suggests, assumes that people have mental health problems because of patterns of irrational thinking. Behavioural therapy is quite broad, but looks to challenge the thinking patterns with action (for example: gradual exposure to something a person is afraid of).

CBT is the most well researched form of psychotherapy, and has a lot of evidence for it’s effectiveness [7]. Though there is good evidence that it’s the behavioural arm that gives it any clout [8, 9]. Trying to change your mental health just by trying to change your thoughts is generally ineffective.

In the last couple of decades, a new wave of psychological therapies has emerged from this idea that Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is just Behavioural Therapy with bling. The most notable is Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, or ACT for short. ACT is different to CBT in that ACT doesn’t rely on the idea of changing thoughts, but on simply accepting them. ACT “is a psychological therapy that teaches mindfulness (‘paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, non-judgementally’) and acceptance (openness, willingness to sustain contact) skills for responding to uncontrollable experiences and thereby increased enactment of personal values.” [10]

According to ACT, you don’t have to change your thoughts, because thoughts aren’t that powerful to begin with – they’re just words. Sometimes they’re true, and sometimes they’re helpful, but if we spent all of our time trying to fight them, we miss out on experiencing the joy in the present moment, and we can lose sight of the values that guide us into our future fulfilment.

The common link between good psychotherapy is that their therapeutic effect comes from improving skills in different areas that the patient lacks. That is, psychological therapies increase the capacity of the patient to cope with things that would have otherwise wouldn’t have handled well and would have caused distress.

The last way to manage depression is to limit the excessive demands that have been placed on the system in the first place, or in other words, reduce the unnecessary stressors. People who are depressed tend to be bad at this, but there are a few basic skills that are common to all stress management techniques that can form the platform of ongoing better skills in this area. The full list will be a blog for another time, but the simplest technique is to breathe!

Remember, B.R.E.A.T.H.E. = Breathe Rhythmically Evenly And Through the Heart Everyday.

To recap, there are three main ways to manage depression – increase the brains ability to process the incoming information, increase the capacity to cope, and decrease the amount of stress that our brains have to process.

The fourth way to help manage depression is prayer. There is limited scientific information on the effects of prayer on depression, although a small randomised controlled trial did show that prayer with a prayer counsellor over a period of a number of weeks was more effective than no treatment [11]. But the Bible encourages us, “Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 4:6-7)

And Jesus himself called to those heavy in heart, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-30)

One final thought. It’s sometimes hard to understand how strong Christians can become depressed in the first place. After all, the Bible says that the fruit of the Spirit is joy (Galatians 5:22). 1 Peter 1:8 seems to suggest that every Christian should be “filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy.”

So when you’re filled with the opposite, it makes you feel like a faithless failure, and Christians without depression assume a similar thing for Christians they know who are suffering from depression. It’s the logical conclusion to draw after all – if the fruit of the Spirit is joy, and you are not filled with joy, then you mustn’t be full of the Spirit.

But when you look through the greatest heroes in the Bible, you see a pattern where at one point or another in their lives, they went through physical and emotional destitution. Sure, their lives had some pretty amazing highs, but they often experienced some amazing lows as well. Moses spent forty years in the wilderness, and when God appeared to him in the burning bush, he argued with God about how weak and timid he was (Exodus 3 and 4).

In 1 Kings 18, Elijah had just seen God rain down fire to supernaturally consume his sacrifice, capture and kill four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal, and watched God break the drought over Israel. At the height of this run of amazing connection to God, Jezebel the evil queen threatened him, and he ran for his life in a panic and asked God to kill him, twice, over the period of a couple of months (1 Kings 19).

Peter had spent three years with Jesus, the Messiah himself, hearing him speak and watching him perform miracle after miracle after miracle. Peter even saw the empty tomb first hand on the very first Easter Sunday, but still, he gave up on life with God and went back to his former occupation, which turned out to be lots of hard work for very little reward (John 21:1-3).

The same pattern is also seen in King David, Gideon, and a number of other great leaders through the Bible. The take home message is this: it’s human nature to suffer from disease and dysfunction. Sometimes it’s physical dysfunction. Sometimes it’s emotional dysfunction. It’s not a personal or spiritual failure to have a physical illness. Why should mental illness be treated any different?

As the stories of Moses, Elijah and Peter testify, being a strong Christian doesn’t make you impervious to low mood or emotional fatigue. Hey, we’re all broken in some way, otherwise why would we need God’s strength and salvation! Having depression simply changes your capacity to experience the joy and love of God. Closing your eyes doesn’t stop the light, it just stops you experiencing the light. Being depressed makes it hard to experience God’s love, but it doesn’t stop God’s love.

In the 80’s and 90’s, a popular Christian musician was a man named Carmen. One of his best known songs had these words,

“When problems try to bury you and make it hard to pray, it may seem like Friday night, but Sunday’s on the way!”

It’s really hard when you’re afflicted by the dank darkness of depression. But nothing will separate us from the love of God (Romans 8:35-39), including depression. You may not feel it, but God’s love is there, and Sunday’s on the way.

Remember:

Depression is a common mental health condition that can have prolonged and devastating consequences. Depression is characterised by either a sadness or a lack of joy which are abnormal in their intensity and their duration, but also affects sleep, appetite and motivation. It’s caused by abnormalities in genes which affect the brains ability to grow new nerve cell branches, and which also affect in-built coping mechanisms, so stress is both more likely to occur in people who are more prone to depression, and the stress is then handled poorly, overloading their emotional capacity.

The management of depression is three-pronged: to improve the brains ability to grow new nerve cells through exercise and/or medication, to learn new ways to cope with distress, and to decrease the amount of stress in the first place.

Christians are not immune from depression, and it’s important for Christians to understand that Christians suffering from depression are not weak, or failing in their spiritual walk, or are unloved by God. The love of God is always present, even if they are unable to process it properly. As dark and dismal as depression can become, there is hope. It may seem like Friday night, but Sunday’s on the way.

References

[1]        Duman RS, Li N. A neurotrophic hypothesis of depression: role of synaptogenesis in the actions of NMDA receptor antagonists. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological sciences 2012 Sep 5;367(1601):2475-84.
[2]        Anderson I. Depression. The Treatment and Management of Depression in Adults (Update). NICE clinical guideline 90.2009. London: The British Psychological Society and The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2010.
[3]        Karatsoreos IN, McEwen BS. Resilience and vulnerability: a neurobiological perspective. F1000prime reports 2013;5:13.
[4]        Rimer J, Dwan K, Lawlor DA, et al. Exercise for depression. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2012;7:CD004366.
[5]        Lai JS, Hiles S, Bisquera A, Hure AJ, McEvoy M, Attia J. A systematic review and meta-analysis of dietary patterns and depression in community-dwelling adults. The American journal of clinical nutrition 2014 Jan;99(1):181-97.
[6]        NowOK. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. Dictionary of Psychotherapy 2015 [cited; Available from: http://www.dictionary.nowok.co.uk/cognitive-behavioural-therapy-cbt.php
[7]        Ruiz FJ. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy versus Traditional Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Current Empirical Evidence. International journal of psychology and psychological therapy 2012;12(3):333-58.
[8]        Longmore RJ, Worrell M. Do we need to challenge thoughts in cognitive behavior therapy? Clinical psychology review 2007 Mar;27(2):173-87.
[9]        Dobson KS, Hollon SD, Dimidjian S, et al. Randomized trial of behavioral activation, cognitive therapy, and antidepressant medication in the prevention of relapse and recurrence in major depression. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology 2008 Jun;76(3):468-77.
[10]      Smout M. Acceptance and commitment therapy – pathways for general practitioners. Aust Fam Physician 2012 Sep;41(9):672-6.
[11]      Boelens PA, Reeves RR, Replogle WH, Koenig HG. A randomized trial of the effect of prayer on depression and anxiety. Int J Psychiatry Med 2009;39(4):377-92.

If you’re suffering from depression or any other mental health difficulties and need help, see your GP or a psychologist, or if you’re in Australia, 24 hour telephone counselling is available through:

Lifeline = 13 11 14 – or – Beyond Blue = 1300 22 4636

The Prospering Soul – Christians and Depression Part 1

Posted on October 10, 2015 by cedwardpitt

In the average charismatic church, from the time you park your car in the parking lot, to the time the music starts at the beginning of the service, the smiles of at least a hundred people beam at you, and at least one third of those smiles are also attached to enthusiastic handshakes and exhortations like, “Isn’t it great to be in church this morning!”

When you’re a Christian, especially at the happy-clappy end of the church spectrum, you’re supposed to be constantly full of the Holy Spirit and experiencing the joy of the Lord.

Which is why for most church-goers, putting the terms “Christian” and “depression” in the same sentence just doesn’t seem natural, even though depression affects a lot more of the church than the church is aware of.

