College Chaplain

Mark Hamill

johnfás wrote: »

You choose whether or not you are a member of Cuman na Gaeilge, but not whether or not you fund the Irish language officer.

I dont support the irish language officer either.

johnfás wrote: »

Chaplains have either an undergraduate degree with a pastoral component, and most have a masters degree or postgraduate diploma in pastoral studies. Such degrees are accredited by universities including the National University of Ireland and most major universities around the world.

Really? They offer degrees in that crap? I thought that the religious infection in the irish education system petered out at second level. What a joke. When doing these degrees, do they actually declare them to be a fundamental part of the health care system, on the par of doctors and psychiatrists?

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its your own fault. You keep trying to twist what I say and you continuously conflate two issues. The issues of atheists/agnostics wanting the same the same sense of community that that lost lonely theist you described a few pages pack would want, and the issue of what a chaplain actually provides and wether the college should be directly funding it.
All students want a sense of community in college, all students want groups of likeminded people that they can discuss and act out their hobbies with. And so, colleges fund these based on the numbers who join each one. These are the societies and sports clubs you get.
The directly funded services supplied by the college, things like clinics, counsellors, the administration etc, are funded because these are essential for keeping the students healthy and for keeping them in class.
The chaplaincy however is not covered by either of these. As you said ,it is not just a counsellor with a religious slant, its worth is purely in terms of the religious ceremonies it covers.
However why should a college cover that?
The sense of community it supposedly gives is well covered by the other societies in college (both religious and non religious). As for the objective mental benefit? Its no more effective than homeopathy, a placebo which people will cheering support the efficacy of while dying of treatable disease. It doesn't offer anything that either: cant be gotten elsewhere, that can be objectively shown to work and that a secular institution should directly supprot and fund.

Well after 21 pages I don't think there's a whole lot more to say about this, so I'm leave it at 'agree to disagree'.

What I will say is this: If university student services were being designed now, by me, and from scratch, I would not put a chaplaincy in there. It would be anachronistic, and yes, non-secular.

But as they are already there, and people find them helpful and supportive, I would need a stronger argument than 'it's not secular' to argue for their removal, as I think it's hard enough to be a student (for some) without removing a support structure that is already there. If they were not being utilised, then I would shout louder than anyone to get rid of them.

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All third level welfare and college should be nonreligious. Its called secularism.

No a college, government, any institution can still donate money towards religious services so long as the ethos of the institution itself remains non religious. Educate Together schools are by their ethos secular schools but they still use school money and resources to fund extra-curricular religious classes. You may not agree with it but that doesn't change the meaning of what secuarlism is.

So chaplains are guidance counsellors? Are you sure? Because they weren't a page or two ago.

I would consider them guidance counsellors yes.

possible education, should not be providing the untested placebo that is religious guidance (no more than they should provide homeopathy)

Out of interest has anyone 'tested' the effectiveness of the counselling service? Surely the only way of telling is by asking the service users themselves. But then how do you know the clients haven't just deluded themselves into thinking the service works like you seem to think chaplaincy users have? Who's job is it to decide?

You choose wether or not to be part of Cuman na Gaelige, wether or not to pay the membership fee and fund their activities. You dont in the case of a university employed chaplain.

I would wager more college funding goes into the Irish society than any of the religious services. In fact in UCD Irish speakers are given preferance for student accommodation. I can never be a part of the Cuman na Gaelige but at the same time I don't feel isolated or discriminated against by it's existance. It is its a particular branch of student service that doesn't affect those who aren't members.

You can choose whether or not to be part of the college chaplaincy.

The chaplains are not specialised branches of the health services. You cant get a credited degree in chaplaincy, any one can offer their services, the label is legally protected. Where do you get this nonsense from? Its utter BS.

I'm sure the univerities don't just hire anyone. Chaplains are expected to have professional training in counselling or similar.

johnfás

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Really? They offer degrees in that crap? I thought that the religious infection in the irish education system petered out at second level. What a joke. When doing these degrees, do they actually declare them to be a fundamental part of the health care system, on the par of doctors and psychiatrists?

