Mental Illness And Theodicy Arguments - 1063 Words

Mental Illness and Theodicy Arguments Millions of Americans are affected with mental illness each year. Mental illness is very serious disorder and can get worse if left untreated. It can make it difficult for people to cope with everyday life and it can interfere with sleep and eating habits. Mental illness can affect anyone whether it ranges from mood disorders or even anxiety. The cause of mental illness is unknown but chemical imbalances in the body can trigger stress and even trauma, it can be passed from generation to generation and alcohol and drug abuse can also play a role in this illness. People begin to wonder if that God was all loving why would he make people live a miserable life, why wouldn’t he let people happy and if God was all powerful why wouldn’t he stop the mental illnesses from affecting people. I will explain the questions people began to raise with three of the theodicy arguments; Evil as a Privation of Good, The Free Will Defense, and Evil as T herapy. There are many types of mental illnesses but the most common are mood disorders, anxiety, psychosis and eating disorders. Types of mood disorders include: major depression, dysthymic disorders and bipolar disorders. Major depression is the feeling of being depressed for the majority of the day at least over a two week time period. Symptoms include changes in appetite, loss of interest and motivation, hopelessness and have thoughts of suicide. Dysthymia generally last longer than major depression, upShow MoreRelatedEvil And Suffering By John Hick1606 Words   |  7 Pagesand suffering. According to Hick, skeptics assume man is to be viewed as a completed creation and that God s purpose in making the world was to provide a suitable dwelling place for this fully formed creature (Hick, 24). In relation to Hick s argument, this skeptic view is absurd and ultimately false according to Christian Humanists. Christianity, however, has never supported that God s purpose in the creating of the world was to construct a paradise whose inhabitants would experience a maximumRead MoreGender Differences in Religious Belief1817 Words   |  8 PagesAccording to Stark this risk taking inclination in a man to not â€Å"think ahead† means that men are less religious because they are willing to take a gamble on there not being an afterlife. However sociologists like Freese and Montgomery debate this argument works on an assumption that everyone makes the same risk assessment when in fact men are just more prepared to take that risk.Roth produced a study which showed there to be a smaller gap between genders in the percentage who believe in an afterlife

Invite Friends Free Essays

Leadership Assignment 5 Sarah Kamal 09-4714 ————————————————- 26th November 2012 Question 1: Was the research program a group or a team? If a team, what kind of a team was it? At first, before the assignment of a formal leader, it was a self-directed team on a whole of groups of people. It was a team because it was not inhibited by organizational boundaries. It was specifically formulated for a purpose and vision that was to develop a technique for large-scale interferon production to use as a treatment against cancer. We will write a custom essay sample on Invite Friends or any similar topic only for you Order Now The performance goals were also set by themselves instead of one strong centralized leadership. This team consisted of 3 groups who had 3 informal leaders namely –gene slicing, recombination and fermentation. At first the senior management believed that this biotech research program could be self-managed so the initial team of groups was a self-directed team as it worked on itself within its group boundaries autonomously and was member centered to the informal leaders. Later on after the formal leader was assigned to this team, it emerged as a stronger cross-functional team coordinating across its group boundaries for a shared purpose and problem solving. The formal leader directed work to the group leaders and assigned some authority to them as well. Question 2: Did the interdependence among the subgroups change with the interferon project? What were the group norms before and after the retreat? Interdependence is the extent to which the team members depend on each other for information, resources or ideas to accomplish their tasks. The research project should have been ideally a reciprocal interdependent one but initially the lack of communication and cohesiveness among the subgroups made it a pooled-interdependent team as the groups were fairly independent and did not share or coordinate work with each other participating as a team. After the formal leader came, he changed this interdependence style to the required reciprocal interdependent team. The interdependence increased a lot, and the team members influenced each other in reciprocal fashion for he completion of work and problem solving. Yes, the group norms changed and one single approach was taken to lead the project with consensus. Each subgroup was assigned a set of instructions by the leader, strict deadlines were given as the work was highly interdependent now and weekly progress reports were submitted. The communication gap was removed, problem solving was improved and group coordination was increased. Question 3: What factors account for the chang e in cohesiveness after the chief biologist took over? Cohesiveness is the extent to which the members are united in pursuit of a common goal. The chief biologist increased the determining factors for increasing cohesiveness. He took the team to a two day retreat and made them interact with each other. He organized the work and gave the team a more direct shared mission. Even after the retreat the communication was increased as lunches and coffee gathering took place. Group members and team leaders started having daily discussions and cooperated on research requirements. Enthusiasm and group cohesion was increased. How to cite Invite Friends, Essay examples