So, how much of the church is affected by depression? The lifetime prevalence (how likely you are to suffer from depression at one stage through your life) is about twenty-five percent, or about one in four people. The point prevalence (those who are suffering from clinical depression at any particular time) is about six percent.

I used to attend a church which had a regular congregation of about 2500 people. So statistically, one hundred and fifty people in that congregation are suffering from depression every Sunday, and more than 600 will experience depression in their lifetime.

And by ‘depression’, we’re not talking about feeling a little sad … that Bill Shorten might become Prime Minister one day, or Ben Hunt can’t catch, or that One Direction isn’t the same without Zayn. Sadness for genuine reasons … you broke up with a long term partner, someone stole your purse out of your bag, or there’s the threat of redundancies at your office … also doesn’t mean you’re depressed.

The DSM5 is the current standard for psychiatric diagnoses around the world. I’ve included the full definition of depression at the end of this blog, but suffice to say, depression is more than just unhappiness. Proper depression symptoms “cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.” In other words, you’re so low that your social life or work is affected, and for more than two whole weeks. It’s also important to know that depression isn’t just low mood but can also be experienced as “Markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities most of the day, nearly every day”.

Depression has a number of causes and correlations. People who are chronically unwell, be that from chronic pain, long term illness such as cancer or autoimmune disease, or life threatening illnesses such as those who’ve suffered from heart attacks or meningitis, have a higher rate of depression. People who have experienced significant physical or psychological trauma also have a higher rate of depression. In fact, stress of any form is highly correlated with depression (that is, people who suffer from any severe stress are more likely to develop depression).

This observation led to a theory about the development of depression, called the Stress Exposure Model of depression [1] – You develop depression because you’ve suffered from stress. This is one of the most common assumptions about depression in our society, and there are some important consequences from this line of thinking. Like, if being stressed is the cause of depression then the cure for depression is simply reducing stress. This is probably why most people assume that depression is a choice, or a simple weakness, and why depressed people are often told just to snap out of it.

But there’s more to depression than just better dealing with stress. Fundamentally, I understand depression as the end result of the brains capacity to deal with the demands of life. Too many demands or not enough resources overwhelms the brain and low mood is the end result.

Some depression is predominantly biological. People with biological depression can’t effectively deal with even a normal amount of demand on their system, because their brain doesn’t have the resources to process the incoming signals correctly or efficiently. The main biological cause is a deficiency of a growth factor called BDNF, which is needed for the nerve cells to grow new branches, which enable the brain to process new information. This theory is called the Neurotrophic Hypothesis of Depression [2] (‘neuro’ = nerve and ‘trophic’ = growth). BDNF isn’t the only critical factor in the biological story of depression. There are many others, including the stress hormone system [3], the serotonin system [4] and the dopamine/rewards system [5].

Some depression is predominantly psychological. There are certain situations in which there’s so much going on and so much change and adaptation is required, and the brains coping systems simply can’t cope. So, severe and sudden stressors would fit into this category. For example, people trying to cope with natural disasters, or a tragedy like a massive house fire.

Most of the time, depression is a combination of both biological and psychological. Genetic factors change our capacity to handle the incoming. The nerve cells don’t have enough BDNF and are slow to grow new branches. Genetics are also important in determining other mechanisms of resilience, and people with poor resilience are also more prone to depression [6-8]. Genetic factors also determine other factors involved in the way we process the incoming stream of sensory input – our personality. People with the neurotic personality type, the classical introverts/pessimists, are more prone to depression, because of the way their brain naturally biases the flavour of the incoming information [9]. What’s also very interesting is that these tendencies to depression also tend to create more stress [1, 10]. So stress is important to the risk of depression, but ironically, it is the risk of depression which influences the risk of stress.

The risk of depression is related to an increased tendency towards stress, and poor processing of that stress because of personality factors and a reduced capacity to cope. All three of these factors are influenced by a broad array of genetic factors.

What’s also important to see here is that being depressed isn’t because of “toxic thinking” or because of “negative confessions”. What we say and what we think are signs of what is going on underneath, not the cause of it. And more importantly, you can make as many faith-filled confessions as you like, but if they don’t help you to change your capacity to cope, then they’re just hot air.

In the next instalment, we’ll look at ways to handle depression, and what the Bible says about being depressed.

References

[1]        Liu RT, Alloy LB. Stress generation in depression: A systematic review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future study. Clinical psychology review 2010 Jul;30(5):582-93.
[2]        Duman RS, Li N. A neurotrophic hypothesis of depression: role of synaptogenesis in the actions of NMDA receptor antagonists. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological sciences 2012 Sep 5;367(1601):2475-84.
[3]        Hauger RL, Risbrough V, Oakley RH, Olivares-Reyes JA, Dautzenberg FM. Role of CRF receptor signaling in stress vulnerability, anxiety, and depression. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2009 Oct;1179:120-43.
[4]        Caspi A, Hariri AR, Holmes A, Uher R, Moffitt TE. Genetic sensitivity to the environment: the case of the serotonin transporter gene and its implications for studying complex diseases and traits. The American journal of psychiatry 2010 May;167(5):509-27.
[5]        Felten A, Montag C, Markett S, Walter NT, Reuter M. Genetically determined dopamine availability predicts disposition for depression. Brain and behavior 2011 Nov;1(2):109-18.
[6]        Karatsoreos IN, McEwen BS. Resilience and vulnerability: a neurobiological perspective. F1000prime reports 2013;5:13.
[7]        Wu G, Feder A, Cohen H, et al. Understanding resilience. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience 2013;7:10.
[8]        Russo SJ, Murrough JW, Han M-H, Charney DS, Nestler EJ. Neurobiology of resilience. Nature neuroscience 2012 November;15(11):1475-84.
[9]        Hansell NK, Wright MJ, Medland SE, et al. Genetic co-morbidity between neuroticism, anxiety/depression and somatic distress in a population sample of adolescent and young adult twins. Psychological medicine 2012 Jun;42(6):1249-60.
[10]      Boardman JD, Alexander KB, Stallings MC. Stressful life events and depression among adolescent twin pairs. Biodemography and social biology 2011;57(1):53-66.

The DSM5 Formal Diagnostic Criteria for Depression

A. Five (or more) of the following symptoms have been present during the same 2- week period and represent a change from previous functioning; at least one of the symptoms is either (1) depressed mood or (2) loss of interest or pleasure.

(Note: Do not include symptoms that are clearly due to a general medical condition, or mood-incongruent delusions or hallucinations.)

Depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day, as indicated by either subjective report (e.g., feels sad or empty) or observation made by others (e.g., appears tearful). Note: In children and adolescents, can be irritable mood.
Markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities most of the day, nearly every day (as indicated by either subjective account or observation made by others).
Significant weight loss when not dieting or weight gain (e.g., a change of more than 5 percent of body weight in a month), or decrease or increase in appetite nearly every day. Note: In children, consider failure to make expected weight gains.
Insomnia or hypersomnia nearly every day.
Psychomotor agitation or retardation nearly every day (observable by others, not merely subjective feelings of restlessness or being slowed down).
Fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day.
Feelings of worthlessness or excessive or inappropriate guilt (which may be delusional) nearly every day (not merely self-reproach or guilt about being sick).
Diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness, nearly every day (either by subjective account or as observed by others).
Recurrent thoughts of death (not just fear of dying), recurrent suicidal ideation without a specific plan, or a suicide attempt or a specific plan for committing suicide.

B. The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.
C. The symptoms are not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., hypothyroidism).

Dr Caroline Leaf and the Mental Monopoly Myth (Mark II)

Posted on October 2, 2015 by cedwardpitt

In my last post, I asked the question, “What’s more important to a person’s health and well being?” and I showed that Dr Caroline Leaf proposition that the mind dominates ones mental health and well-being is patently false.

Not to be outdone, Dr Leaf countered today with a tweak to her initial proposition: “Mind-action is actually THE predominant element in mental well-being.”

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. She’s also started calling herself an expert in mental health, despite never having trained in medicine or psychology, or working in counselling.

Dr Leaf may have tightened up her wording from her previous statement, but her claim that mind-action is the predominant element in mental well-being is still wrong, because her fundamental assumption is wrong.

What fundamental assumption? That the brain doesn’t control the mind, but the mind controls the brain.

As I discussed in the last post, this idea of the mental monopoly dominates every one of Dr Leaf’s works, and most of her social media memes. Take her most recent meme for example, published just today, “The brain is not a chemical stew that is missing a key spice! The brain is hugely complicated and complex and is controlled by the even more hugely complex and eternal mind!”