I haven't seen anybody here compare chaplains directly to doctors. You are the only one who keeps doing so because it is a suitable strawman for your arguments. What posters, both theistic and atheistic, have said is that a variety of service providers may have a role in ensuring the wellbeing of a particular person. Depending on that person the suitable service provider can be drawn from an array of services including medical, dental, psychiatric, psychological, religious, pastoral and counselling. That doesn't mean that a chaplain replaces a doctor, no more than the STI clinic replaces the careers advisor. What is suitable really depends on the person and the problem. This seems quite obvious.

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

No a college, government, any institution can still donate money towards religious services so long as the ethos of the institution itself remains non religious.

Kinda like being a pacifist while donating money to an african warlord?

Truley wrote: »

Educate Together schools are by their ethos secular schools but they still use school money and resources to fund extra-curricular religious classes. You may not agree with it but that doesn't change the meaning of what secuarlism is.

No, educate together schools allow their resources to be used by extra curricular classes, but they dont fund them themselves, they are run voluntary by outside groups:

our school boards facilitate the organisation of voluntary faith formation classes outside school hours

Its like how colleges facilitate societies (with sports centres and meeting rooms) but dont directly fund them. This is how the chaplaincy should be (facilitated like any other group, but funded by the religious society it represents).

Truley wrote: »

I would consider them guidance counsellors yes.

I think you are fairly unique in this regard, a large part of this thread was people explaining how they werent just guidance counsellors, but something else entirely.

Truley wrote: »

Out of interest has anyone 'tested' the effectiveness of the counselling service? Surely the only way of telling is by asking the service users themselves. But then how do you know the clients haven't just deluded themselves into thinking the service works like you seem to think chaplaincy users have? Who's job is it to decide?

Anobjective observer, I would imagine. It would be similar in how it works with mental health institutions (that is, if chaplains are really guidance counsellors), with people checking that the problem students aren't the ones who more likely than not, went to the chaplaincy.

Truley wrote: »

I would wager more college funding goes into the Irish society than any of the religious services. In fact in UCD Irish speakers are given preferance for student accommodation. I can never be a part of the Cuman na Gaelige but at the same time I don't feel isolated or discriminated against by it's existance. It is its a particular branch of student service that doesn't affect those who aren't members.

The fact that you dont recognise the discrimination doesn't mean its not there.

Truley wrote: »

You can choose whether or not to be part of the college chaplaincy.

Since when? How? Can I choose not to fund it?

Truley wrote: »

I'm sure the univerities don't just hire anyone. Chaplains are expected to have professional training in counselling or similar.

"Pastoral care", apparently. Also known as spiritual care.

Mark Hamill

johnfás wrote: »

I haven't seen anybody here compare chaplains directly to doctors. You are the only one who keeps doing so because it is a suitable strawman for your arguments.

Open your eyes then:

Truely wrote:

Doctors, Nurses, Psycharitists, Counsellors, Chaplains, Psychologists are all specialised branches of the Mental Health service.

johnfás wrote: »

What posters, both theistic and atheistic, have said is that a variety of service providers may have a role in ensuring the wellbeing of a particular person. Depending on that person the suitable service provider can be drawn from an array of services including medical, dental, psychiatric, psychological, religious, pastoral and counselling.

And that, as I said, is a joke. Tell me, how do we determine that these spiritual carers, the chaplains and pastors, actually have any scientific benefit? Can we measure the spirit now, are there peer reviewed studies, by reputable journals, that show how spiritual advise and treatment actually give long term real world help? Religious care is no more needed than homeopathis care. Its a palcebo, its not real, and if our education system had any damn self respect it would have laughed off the currciculum years ago.

johnfás wrote: »

That doesn't mean that a chaplain replaces a doctor, no more than the STI clinic replaces the careers advisor

Who said that?

johnfás wrote: »

What is suitable really depends on the person and the problem. This seems quite obvious.

What is suitable depends on what what the real world physical problem is, not this pandering bs. It should not be a part of the irish medical practise, and I have to say I'm ashamed it is.

johnfás

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Tell me, how do we determine that these spiritual carers, the chaplains and pastors, actually have any scientific benefit? Can we measure the spirit now, are there peer reviewed studies, by reputable journals, that show how spiritual advise and treatment actually give long term real world help?

You are the one arguing for its removal, perhaps you should be demonstrating to us, from an academic article, the harm which is caused by chaplaincy services in a university environment. You might then proceed to cite an academic article which demonstrates that counselling in a university context has a scientific benefit.