California High Speed Rail free essay sample

Most importantly this track covers 7 important airports up North and down South. It is expected that the train will run at a maximum of 220 mph and will be able to come to Los Angeles from San Francisco in 2 hours and 40 minutes. That is something what California need, rather than cursing in traffic on I-5 which moves at 40mph on rush hour. California already have railway by likes of AmTrak and MetroLink. But these are not really linked or works throughout the state efficiently. It will take at least half a day to Sacramento via a train.The new proposed High speed railway is supposed to eliminate all these problems at a low cost green theme, and hoping to increase links between the cities. The system would be fully electric and will be powered by solar and wind power built along with the Railway system. . The rails would be 800 miles long when finished, while they will be built in separate portions from 2012 to 2030. The main phase contains the link between San Francisco to Los Angeles expected to be built by 2020. The rest of the 300 miles would be completed by 2030 for the complete proposed system.This 21st century state of the art new system got its initial funding of $9. 95 billion initial funding from Prop. 1A. It’s estimated that total cost would be around US $45 billion although many suspect that it would get closer to $50 billion or more when finished. The initial environmental reports were done in late 2005 and the implementation plan suggested it would take around 8 to 11 years for the implementation of this plan for the initial segment. With more funds coming it’s way, and the last funding made was for $300 million on May 9th, 2011, The 1st test run segment is expected to begin constructions by September, 2012.This would be from Madera to Wye Junction in Bakersfield. It’s expected to be completed by 2015 with all the test runs and researches. This project is the most beneficial project in the short run and in the long run for California at the moment. It creates lots of advantages, direct and indirect. The first and foremost benefit is that the construction is expected to create around 150,000 construction jobs and around 450,000 jobs through the commuter system. All of these will be fulfilled by California residents. The money will be kept inside the state. This would hugely help the unemployment in the state.Considering These 150,000 people will pay tax and some having families, this will be a huge boost on state economy. After the system is created, there would be job opportunities for maintenance, constructions, commuter system, and many indirect jobs created around the system such as shops and taxi services. Public would be able to travel faster and cheaper through this system. Rather than paying the airlines around $200 for a one way trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles, they would be able to get away with about 1/6th of the price, at 2 times the time.With less security measures for trains rather than for an airplane, the waiting lines wouldn’t be long, and the system is expected to have trains as often as 5 minutes in between in rush hour. The job opportunities would be widely available and open as travelling becomes easier. With reduced price of tickets people would travel more in the state. With most people opting out for cheaper and faster high speed rail, state expects less traffic on freeways and on air. Huge time savings are expected from this High speed rail. California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) expects around 8 millions commuters per year by 2030. This will generate a great revenue for the state. With the tax money from the newly created jobs, saved maintenance costs on other public transports, are additional revenue. With 1/3rd of energy required to run a normal train, and all those energy mainly coming from wind mills and solar power we are looking at huge savings in the state. Environmental pollution will be significantly less. Trains will run on electricity majorly from solar panels and wind mills. The train requires 1/5th of the fuel that of an airplane requires. Many people adapting to high speed rail means less people on airplanes and on road. A train is supposed to carry around 1000 passengers. This means fewer cars on the road. The amount of emissions will be less and our carbon footprint is expected to go down. According to CHSRA calculations, California high speed rail will cut down 12. 7 million barrels of oil imports, and 12 billion lbs less green house emissions per year. There are doubts about the figure of commuters per year. 8 million is not realistic as per some reviews. CHSRA is already optimistic on the number. Granted that this is estimated by 2030, they still argue there would be a significant less figure for the real value.If it’s the case, the benefits would get lower too. The reviews also think that there would be more trouble getting into the trains as for the facilities to get around the 24 high-speed railway stations are not at the top notch. Some predict it will take the same time as getting into a local flight. The railway system would take more time during the actual travel time as it is not on high speed rail for the whole time. Part of the system would contain some existing rail tracks. This will definitely slow down the rail to the current speeds we have. And at 220 mph full potential there have been no test about the safety.The risk of vulnerability is high and even though risk assessments to passengers and property have been done extensively, they are always not ample enough to measure until a real life situation. CHSRA report expects to reduce congestion by high speed rail . There estimate is by 2030 there would be 70 million less drivers on road. With the project already suggested around 3000 freeway miles, new airport runaways to accommodate the high speed rail, and considering that one should arrive at the limited number of rail stations, this figure is not realistic. With more vehicles on the road than expected, it won’t be as green as it is expected. The wind and solar power would not be a solid supply throughout the year and it is still doubtful whether it will be sufficient enough to provide the needed power. The backup power source is Coal power plants. That is as dark as it can get. Many question the likelihood of public using the train system. There are many individuals who would prefer their own transport rather than public transport. Even though it would be cheaper and faster to reach destinations, the convenience of one’s own transport is a great consideration. This would impact the expected 8 million commuters per year figure badly. The estimated $45 billion cost is one of the major factors. It won’t reap any revenues until the 1st phase is finished which is due 2020. State is looking at spending around $35 billion for 9 years without any direct revenue. This is going to hurt the budget. And to cover this figure we are looking at a $50 train ticket. High-speed rail system should have arrived California at least a decade ago. Oil price is going up, having trouble with environment and pollution, lots of time waste on freeways, and without a convenient middle solution to travel anywhere in the state, it makes a perfect daily solution for everyone out there. This rail does not essentially mean its only passenger based. Railway is the most economical way of transporting goods. Combined with its speed this serves well for mail services and small package services. There was never an easy way to get to San Francisco in 3 hours from Los Angeles. Even if you take a flight, with the checking in and boarding times, it came close to the same time. Given that railway is ground transport, there can be more development around this rail tracks or its stations. Starting from constructions, it can be developed into trade zones or industrial zones. It would be ideal along the central valley for the industrial zones. Less residential zones, perfect environment conditions, fast transport, and cheap real estate make it perfect for the new investments. Over the time people would look more into the public transportation. It will take it’s time to adopt into California, as it’s a new experience for the public. The job opportunities created would be a great asset and a help to California. The money spent will stay in California as the workers are from California itself. It comes back as tax, goods, and services.