The premise that the mind controls the brain is wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. It is precisely the opposite of what science tells us. The mind is a function of the brain, just like breathing is a function of the lungs. No lungs, no breath. No brain, no mind. (see my posts here, here and here, and others for further discussion)

It’s been said, “Consistency: It’s only a virtue if you’re not a screwup.” Perhaps that’s a little harsh, but it does illustrate the point that just because you say something often enough, doesn’t make it true. So no matter how many times Dr Leaf repeats herself, the fact that the brain controls the mind isn’t going to change.

Even without appealing to the plethora of scientific information out there, Dr Leaf’s claim that mind-action dominates mental well-being is wrong, since mind-action is simply brain-action, which in turn, is influenced by the complex interplay of our genes, our physical health, our uncontrollable external environment, our social networks and our spirituality. Our mental well-being is no different to our general well-being in this regard. It is still part of the complex interplay that is represented by the biopsychosocial (and spiritual) model.

It’s time for Dr Leaf to update her teaching, and abandon her unscientific presuppositions and philosophies.

Dr Caroline Leaf and the Mental Monopoly Myth

Posted on September 23, 2015 by cedwardpitt

What’s more important to a person’s health and well being?

Is it their physical attributes – their genes, their fitness, their diet? Is it their psychological state – their mind, their emotional balance? Is it their social context – how they relate and contribute to the communities that they’re a part of? Or is it their spirituality – the depth of their connections to faith and the supernatural?

According to Dr Caroline Leaf, communication pathologist and self-titled cognitive neuroscientist, it’s the mind that dominates. This is a common theme of her books [1: especially chapter 1] and her social media memes.

Take today’s gem: “Mind action is the predominant element in well being and mental health.”

In other words, it doesn’t really matter what your genes are, where you were born or the depth of your acceptance in your community. It doesn’t matter whether you have a deep faith either. The psychological dominates the physical, the social and the spiritual. As she said in her books,

“Thoughts influence every decision, word, action and physical reaction we make.” [2: p13]
“Our mind is designed to control the body, of which the brain is a part, not the other way around. Matter does not control us; we control matter through our thinking and choosing.” [1: p33]
“Research shows that 75 to 98 percent of mental, physical, and behavioural illness comes from ones thought life.” [1: p33]

Dr Leaf’s philosophy of our wellbeing can be pictured like a pyramid, with our ‘mind action’ (read, ‘choices’) dominating every other facet of our lives.

The problem with this philosophy is that it doesn’t fit with science, scripture, or even common sense.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to recognise that Dr Leaf’s assertion doesn’t fit with every day experience. Where you were born and raised, and where you live, significantly impact a persons overall wellbeing, independent of their thoughts and choices.

Does Dr Leaf honestly believe that the wellbeing of a ten year old boy living in rural Sedan, with no access to running water and sewerage systems, living on a subsistence diet and drinking contaminated water from the only well in his village, has the same wellbeing as a ten year old in rural Ohio, who has access to clean water, plentiful food, and an education?

Does Dr Leaf think that the wellbeing of a pregnant woman in Afghanistan, with poor nutrition and limited access to meaningful antenatal care or a trained midwife to deliver her baby, is the same as the wellbeing of a pregnant woman in London, who has access to fresh food, vitamin supplements, GP’s, midwives, and specialist obstetricians in big city hospitals?

These are just two simple examples which demonstrate that the action of your mind has very little to do with your overall wellbeing.

But if you want to be more scientific about it, then look no further than the biopsychosocial model. Modern health professionals moved beyond the idea that only one facet of human existence was responsible for all of your wellbeing way back in the 1980’s. The biopsychosocial model proposes that the overall health of a person was equally dependent not just on the physical, but was part of a broader system of the medical, mental and the social [3]. The model recognised that a person’s overall wellbeing was made worse by social disadvantage as well as physical illness or poor coping skills, and so often, the physical, social and psychological would affect each other in loops – physical illness would often reduce a persons ability to mentally cope, which strained their social connections, making them lonely and reduced the care given to them, which then made them sicker.

Most Christian would recognise that one element is still missing, which is the spiritual. Our faith is a realm beyond rational thinking, and isn’t fairly grouped with the mental, although they are both housed in our brain. Still, faith influences our social interactions, our psychology, and our physical health, as much as each mutually influences our faith.

Putting it altogether, we don’t have a pyramid, but a collection of ponds. Our mind action does not dominate our health and our wellbeing, but is simply one part of a much larger whole, with our health and wellbeing at the centre.

It’s interesting that a woman with as much influence amongst the western Christian church as Dr Leaf would suggest that the mind is more influential to our wellbeing than our faith. This makes her teaching seem more humanist than holy, more secular than spiritual. It may invite questions about the deepest influences of her ministry – is it humanistic philosophy with a garnish of scripture, or does the Bible really promote thinking over faith? Ultimately, it’s up to each individual to examine the evidence for themselves and make up their own mind.

Irrespective of Dr Leaf’s philosophical foundations, I’d suggest that her hypothesis of the mental monopoly falls down at the level of common sense and good science. Medical science moved beyond the idea of the single dominant facet of humanity more than three decades ago.

It’s time for Dr Leaf to do the same.

References

[1]        Leaf CM. Switch On Your Brain : The Key to Peak Happiness, Thinking, and Health. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2013.
[2]        Leaf C. Who Switched Off My Brain? Controlling toxic thoughts and emotions. 2nd ed. Southlake, TX, USA: Inprov, Ltd, 2009.
[3]        Borrell-Carrio F, Suchman AL, Epstein RM. The biopsychosocial model 25 years later: principles, practice, and scientific inquiry. Ann Fam Med 2004 Nov-Dec;2(6):576-82.

I’ve got a brain, revisited.

Posted on August 30, 2015 by cedwardpitt

Nearly three weeks ago, I published a post on critical thinking in the church. I briefly discussed what critical thinking was, and I posed a number of possible reasons why we didn’t see more critical thinking in the church.

Having thought some more about the issue of critical thinking in the church over the last three weeks, I wanted to devote one more blog post to it – to add some more to the discussion, and round it out a little.

But first, I want to offer an apology to the church. In the last three weeks, I’ve come across research where experts have looked at the issue of critical thinking across our society, and their conclusion is that critical thinking is hard, and is poorly done across the board. The church, therefore, isn’t necessarily worse than the rest of the community at large, so I may have been a little harsh on account of some unrealistic expectations.

Still, I would suggest that if the Christian church is to be salt and light, we shouldn’t rest on our laurels and think it’s ok to be as undiscerning as everyone else. Instead, we should be looking to lead our community, in our love for God, our love for people, and our love of the truth.

In the essay, “Teaching Critical Thinking: Lessons from Cognitive Science” [1], Tim van Gelder outlines a number of lessons from cognitive neuroscience on the nature of critical thinking, how we learn, and why we don’t learn critical thinking. These have important implications for critical thinking in the church.

Critical thinking doesn’t come naturally to us

“Humans are not naturally critical thinkers; indeed, like ballet, it is a highly contrived activity. Running is natural; nightclub ‘dancing’ is natural enough; but ballet is something people can only do well with many years of painful, expensive, dedicated training. Evolution didn’t intend us to walk on the ends of our toes, and whatever Aristotle (“Man is a rational animal”) might have said, we weren’t designed to be all that critical either. Evolution doesn’t waste effort making things better than they need to be, and homo sapiens evolved to be just logical enough to survive while competitors such as Neanderthals and mastodons died out.”

Instead of thinking critically, humans tend to be “pattern-seeking, story telling”. Problems occur because we naturally tend to accept the first account that “seems right” and don’t challenge whether that account is actually true. The test of truth for most humans is not intellectual but intuitive.
Practice makes perfect.
Critical thinking is a higher order cognitive skill. If you don’t practice the skills, you won’t become good at them or eventually master them. So learning the theory of critical thinking won’t make someone better at critical thinking any more than watching a sport on TV will make you better at it. Though if you want to become really good at something, one needs to engage in deliberate practice of the skills of critical thinking on a regular basis, as well as broadly practicing critical thinking.
Transfer.
Transfer refers to the difficulty in transferring skills applied in one area and applying them broadly. This is an issue across all learning, not just critical thinking. The mind is a cluster of specialised independent capacities, and a skill learnt in one capacity isn’t easily transferred to the rest.
Of course, if it were impossible to transfer skills across to our broader knowledge, there would be no point in teaching anything. So it’s not impossible to broaden critical thinking skills, but this skill must also be learned. It’s unlikely to happen on its own.
Practical theory.
Australian is a nation of coffee drinkers. Even though we consume a lot of God’s wake-up juice, most coffee drinkers don’t know much about the coffee they consume. They have practical coffee knowledge (what they like), but little theoretical knowledge (why they like it). Improving in critical thinking mastery, just like increasing the depth of coffee enjoyment, involves learning a little more theory. Better theoretical knowledge improves your perception of what’s going on, which then improves insight enabling better self-monitoring and correction, as well as enabling better improvement from external coaching. Better understanding of critical thinking comes from better understanding some of the theory of critical thinking.
Belief Preservation
Sir Francis Bacon said,

“The mind of man is far from the nature of a clear and equal glass, wherein the beams of things should reflect according to their true incidence; nay, it is rather like an enchanted glass, full of superstition and imposture, if it be not delivered and reduced.”