We can go down the route of me telling you to look up pages 32 - 40 of the 114th volume of the Journal of Affective Disorders (2009) to read a research study utilising a nationally representative sample which demonstrates that suicide is less pravelent amongst those people who practice religious observance. I can then proceed to say that this is a basis for college chaplaincy. You can then come back to me with an article from another reputable journal using different methodology from a different point of view which brings us a different result.

However, I would rather spend my time ensuring that students are looked after by providing as many services as is possible to help them with their wellbeing. As someone who attends a university, I know a great many people who are, have and will go through a great many issues. Some of my friends have been helped by some of the student services provided, others have been helped by others. What is important to me, and most people I know in my university, is that they get help suitable to their circumstances, rather than being a pawn in your philosophical crusade seeking to determine what they get access to.

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, educate together schools allow their resources to be used by extra curricular classes, but they dont fund them themselves, they are run voluntary by outside groups:

The religious teachers in some ET schools are voluntary, in my one they were subsidised by the school. Either way the school provides the room with all the costs it incurrs such as heating, lighting, they also facilitate religious ceremonies, communion parties etc. Nobody had a problem with this as it didn't invade on the secular ethos of the school itself.

Its like how colleges facilitate societies (with sports centres and meeting rooms) but dont directly fund them. This is how the chaplaincy should be (facilitated like any other group, but funded by the religious society it represents).

College clubs and societies are directly funded by the university. That was made clear ages ago, the kayak club doesn't pay for it's boathouse and kayaking equipment from its membership fees, it comes from college funding. Same with Cuman na Gaeilge, same with Games Soc etc etc

Anobjective observer, I would imagine. It would be similar in how it works with mental health institutions (that is, if chaplains are really guidance counsellors), with people checking that the problem students aren't the ones who more likely than not, went to the chaplaincy.

You sure as heck aren't an objective observer. Mental health services such as counselling are not the same as physical medicine because it is all based on a theory of how the human mind works and how it should be treated. You cannot measure its effectiveness scientifically as it is completely subjective, a good counsellor will be the first to tell you that. The aim is to make people happier, if something achieves this then it is effective. This is coming from someone who studied psychology in Uni by the way.

Kinda like being a pacifist while donating money to an african warlord?

*sigh* yes Mark. That's it. That's exactly what it's like.

I think I'm done with this thread as it's only going round in circles at this stage. I've said all I need to say.

Mark Hamill

johnfás wrote: »

You are the one arguing for its removal, perhaps you should be demonstrating to us, from an academic article, the harm which is caused by chaplaincy services in a university environment. You might then proceed to cite an academic article which demonstrates that counselling in a university context has a scientific benefit.

Thats not how science works. We start from the null hypothesis and proceed from there. That means you need to prove that something works, before I need to prove that it doesn't.

johnfás wrote: »

We can go down the route of me telling you to look up pages 32 - 40 of the 114th volume of the Journal of Affective Disorders (2009) to read a research study utilising a nationally representative sample which demonstrates that suicide is less pravelent amongst those people who practice religious observance. I can then proceed to say that this is a basis for college chaplaincy. You can then come back to me with an article from another reputable journal using different methodology from a different point of view which brings us a different result.

"I dont understand the scientific method, ergo it doesn't apply to me":rolleyes:.

Why do you think I need to find another study in order to point out your misinterpretation of this one? Looking at the first page of the study shows your first major problem:

Limitations

This was a cross-sectional survey and causality of relationships cannot be inferred.

The study admits that it cannot infor a causality between these relationships.

Your second mistake is that the study by no means shows that the non religious supports where financed and available on a par with religious supports. For most people, any support is better than none. (particularly important here, because this study is on people with mental disorders, who may not want to go a vast majority of non religious supports. Also the study didn't differentiate between different religions).

Next the study by no means shows that these people are getting anything better than a placebo. There is no control group of people who were given a support group with a made up religion, so no conlcusion can be made over wether or not its religion itself, or just the act of inclusion that is beneficiary.

There are also other correlations that are not explored. People who go have religious support (measured in the paper interms of how often they go to mass) are more likely to have families (that bring them to mass).

Then there is the problem that being spiritual, while being shown in teh paper coincided witha decrease in suicide attempts, it did not coincide with a decrease in suicide ideation. Its possible that spiritual people are not comminting suicide simply because they are scared not to, because of how most religions see suicide (in christianity, you go to hell as its a cardinal sin). The spirituality doesn't help these suicidal people deal with the issues that makes them suicidal, it just makes them not do the act, while leaving the mental pressures there. It would be akin to, when dealing with a kid who thinks a monster is under their bed, you throw in a hand grenade. Sure they won believe the monster is still there, but they will still believe in monsters.

johnfás wrote: »

However, I would rather spend my time ensuring that students are looked after by providing as many services as is possible to help them with their wellbeing. As someone who attends a university, I know a great many people who are, have and will go through a great many issues. Some of my friends have been helped by some of the student services provided, others have been helped by others. What is important to me, and most people I know in my university, is that they get help suitable to their circumstances, rather than being a pawn in your philosophical crusade seeking to determine what they get access to.

Whats important to me is that people get help to solve their issues, not pandered to because it makes them happy.

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

The religious teachers in some ET schools are voluntary, in my one they were subsidised by the school. Either way the school provides the room with all the costs it incurrs such as heating, lighting, they also facilitate religious ceremonies, communion parties etc. Nobody had a problem with this as it didn't invade on the secular ethos of the school itself.

The website itself says they dont.

Truley wrote: »

College clubs and societies are directly funded by the university. That was made clear ages ago, the kayak club doesn't pay for it's boathouse and kayaking equipment from its membership fees, it comes from college funding. Same with Cuman na Gaeilge, same with Games Soc etc etc

The clubs get money according to membership and buy their equipment and pay coaches from that (its bolstered up with membership fees). If the numbers arent there, the college does not step in and start paying coaches directly.

Truley wrote: »

You sure as heck aren't an objective observer. Mental health services such as counselling are not the same as physical medicine because it is all based on a theory of how the human mind works and how it should be treated. You cannot measure its effectiveness scientifically as it is completely subjective, a good counsellor will be the first to tell you that. The aim is to make people happier, if something achieves this then it is effective. This is coming from someone who studied psychology in Uni by the way.

You just said so much bs.
1) Mental health is physical science.
2) All science is theory- gravity, bacteria, evolution-all theory, all objectively studied and tested.
3)The aim of therapy is to make people better. In the long run that should make them happy, but with psychiatric problems (like bipolar disorder), people go from being happy one minute to hating themsleves the next.

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The website itself says they dont.

I went to an ET school and both my parents were heavily involved in the founding ET 'movement' and I'm saying that alot of them do.

The clubs get money according to membership and buy their equipment and pay coaches from that (its bolstered up with membership fees). If the numbers arent there, the college does not step in and start paying coaches directly.

No they don't. Funding is partly based on membership numbers and largely based on running costs. Hence kayaking club will get quite substantial funding due to it's high running costs even if the lacrosse club has more members. 15e per person in yearly membership fees would nowhere near cover the cost of kayaking equipment, it's paid for by the college not from membership fees.

You just said so much bs.
1) Mental health is physical science.
2) All science is theory- gravity, bacteria, evolution-all theory, all objectively studied and tested.
3)The aim of therapy is to make people better. In the long run that should make them happy, but with psychiatric problems (like bipolar disorder), people go from being happy one minute to hating themsleves the next.

How do you objectively study and scientifically prove the effectiveness of a counselling service? Can you scientifically disprove the effectiveness of a chaplaincy counselling session?

johnfás

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thats not how science works. We start from the null hypothesis and proceed from there. That means you need to prove that something works, before I need to prove that it doesn't.

Prove to me the scientific value of a the Drama Department at Trinity College Dublin. Failing this, I expect it to be removed immediately. Likewise the scientific value of maintaining the Book of Kells. Sure its just an old book, it would be of more practical use as a door stop. We could digitise its pages into pdf and off we go.

axer

johnfás wrote: »

Prove to me the scientific value of a the Drama Department at Trinity College Dublin. Failing this, I expect it to be removed immediately.

Trinity provide drama courses thus they have a drama department. What is there to prove?

johnfás wrote: »

Likewise the scientific value of maintaining the Book of Kells. Sure its just an old book, it would be of more practical use as a door stop. We could digitise its pages into pdf and off we go.

I believe Trinity charge €9 to view the book of kells. Maybe that is the scientific value to them.