Or in other words, the human mind is prone to illusion, distortion and error, both because of innate hardwiring, and social learning. These cognitive beliefs and blind spots are many, and sometimes subtle. In this discussion, belief preservation is important. It is the tendency “to use evidence to preserve our opinions”. Humans seek out evidence which supports what we believe and avoid or ignore evidence which goes against it. We also rate evidence as good or bad depending on whether it supports or conflicts with our beliefs, and we tend to stick with our beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence against them, so long as there is a sliver of evidence in support.
Critical thinking requires us to work against this bias, and doing so feels very unnatural, so while it might be challenging, it’s nevertheless, very important.
Map it out
The core of critical thinking is argument (the connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition, not an angry dispute). We tend to handle arguments by expressing them in either writing or speaking. But there concept of an argument map in which the statements that make up the premises and the conclusion of the argument are drawn diagrammatically. Critical thinking skills improve faster when taught with argument mapping.

So how do we apply these lessons to critical thinking and the church?

Critical thinking is hard but not impossible.

Critical thinking doesn’t come naturally to most people. Hence, why I apologised earlier in this essay – I was wrong to expect that critical thinking should come naturally to everyone.

But that doesn’t mean that the church should shy away from it either. At the very least, all Christians should be aware of the most fundamental basics of critical thinking – that we naturally tend to believe what’s intuitive, not necessarily what’s right. And, it’s ok to ask questions. No topic should be taboo.

Those who can, should.

We’re all members of Christ’s body (Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-31). Some are more gifted in hospitality or leadership – the hands and feet. Some people are intercessors – the heart. So it’s not really a stretch to think that there are some members of the church whose gifts lie in the academic or the intellectual – the “brain”.

So those who want to think about God and their faith on a much deeper level should be encouraged to do so. If there aren’t any already, courses could be developed to teach the interested Christian how interpret Biblical Hebrew and Greek to increase the understanding of scripture. Courses in critical thinking can be added to every Bible college and seminary, and courses in critical thinking can be encouraged or taught by churches, along side courses in ministry and the supernatural.

At the end of my last post, I said that I would do an idiots guide to critical thinking so that we could all have the skills if we wanted them. Actually I don’t need to, since there are very good courses in critical thinking online already: http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/

Be aware of our limitations

Lastly, pastors and leaders should be aware of their own limitations and their potential for cognitive biases. Our pastors work hard, and do a very good job on the whole. But they’re not all like Solomon. Just because something seems right to them, doesn’t mean that it is. Sometimes there will be people who will legitimately question what they say, or a ministry or minister that they’ve endorsed.

Rather than taking this as an affront to their authority, they need to consider that the alternative view might be right. If they’re not in a position to weigh up the evidence for themselves, there’s no reason why they can’t ask for assistance from trusted elders who do have the knowledge. If Moses can delegate, then so can they.

The same goes for Christian leaders all the way to the highest levels of church leadership. Our church leadership can’t plead ignorance when significant issues are raised. Burying your head in the sand just makes your arse a target.

Critical thinking is an important yet unrecognised major issue for the Christian church. If I have missed anything, or if you would like to further the conversation, I welcome your comments.

Happy thinking everyone.

References

[1] van Gelder T. Teaching Critical Thinking: Lessons from Cognitive Science. College Teaching 2005;53(1):41-46.

I’ve got a brain, and I’m not afraid to use it!

Posted on August 10, 2015 by cedwardpitt

I’ve got a brain, and I’m not afraid to use it! – The issue of critical thinking in the Christian church.

Mythbusters … I have watched a lot of Mythbusters.

For the last decade and a half, Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman have been exposing various memes and myths to some TV-science scrutiny, to see if whether these culturally ingrained factoids have any element of truth. My sons love it, possibly because of their innate curiosity, though I’m sure the shows gratuitous use of guns and explosives helps.

Most of the time, the Mythbusters prove that the myths they test really are just myths like we expected. Though occasionally, they come up with some really counter-intuitive results, like elephants really are afraid of mice, that bullets can’t penetrate water, and that a bull in a china shop doesn’t necessarily lead to lots of broken china.

What’s consistently good about Mythbusters is that it shows you can learn a lot by being open minded, and that failure is just as much of an opportunity to learn as success is (sometimes more so). It also demonstrates the value of critical thinking.

There are so many things in our lives that we accept just because other people accept them too. That’s partly because of the way we’re biologically wired, and then socially adapted. While this has its advantages, it’s also deleterious too. Sometimes we do things in ways that are actually wasteful, or accept second best because “that’s the way its always been”.

Because it consists of fallible humans, the church is not immune. If anything, the church is more prone to simply accept what we’re told rather than taking a different point of view and considering issues from alternative perspectives. For example, the push for same-sex marriage caught many conservatives and the church by surprise, partly because the church has been unwilling or unable to engage in public discussion on same-sex marriage without it degenerating into disgust and derision. This has left the arguments against same-sex marriage with holes big enough for spelunking, and has made opponents of same-sex marriage look like a laughing stock (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-0u9Ad886M).

What follows is a discussion on critical thinking within the Christian church. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. Actually, I hope that someone will be able to definitively disprove some of my later observations. Right or wrong, I hope to start an open dialogue on the way the church engages with critical thinking, because it’s a discussion that’s long overdue.

So first, just what is critical thinking? “Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking.” (http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/critical/ct.php)

Is critical thinking Biblical? I propose it is. There’s no verse in the Bible that says, “Thou shalt be critical thinkers.” However, Acts 17:11 talked about those in Berea who searched the Scriptures daily, to see if what they were hearing was true to God’s Word. John and Peter both warned of false teachers, and Jesus said they may come to us in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15; 1 John 4:1; 2 Peter 2:1). John said our duty is to “test the spirits.” Paul said: “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Is critical thinking being too self-reliant or denying the role of faith? I don’t think so. We don’t expect God to miraculously make us float around from place to place … we walk. God gave us legs, and using them does not deny our faith or God’s sovereignty. In fact, we’d look pretty silly if we sat still and prayed for God to move us around. It’s no different with our brain. God gave us a brain with the capacity for high-level thinking. Using our brain for high-level thinking doesn’t deny either faith or God their rightful place. The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth (John 16:13) and he will guide our thinking if we have the faith to believe.

Is critical thinking necessarily critical? “Critical thinking should not be confused with being argumentative or being critical of other people. Although critical thinking skills can be used in exposing fallacies and bad reasoning, critical thinking can also play an important role in cooperative reasoning and constructive tasks.” (http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/critical/ct.php)

So why don’t we engage in more critical thinking within the church? This is a simple question that requires a complex answer. I’m going to venture a few suggestions, but this list is far from comprehensive, and is more opinion than solid fact. If you disagree, or want to fill in some gaps, please leave a comment to add to the discussion.

1. People in general don’t have critical thinking skills

Critical thinking skills are sadly lacking, not just in the church, but across our society as a whole. Look no further than at the sheer volume of factoids and memes that go viral on social media. The average person accepts large numbers of baseless statements and passes them on to their friends in the mistaken belief that they hold some basis in truth.

There are probably lots of reasons for this, but I’d suggest that the main reason is that critical thinking is not taught in most schools, vocational training, or even at a lot of universities. Teaching critical thinking skills takes time away from teaching exam strategy, which is counter-productive for schools NAPLAN ranking. Since the world cares more about comparing themselves with others rather than actual intelligence, NAPLAN coaching is much more important than letting a child think for themselves.

Most work places actively discourage individual thinking too. Subservience to the system or to organizational rules makes for a much better workplace even if that means it’s full of mindless drones.

2. Christians don’t use critical thinking

The typical Sunday sermon, if it contains any scripture at all, is spoon-fed to the congregation without additional thinking required. It’s obviously difficult to have time for Q+A after a Sunday service, and for the vast majority of Christians, this is where their teaching for the week finishes.

There’s a small percentage of Christians that will go to small groups, but depending on the leadership of the small group, there may not be much opportunity to delve deeply into the text or subtext of the previous weeks sermon.

Then there’s a smaller number of Christians who have a habit of a daily devotional, though many of those will choose to be spoon-fed with a devotional text of some form.

Those who simply read the Bible think critically about the text and what it means will be a very small percentage of the Christian church.

3. Pastors don’t encourage critical thinking

When was the last time a you were at a church and the topic of the sermon was how to delve deeper into the Bible – how to understand the original Hebrew or Greek to enrich the meaning of the Biblical text? I’ve been in churches for more than 30 years, and I don’t recall a single sermon like that.

Perhaps it’s because pastors don’t think people would be able to understand. Or, perhaps it’s because they feel it would erode their position as experts? Perhaps they don’t understand themselves?

4. The church values the appearance of unity over critical thinking

In church-life, a high value is given to the concept of ‘unity’. Discouraging critical thinking helps to maintain the appearance of ‘unity’. If someone did happen to have a thought of their own, they would tend to keep it to themselves since everyone seems happy when everyone’s in agreement.

When someone does speak out, it’s seen as ‘disunity’, even if their concern is legitimate. Continued non-conformity is treated as dissension. Sure, it’s couched in a thick layer of Christianese – that person’s taken offense / isolating themselves / is a troublemaker / out of God’s will / unteachable / unfaithful / has a critical spirit, etc

While that might very well be true, sadly, any non-conformity is treated the same, warranted or not. Either way, legitimate discussion is shut down, and homeostasis returns.

The solution is to use our brains. The church needs to openly accept and engage critical thinking rather than encourage diminutive homogeny and pretend they have unity.

Just because Jesus is our shepherd doesn’t mean that we should always behave like sheep, just mindlessly following the rest of the flock. God gave us a brain, we should not be afraid to use it.

—–

Post-script = In an upcoming blog, I’ll do an idiots guide to critical thinking. It’s all very well and good to say we should think critically, but that won’t happen if we don’t have the skills.

“Touching the hem of her garment” – A Review of Dr Caroline Leaf at Nexus Church, Brisbane, 2nd August 2015

Posted on August 2, 2015 by cedwardpitt

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and a self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. She’s currently on tour through Queensland and New South Wales in Australia. Her only stop in Brisbane, my home town, was at Nexus, my former home church. Dr Leaf presented a keynote address at Nexus’s annual Designing Women conference yesterday, and was the guest speaker at their two morning services today.

This morning typified Brisbane winter – cloudless azure skies and a refreshingly cool breeze. In contrast to the air temperature, the hospitality at Nexus was warm and friendly. The worship, soulful and uplifting. I really enjoyed being there.

Then it was Dr Leaf’s turn. It’s amazing just how much misinformation one person can fit into a 30 minute sermon.

The main theme for her sermons was an exposition on the parable of the sower, linking the different ways people receive information, with the story of the woman with the issue of blood. Dr Leaf tried to prove that thought and faith are synonymous by linking verses at the beginning and of the story from the gospel of Mark (5:25-34) – “because she thought, ‘If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.’” (v28) and “He said to her, ‘Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.’” (v34).

The link is highly tenuous to start with. Faith is an action, whereas thought is not. We assume that action is always preceded by thought, but it is not. Action does not require thought. Many people act without thinking. This is explained in more detail in my discussion on the Cognitive Action Pathways model.

Though to try and make her explanation more plausible, Dr Leaf padded out the story by telling the Nexus crowds that it was only because the woman had spent 12 years in deep intellectual thinking, meditating on the scriptures, that Jesus could heal her. But that’s Dr Leaf’s conjecture. In truth, no one knows exactly what that woman was doing or thinking in the 12 years that preceded her healing. The Bible never says anything else about the woman, in either version of the story in Mark or Luke (8:43-48), other than “She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse” (Mark 5:26). If you have to rely on pure speculation to make your sermon work, then that’s story-telling, not preaching.

The other part of her sermon was an attempt to link the parable of the sower to some neuroscience, specifically the role of hippocampal synaptogenesis in the formation of long term memory (or in English, the changes that take place to nerves in the brain when you hear information and try to remember it).

Dr Leaf interpreted the parable as describing four different types of listener – Listener 1, corresponding to the man who hears the word but the devil takes it away, Listener 2, who hears the word and receives it with joy, but it doesn’t take root, Listener 3 who hears the word but it gets choked out by worries, riches or pleasure, and Listener 4 who hears the word and retains it, and the word produces a harvest.

According to Dr Leaf, these types of listener correspond to different levels of nerve branch growth in the formation of long term memory – Listener 1 doesn’t get past 24 hours before the memory dissipates. Listener 2 only lasts about four to seven days but there isn’t enough emotional salience to continue the growth of the nerve branch. Listener 3 doesn’t get past fourteen days, while the 4th Listener makes it through to a full 21 days, Dr Leaf’s magic number for long term memory.

Sounds great … except that the encoding and consolidation of incoming information is much more complex, and doesn’t rely on just new nerve growth [1]. That, and her numbers are completely arbitrary – with some permanent long term memory encoded in a couple of days. In fact, some long-term memory doesn’t need new synaptic growth at all, just a state of high excitation of the nerve network, known as Long-Term Potentiation, which is reliant on a self-reinforcing chemical cascade (if you want more information on the neurobiology of memory, a good place to start is The Brain From Top To Bottom, maintained by McGill University in Canada).

So the bulk of her sermon was based on biblical conjecture and bad science. Dr Leaf also made a myriad of misleading or mistaken statements: we are wired for love not fear, we learn through the quantum zeno effect, every thought effects every one of our 75 trillion cells, your toxic thoughts poison other people in relationship with you because of quantum physics, and many, many others.

I’ve only really got room for a few extra-special mentions.

1. “The mind controls brain”, and “the non-conscious mind is not bound by time and space”

No actual cognitive neuroscientist would be caught dead making those sort of statements. Saying that the mind controls the brain is like saying that air controls your lungs. The mind is a function of the brain, because when the brain is changed in certain ways, structurally or chemically, the mind changes. This has been known about for over a century, at least as far back as Freud who experimented with cocaine and other “mind-altering” substances.

Therefore if the brain controls the mind, then the non-conscious mind must be bound by the physical universe, which includes space and time. To suggest anything otherwise is just science fiction.

Besides, Dr Leaf herself tells us in her book “The Gift In You” [2], that our brain controls our mind. Dr Leaf is simply contradicting her own teaching.

2. “75 to 98% of all physical, mental and emotional illness is caused by your thought life.”

This factoid has been thoroughly debunked. If you would like to read more, you can click here or see chapter 10 in my book [3].

Today, in the second service, Dr Leaf took her fiction a step further and categorically stated that “98% of cancer comes from your thought life”. What nonsense! There is no rational evidence for such a ridiculous statement, and I don’t think there is anything more insensitive to cancer victims and their families than to blame then for causing their own cancer.

3. Mental Health

(a) “Mental illness is worse in the last 50 years than ever before”

To try and prove this is true, Dr Leaf flashed up a slide of ‘horrifying statistics” on mental illness. She claims that,
“35-fold increase in mental illness in children”
“Our children are the first in human history to grow up under the shadow of ‘mental illness'”
“Dramatic increase in the number of mentally ill since 50’s … things are worse not better”
“Mental ill health worst its ever been in history of mankind”

Every one of these statements is patently false. Mental illness has been with humankind for ever. The ancient Egyptians were writing about hysteria in women some two thousand years before Christ [4]. It’s only been in the last century or so that mental illnesses have become seen for the biological entities that they are, and not some form of demon possession, criminal behaviour or sexual deviancy.

Dr Leaf was quick to malign the DSM (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of psychiatry), suggesting that it’s unscientific. The DSM isn’t perfect, true, but before the DSM, there was even less science to the diagnosis of mental illness. As Dr Leaf herself pointed out, mental illness was previously viewed philosophically or spiritually. There was no consistency in diagnosis and no collection of statistics.

The DSM, for all its faults, gave a framework for mental health diagnosis, but as the science has become more refined, and with increasing awareness and general acceptance of mental health conditions, more people have qualified and/or accepted a diagnosis.

Mental illness has always been there, but now we know what to look for, it’s no longer hidden or ignored.

(b) “Psychotropic medications cause damage to the brain”

While on the subject of mental health, Dr Leaf made the litigation-attracting statement that psychotropic medications (anti-depressants, anti-psychotics) cause damage to the brain. That’s a particularly bold statement to make without citations, or a medical degree, to back it up.

Rather than ‘causing’ damage to the brain, there is scientific evidence that psychotropic medications increase synaptogenesis (the growth of new nerve branches) [5-7], while the NICE guidelines in the UK reviewed the evidence for anti-depressants and found them to be an effective treatment for depression [8], not harmful as Dr Leaf suggests.

Dr Leaf also made the preposterous claim that biological causes of psychiatric illness have never been proven, but again, changes to brain structure have been associated with psychiatric symptoms ever since a 13-pound, three-and-a-half foot iron rod went through Phineas Gage’s skull and frontal lobe in 1848, and his personality suddenly changed from pleasant and congenial to depressed and angry [9]. Personality changes represent early symptoms of brain tumours. Use of drugs such as crystal meth can cause paranoia and extreme aggression. You don’t even need to be a doctor to know that, you just need to watch ‘Breaking Bad‘. So examples of the biological basis of psychiatric symptoms are everywhere. There are no grounds for Dr Leaf’s assertion.

4. Toxic thinking causes dementia

Dr Leaf claimed at the end of both sermons that toxic thinking results in the tubular backbone of the new nerve branches becoming contorted, which caused the accumulation of the tau protein in the nerve cells, which was responsible for dementia of every type. This, too, is a fallacy. The accumulation of the tau protein is found only in Alzheimers, not in Lewy Body dementia or in vascular dementia. The abnormal tau protein is likely related to the loss of a intracellular clean-up enzyme system [10], but Alzheimers is more complicated than just tau protein deposition, and has nothing to do with toxic thinking.

At the conclusion of the second service, I was outside the church when Dr Leaf and her entourage left the church auditorium before the rest of the crowd did, and I approached them to shake her hand and introduce myself. It was the mature thing to do after all. When I was about two metres from her presidential detail, a woman stepped out in front of me, blocking my way.

“You can’t follow them,” she said. “They’re going inside” (ie: hiding in the green room).
“Really?” I said, somewhat caught off guard. “I was simply going to introduce myself.”
“No”, was the firm reply. “You’re not allowed.”

By that time, the presidential detail had disappeared into their fortified sanctuary. The woman with the issue of blood may have got to Jesus, but there was no way I was even getting close to Dr Leaf.

This was a common pattern … Dr Leaf made herself deliberately scarce before and after each service, only coming into the church when the service was well underway, and leaving as soon as she preached, under heavy guard. One has to ask why? What’s she got to be afraid of? Is she so insecure about her teaching that she couldn’t possibly risk speaking to someone and being exposed as intellectually brittle? Or is it that she’s so arrogant as to insist on avoiding the rank-and-file church goer?

The pattern of avoidance of anyone other than her devotees, and her tendency to block anyone who disagrees with her from her social media accounts, would strongly suggest the former, although since she is so insistent on hiding from regular people, it’s really anyone’s guess.

Not that it matters. Dr Leaf could be the nicest person in the world. Her ministry doesn’t rest on her sociability, but its own Biblical and scientific merits, and on that alone, it has been found seriously wanting.

References

[1]        Citri A, Malenka RC. Synaptic plasticity: multiple forms, functions, and mechanisms. Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology 2008 Jan;33(1):18-41.
[2]        Leaf CM. The gift in you – discover new life through gifts hidden in your mind. Texas, USA: Inprov, Inc, 2009.
[3]        Pitt CE. Hold That Thought: Reappraising the work of Dr Caroline Leaf. 1st ed. Brisbane, Australia: Pitt Medical Trust, 2014.
[4]        Tasca C, Rapetti M, Carta MG, Fadda B. Women and hysteria in the history of mental health. Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH 2012;8:110-9.
[5]        Karatsoreos IN, McEwen BS. Resilience and vulnerability: a neurobiological perspective. F1000prime reports 2013;5:13.
[6]        Duric V, Duman RS. Depression and treatment response: dynamic interplay of signaling pathways and altered neural processes. Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS 2013 Jan;70(1):39-53.
[7]        Karatsoreos IN, McEwen BS. Psychobiological allostasis: resistance, resilience and vulnerability. Trends in cognitive sciences 2011 Dec;15(12):576-84.
[8]        Anderson I. Depression. The Treatment and Management of Depression in Adults (Update). NICE clinical guideline 90.2009. London: The British Psychological Society and The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2010.
[9]        Kihlstrom JF. Social neuroscience: The footprints of Phineas Gage. Social Cognition 2010;28:757-82.
[10]      Tai HC, Serrano-Pozo A, Hashimoto T, Frosch MP, Spires-Jones TL, Hyman BT. The synaptic accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau oligomers in Alzheimer disease is associated with dysfunction of the ubiquitin-proteasome system. The American journal of pathology 2012 Oct;181(4):1426-35.

Dr Caroline Leaf – Still Contradicted by the Latest Evidence, Scripture and Herself

Posted on July 22, 2015 by cedwardpitt

189

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist, world renowned author, public speaker, and self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. Her influence continues to grow. She is regularly invited to speak at some of the world’s largest churches. She spoke at her first TEDx conference in February, and she’s about to host her own conference for the second time. She has more than 120,000 Facebook followers, with many more on Twitter and other social media platforms. And she continues to top the sales charts of Christian best sellers.

She is a self-marketing machine.

But there are cracks appearing. More and more, people are realizing that beneath the facade of her numerous Instagram posts, happy snaps, and the allure of popular success, Dr Leafs teachings on science and the Bible don’t match up with actual science and good theology. While many in the church adorn themselves with her teaching, a growing minority are starting to realise that the Emperor has no clothes.

Almost two years ago to the day, I sat in the congregation of Kings Christian Church on the Gold Coast, and heard Dr Leaf speak live for the first time. What I heard troubled me, and I blogged about my concerns to open a dialogue on Dr Leaf and her teaching. Her husband, Mr Mac Leaf, dismissed my concerns out of hand, which only steeled me to take further action. Now, two years of intense research, dozens of posts and a book later, people are starting to take notice.

Not that Dr Leaf has changed her tune. Her fundamental teaching still relies on the idea that our thoughts control our physical and mental health, and toxic thinking causes disease because our thoughts change our DNA and the expression of our genes through epigenetics. And, if we ‘detox’ our thoughts, we will be restored to the health that God intended. Dr Leaf is also expanding her ministry to the subject of mental health and she plans to release a book on food in early 2016.

Dr Leaf can spruik whatever she likes, but her claims of expertise and her scientific and scriptural legitimacy are crumbling.

This post is a little longer than usual, but I’ve divided it up for easier reading:

Dr Leaf is contradicted by her own qualifications
Dr Leaf is contradicted by science
Dr Leaf is contradicted by scripture
Dr Leaf is contradicted by Dr Leaf

1. Dr Leaf is contradicted by her own qualifications

In her books, on TV, at churches, and in promotional material, Dr Leaf describes herself as a ‘cognitive neuroscientist’.

However, Dr Leaf does not have formal qualifications in neuroscience, has not worked at a university as a neuroscientist, has not worked in any neuroscience research labs, nor has she published any papers in neuroscience journals.

Actually, Dr Leaf is trained as a communication pathologist. A communication pathologist is an allied health professional which seems to be unique to South Africa where Dr Leaf trained. It’s a synthesis of audiology and speech pathology. It qualified her to work as a therapist, which Dr Leaf did for children with traumatic brain injuries. Dr Leaf also researched a narrow band of educational psychology as part of her PhD, and she also worked in a number of schools and for educational boards in South Africa. Dr Leaf hasn’t performed any university based research since her PhD was published in 1997.

In contrast, true cognitive neuroscientists actively carry out research into the biological basis of thoughts and behaviours – either mapping behaviours to certain brain regions using electrical currents from the brain, or with functional brain imaging like fMRI, or stimulating or suppressing the activity of a region of the brain and seeing how a person responds.

Simply having some training in neuroanatomy and psychology doesn’t make you a cognitive neuroscientist. Completing a PhD that involved a model for learning doesn’t make you a cognitive neuroscientist. Reading a lot of books on neuroscience doesn’t make you a neuroscientist either, just like reading the Bible doesn’t automatically make you a Pastor.

So no matter how much Dr Leaf may try to convince us that she’s an expert cognitive neuroscientist, truth be told, she is not.

Of more concern is that Dr Leaf is also trying to position herself as an expert in the fields of mental health and nutrition. But if she can’t get her facts right in an area in which she’s had some training, then it’s unlikely Dr Leaf’s teaching will be reliable in areas that she’s had no formal training or experience whatsoever.

I might add, Dr Leaf’s insistence that she’s a cognitive neuroscientist and an expert on mental health and nutrition is also quite insulting for real psychologists, neuroscientists and nutritionists whose opinions are ignored in favour of a self-titled expert whose only ‘authority’ comes by popular demand, not training or experience.

2. Dr Leaf is contradicted by science

There are so many examples of Dr Leaf being directly contradicted by the science that she claims expertise in that I don’t have room in this blog to outline them all. What I can do in this limited space is to outline Dr Leaf’s most egregious and ironic fallacies as a taster.

The 98 percent

One of Dr Leaf’s most fundamental assertions is that “75 to 98 percent of mental and physical illness comes from ones thought life” [1]. She uses this little factoid all the time to justify her belief in the power of thoughts.

However, her statement is completely wrong. When considered in the historical and global context [2], most of human illness is related to preventable diseases that are so rare in the modern western world because of generations of high quality public health and medical care.

For example, Hunter et al state that, “diarrhoeal disease is the second most common contributor to the disease burden in developing countries (as measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)), and poor-quality drinking water is an important risk factor for diarrhoea.” [3]

De Cock et al write, “Recent estimates of the global incidence of disease suggest that communicable diseases account for approximately 19% of global deaths” and that “2.5 million deaths of children annually (are) from vaccine-preventable diseases.” [4]

Routine screening with the much-maligned pap smear has decreased the death rate from cervical cancer in women by as much as 83% [5]. And having a competent midwife and obstetric support during childbirth can decrease the odds of dying in childbirth from 1 in 6 to less than 1 in 30,000 [6].

Midwives, vaccinations, pap smears, clean drinking water and internal plumbing have nothing to do with our individual thought life. We take all of this for granted in the first-world, so the impact of our thought life becomes artificially inflated. In reality, modern medicine and civil engineering, not our thought life, have everything to do with our good health..

Though what makes this meme such a good example of the weakness of Dr Leaf’s teaching is not just because it’s contradicted by actual science, but in trying to justify her conjecture, Dr Leaf has resorted to twisting, misquoting, and generally fudging information from her ‘sources’ in order to make them support her false conclusions.

For example, Dr Leaf quoted a source on genetics that was over thirty years old, from a time when genetic studies were still in the dark ages. She also misquotes her sources, significantly changing the meaning of the quotes in the process. One source didn’t even mention the figure she attributed to it. As if that’s not bad enough, Dr Leaf also cites biased sources, pseudoscientists, and other sources that directly contradict her assertion [7; Ch 10].

This pattern of relying on mistruths and factoids to paper over the gaping cracks in her irrational assertions is repeated throughout her teaching.

The heart is a mini-brain

Dr Leaf believes that the human heart acts as a mini-brain. She states that the heart has its own thought functions, is an electrophysiological regulator of every cell in the body, and is the source of the human conscience.

Such an assertion is ludicrous, and science proves it to be so – the “still small voice” comes from our brains [8-10], and everyday office-based medical tests prove that the electromagnetic signal from the heart is too small to have any meaningful influence on our body’s cells, let alone our thinking [7: Ch 11].

You control your DNA with your thoughts

Dr Leaf believes that our thinking can influence our DNA. She said this in her 2013 book [1: p35], and several times on her social media streams. The problem for Dr Leaf is that there is no credible scientific evidence that DNA is controlled by thoughts.

Her main evidence comes from a poster presentation at a 1993 psychotronics conference titled, “Local and nonlocal effects of coherent heart frequencies on conformational changes of DNA” [11]. She describes this paper as, “An ingenuous experiment set up by the HeartMath Foundation (which) determined that genuine positive emotion, as reflected by a measure called ‘heart rate variability’, directed with intentionality towards someone actually changed the way the double helix DNA strand coils and uncoils. And this goes for both positive and negative emotions and intentions.” [1: p111]

Actually, the experiment was based on faulty assumptions, and so full of flaws in the methodology and analysis, that it could show nothing at all [7: Ch 13]. All it could prove was that Dr Leaf was so desperate to grasp hold of anything that seemed to support her theory that she was willing to use a twenty-year-old study from a group of pseudoscientists that also believe in occult practices like ESP and telekinesis (http://psychotronics.org).

On and on, the same pattern continues. She claims that our thoughts are powerful enough to control our DNA and our brain, except that the opposite is true – it’s our DNA code, with some influence from our environment, that creates our pattern of neurons responsible for our stream of thoughts. She teaches that thoughts cause stress, when again, the evidence is the opposite – psychological stress starts as a subconscious process which changes our stream of thoughts. Dr Leaf teaches that in order to improve our mental and physical health, we need to fight any ‘negative’ or ‘toxic’ thoughts, when studies show that cognitive therapy isn’t effective when compared to behavioural activation. (This is explained in more detail, and with the appropriate references, in my book [7]).

Dr Leaf even goes so far as to say that our thoughts can control physical matter! [1: p33,38]

Over and over again, Dr Leaf’s teaching conflicts with modern science. That Dr Leaf also regularly misquotes her sources and relies on unpublished opinion from pseudoscientists and new-age practitioners also brings her reputation as an expert scientist into disrepute.

3. Dr Leaf is contradicted by scripture

In her books and on social media, Dr Leaf often quotes scripture in an attempt to reinforce her reputation as some form of Biblical expert. Everything’s fine when she simply quotes scripture, but problems arise when she tries to interpret it. Like her use of science, Dr Leaf often misquotes or paraphrases scripture, or uses it out of context, in order to try and Biblically justify her tenuous hypotheses.

2 Timothy 1:7

One of Dr Leaf’s favourites is 2 Timothy 1:7: “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” Dr Leaf interprets the phrases of “spirit of fear” and “a sound mind” as “anxiety” and “mental wholeness” respectively. For example, on the 12th of May 2014, she posted to her social media feeds, “Your mind is all-powerful. Your brain simply captures what your mind dictates. 2 Timothy 1:7” And in her book “Switch on your brain” [1], she said on page 33, “For now, rest in the assurance that what God has empowered you to do with your mind is more powerful and effective than any medication, any threat, any sickness, or any neurological challenge. The scripture is clear on this: You do not have a spirit of fear but of love, power and a sound mind (2 Tim 1:7).”

Simply checking the verse in its full context, and in a different translation, shows it in a completely different light to the way Dr Leaf promotes it. From the NIV, “I am reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also. For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands. For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline. So do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord or of me his prisoner. Rather, join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God.” (2 Timothy 1:5-8)

The Greek word for “fear” in this scripture refers to “timidity, fearfulness, cowardice”, not to anxiety or terror. The Greek word that was translated “of a sound mind” refers to “self-control, moderation”, not to mental wholeness. So Paul is teaching Timothy that God doesn’t make him timid, but full of power, love and self-control. Paul is simply saying that through the Holy Spirit, we have all the tools: power, love and the control to use them, so we don’t have to be afraid.

This scripture has nothing to do with our mental health. It certainly doesn’t say that our minds are “more powerful and effective than any medication, any threat, any sickness, or any neurological challenge”. Dr Leaf’s use of this scripture is misleading.

Proverbs 23:7

Another favourite of Dr Leaf’s is Proverbs 23:7, “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he”.

She used this scripture a number of times on her social media feeds, including on the 4/2/2015, “‘The more you believe in your own ability to succeed, the more likely it is that you will. Shawn Achor’ – ‘For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he …’ Proverbs 23:7”, and the 29/5/2015, “Mind In Action: ‘Genes cannot turn themselves on or off. In more scientific terms, genes are not ‘self-emergent’. Something in the environment has to trigger gene activity.’ Dr Bruce Lipton’ – That ‘something’ is your thoughts! Read Proverbs 23:7”. Dr Leaf also used the same scripture to try and explain how the woman with the issue of blood managed to obtain her healing [1: p111].

What’s interesting is how Dr Leaf only ever uses the first half of this verse. The whole verse (in the King James Version) reads, “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.”

So what’s with the second half of the verse? What’s the eating and drinking half of the verse got to do with our thought life?

The explanation is that this verse has nothing to do with our thought life at all. Dr Leaf has simply been misquoting it for years, and no one checked to see if she’s right. According to the Pulpit commentary found on the Bible Hub website, “The verb here used is שָׁעַר (shaar), ‘to estimate … to calculate’, and the clause is best rendered, ‘For as one that calculates with himself, so is he’. The meaning is that this niggardly host watches every morsel which his guest eats, and grudges what he appears to offer so liberally … He professes to make you welcome, and with seeming cordiality invites you to partake of the food upon his table. But his heart is not with thee. He is not glad to see you enjoy yourself, and his pressing invitation is empty verbiage with no heart in it.” (http://goo.gl/nvSYUh)

Thus, the scripture does not prove that our thoughts define us as Dr Leaf would suggest. Dr Leaf’s use of this scripture is misleading.

James 1:21

Another example, on the 26 May 2014 on her social media feeds, Dr Leaf said, “James 1:21 How you react to events and circumstances of your life is based upon your perceptions” and then a week later, “James 1:21 Our thoughts and perceptions have a direct and overwhelmingly significant effect of the cells of our body” (4/6/2014).

Except that James 1:21 actually says, “Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls”, and has absolutely nothing to do with our perceptions and our cellular biology.

The same pattern is repeated on social media and in her books. Dr Leaf finds scriptures where one version mentions words like “thinking” or “choice”, isolates them from their context and reinterprets them to suit her meaning, rather the actual meaning of the verse in the original language and the original context.

4. Dr Leaf is contradicted by Dr Leaf

Not only is Dr Leaf’s teaching contrary to science and scripture, but even her own teaching contradicts itself. Dr Leaf also makes claims about her research and achievements that aren’t backed up by her published papers.

To gift or not to gift …

In her 2009 book, “The gift in you” [12], Dr Leaf teaches about the gifts that we have, specifically, our gifts are something uniquely hardwired into our brain, something that we cannot change even if we wanted to, and that it’s our brain structure that gives rise to the way in which we think, the actions that we take, and the gifts we are given from God.

On page 47, Dr Leaf said,

“The mind is what the brain does, and we see the uniqueness of each mind through our gifts. This, in itself is delightful and, intriguing because, as you work out your gift and find out who you are, you will be developing your soul and spirit.” (Emphasis added)

This quote in and of itself isn’t actually that significant until we compare it to a quote from the first chapter of Dr Leaf’s 2013 book, “Switch on your brain.” [1]

“The first argument proposes that thoughts come from your brain as though your brain is generating all aspects of your mental experience. People who hold this view are called materialists. They believe that it is the chemicals and neurons that create the mind and that relationships between your thoughts and what you do can just be ignored.
So essentially, their perspective is that the brain creates what you are doing and what you are thinking. The mind is what the brain does, they believe, and the ramifications are significant. Take for example, the treatment of depression. In this reductionist view, depression is a chemical imbalance problem of a machinelike brain; therefore, the treatment is to add in the missing chemicals.
This view is biblically and scientifically incorrect.” [1: p31-32] (Emphasis added)

So … our gifts are hardwired into our brain and can’t be changed because our mind is what our brain does OR our brain is what our mind does, so our gifts aren’t uniquely hardwired into our brain, and we should be able to change our gifting if we want to, based on our choices. Which is it? It can’t be both. Dr Leaf’s fundamental philosophies are mutually exclusive.

Now, we all make innocent mistakes. No one is perfectly congruent in everything they say. But this isn’t just getting some minor facts wrong. These statements form the foundation for Dr Leaf’s major works, and are in print in two best selling books, from which she has used to present countless sermons and seminars around the globe.

To summarise, Dr Leaf has directly called her own beliefs and teaching “biblically and scientifically incorrect”, and not noticed. The confusion and embarrassment are palpable.

But wait, there’s more.

(Not) Making a Difference

From the pulpit, in her books, and in her promotional material, Dr Leaf refers to her ground-breaking research – how her “Switch On Your Brain 5 Step Learning Process” and the Geodesic Information Processing model (which underpins her program), have helped thousands of children to increase their learning and improve their academic results.

For example, Dr Leaf claims that, “The Switch On Your Brain with the 5-Step Learning Process® was assessed in a group of charter schools in the Dallas [sic]. The results showed that the students’ thinking, understanding and knowledge improved across the board. It was concluded that The Switch On Your Brain with the 5-Step Learning Process® positively changed the way the students and teachers thought and approached learning.” (http://drleaf.com/about/dr-leafs-research/ – Original emphasis)

In her TEDx talk, Dr Leaf stated, “I wasn’t sure if this was going to have the same impact cause until this point I’d been working one on one. Well I’m happy to tell you that we had the same kind of results … The minute that the teachers actually started applying the techniques, we altered the trend significantly.” and,
“I stand up here saying this with conviction because I have seen this over and over and over in so many different circumstances … in this country I worked in Dallas for three years in charter schools, and we found the same thing happening.” [13]

Though there is the minor problem of her research results not demonstrating any actual change.

In Dr Leaf’s first case, Dr Leaf herself admitted that the demonstrated improvement of her single patient was just as likely to be related to spontaneous improvement, and not Dr Leaf’s intervention. In Dr Leaf’s PhD thesis, the students improved almost as much in the year without Dr Leafs intervention as they did with her program. In the Dallas charter schools study, Dr Leaf’s intervention either disadvantaged the students or showed no significant difference. In academic circles, Dr Leaf’s research hasn’t so much as generated a stale whimper [14].

So while Dr Leaf may claim that her research has changed the learning and lives of thousands of students all over the world, but her own published research disputes her claims.

The Emperor has no clothes, but no one wants to say anything

In Hans Christian Andersen’s legendary tale, the Emperor was conned by two swindlers into believing that “they were weavers, and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable. Not only were their colors and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid.”

If you don’t know the story, you can read it here. In the end, the Emperor was duped so badly that he paraded in front of all his subjects au naturel, but “Nobody would confess that he couldn’t see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.”

My analogy here is not to suggest that Dr Leaf is deliberately conning the church. Rather, our natural instinct is to suppress our own judgement, even when it’s right, in favour of everyone else’s. We assume information to be true because others in authority tell us it is. We assume that the Emperor must be wearing something because the trusted ministers and noblemen are holding his imaginary train high in the air.

Likewise, it’s very natural for Christians to believe that Dr Leaf’s teaching must be ok because our pastors and leaders vouch for it. Our pastors and leaders vouch for Dr Leaf’s teaching because it’s been endorsed by world-renowned Christian leaders like Kenneth Copeland and Joyce Meyer. And no one wants to say anything, because they don’t want to look sheepish (or be ostracised). Dr Leaf’s ministry may look like a complete success, but only until someone finally says, “But, the Emperor has no clothes …”

It’s time to call Dr Leaf’s ministry for what it is. In my humble opinion, I suggest that Dr Leaf’s ministry is not based on scientific acumen, but on popularity and reputation. And her reputation, in turn, is based on slick self-promotion and an availability cascade (a self-reinforcing process by which an idea gains plausibility through repetition).

Dr Leaf’s teachings are not supported by science, nor by scripture. Her own fundamental philosophies contradict each other. Her assertions about her title and the results of her work are in conflict with her own official data.

Our church leaders need to come clean about why they publicly endorse Dr Leaf’s ministry. I can justify why I think Dr Leaf should not be preaching from our pulpits – in this and many other blog posts, and in my 68,000 word rebuttal to Dr Leaf’s published works. Can Kenneth Copeland and Joyce Meyer, or churches such as Cottonwood Church or Hillsong Church, produce evidence where they performed due diligence on Dr Leaf’s scientific credibility before endorsing her ministry? I would be happy to publish any responses they may be willing to make, complete and unabridged.

If Dr Leaf is preaching at your church, politely ask your pastor to produce his or her evidence that Dr Leaf’s teaching is scientifically and scripturally sound. If your church leaders can’t show that Dr Leaf’s teachings are scientifically and scripturally accurate, then politely ask them why she’s been invited to preach from their pulpit or to sell her wares in your church? Feel free to share your experiences in the comments section.

Critics and sceptics love to use any opportunity they can to embarrass the church, but by parading our own naivety, we’re simply embarrassing ourselves.

It’s time we dressed ourselves in God’s glory, not our own ignorance and ignominy.

References

[1]        Leaf CM. Switch On Your Brain : The Key to Peak Happiness, Thinking, and Health. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2013.
[2]        World Health Organization. GLOBAL HEALTH ESTIMATES SUMMARY TABLES: DALYs by cause, age and sex. In: GHE_DALY_Global_2000_2011.xls, editor. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization,, 2013.
[3]        Hunter PR, MacDonald AM, Carter RC. Water supply and health. PLoS medicine 2010;7(11):e1000361.
[4]        De Cock KM, Simone PM, Davison V, Slutsker L. The new global health. Emerging infectious diseases 2013 Aug;19(8):1192-7.
[5]        Dickinson JA, Stankiewicz A, Popadiuk C, Pogany L, Onysko J, Miller AB. Reduced cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Canada: national data from 1932 to 2006. BMC public health 2012;12:992.
[6]        Ronsmans C, Graham WJ, Lancet Maternal Survival Series steering g. Maternal mortality: who, when, where, and why. Lancet 2006 Sep 30;368(9542):1189-200.
[7]        Pitt CE. Hold That Thought: Reappraising the work of Dr Caroline Leaf. 1st ed. Brisbane, Australia: Pitt Medical Trust, 2014.
[8]        Mendez MF. The neurobiology of moral behavior: review and neuropsychiatric implications. CNS spectrums 2009 Nov;14(11):608-20.
[9]        Zysset S, Huber O, Ferstl E, von Cramon DY. The anterior frontomedian cortex and evaluative judgment: an fMRI study. NeuroImage 2002 Apr;15(4):983-91.
[10]      Glascher J, Adolphs R, Damasio H, et al. Lesion mapping of cognitive control and value-based decision making in the prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2012 Sep 4;109(36):14681-6.
[11]      Rein G, McCraty R. Local and nonlocal effects of coherent heart frequencies on conformational changes of DNA. Proc Joint USPA/IAPR Psychotronics Conf, Milwaukee, WI; 1993; 1993.
[12]      Leaf CM. The gift in you – discover new life through gifts hidden in your mind. Texas, USA: Inprov, Inc, 2009.
[13]      Leaf CM. Ridiculous | TEDx Oaks Christian School | 4 Feb 2015. YouTube: TEDx, 2015;20:03.
[14]      Pitt CE, The TEDx Users Guide to Dr Caroline Leaf, cedwardpittcom; 2015   Mar 26, https://cedwardpitt.com/2015/03/26/the-tedx-users-guide-to-dr-caroline-leaf/