I think the point here is that funding a chaplain is treating a specific belief set better than other beliefs or lack of beliefs. Every belief cannot be catered for and since we should be striving for a secular country (for equality reasons) then we should not be funding any particular beliefs.

I have already shown that all a chaplain does over a counsellor is provide religious services. That is the only thing a chaplain does that a counsellor does not or cannot do. Thus the question is would it not be better to have maybe another cousellor rather than a chaplain since providing religious services are not something that a secular college should have any involvement in funding wise? EDIT: a better question is - does a college have any place funding religious services? I would think not since they are no longer a secular college as a result as they are not treating everyone equally.

Truley

axer wrote: »

I think the point here is that funding a chaplain is treating a specific belief set better than other beliefs or lack of beliefs. Every belief cannot be catered for and since we should be striving for a secular country (for equality reasons) then we should not be funding any particular beliefs.

I don't see how having a religous chaplain as alongside other non-religious services is treating the religion better than other religions or lack of them. Unless you believe that the very existance of a chaplain service is making a political/ideological point on the college's part. It seems to me that most people, including Athiests like myself, don't see it that way. The same way I wouldn't consider the existance of the Irish society as the college's way of saying that Irish is a superior language to say, Latvian. It's just a specialised service there for those who need it, inoffensive to those who don't.

I have already shown that all a chaplain does over a counsellor is provide religious services. That is the only thing a chaplain does that a counsellor does not or cannot do.

Yes and the relgious services are what makes it a chaplaincy not a counselling service, it's the religious service that people want. I went to a chaplain, not a counsellor because I wasn't suffering mental illness and didn't need a therapist. I needed a chaplain. A counsellor can't and shouldn't replace the religious services a chaplain provides, hence it'e own specialised service.

Thus the question is would it not be better to have maybe another cousellor rather than a chaplain since providing religious services are not something that a secular college should have any involvement in funding wise? EDIT: a better question is - does a college have any place funding religious services? I would think not since they are no longer a secular college as a result as they are not treating everyone equally.

Well as far as student liberties go the college does treat everyone equally. If you argue that the provision of a chaplaincy service means discrimination for anyone who doesn't use it then you are going down the route that everything the college funds is doing this. Women's officer, Irish Society, STI Clinic, Sports Hall, Student Union Bar, Ents Society etc etc

johnfás

axer wrote: »

I believe Trinity charge €9 to view the book of kells. Maybe that is the scientific value to them.

A few pages ago we had a poster stating that the chaplaincy which they had been involved with was able to ensure that certain students had remained at the university who would not otherwise have done so and that this resulted in a financial as well as social gain to the university. This poster was criticised by those who lobby for the removal of chaplaincy provision on the basis that these matters should not be about the bottom line. Here we have a poster saying that it is simply about the bottom line because you can make money from something. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Other than as a money spinner, the Book of Kells is simply a book of subjective religious, historical and artistic merit. Apart from a financial benefit (which hivizman was criticised for raising in respect of chaplaincy) its usefulness entirely depends on one's interest in the subject matter.

In reality what we have here is not a debate about finances or science. Rather, we have a philosophical debate about choice or theocracy. Thankfully the majority of posters on the thread, both theistic and atheistic, value choice, as do most people in society.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

Actually I think this point is important. My take on it (and I'd love to hear from a religious person if I'm totally off the mark here) is that if a religious person has religious issues, they would be more comfortable talking to a chaplain from any religion than to a secular counsellor.

Then let them talk to such a person, there is loads of them. This in NO WAY justifies maintaining one ourselves on site.

Your "take" is alas nothing more than your impression. It holds no weight. You have no data to back up this idea? I doubt it as I am not aware of much in the way of studies being done on it. Just because you think Student X would rather talk to any old chaplain regardless of their difference in faiths, rather than a secular counsellor.... does NOT make it so. In fact the entire wealth of history of the problems making people of different faiths (even within the 33000+ different forms of Christianity, let alone other religions) talk to each other seems to throw a lot of suspicion on your "take" here.

Again however I have to point out that merely wanting to talk to someone about X, or wanting to talk to one type of person more than another about X, does not mean that this is automatically something we need to pander to.

Unless A) some real benefit can be found to maintaining such a person to talk to on that subject and some real benefit to maintaining such a person on site rather than for outside referral… is actually shown, then all you are advocating here is pandering to one particular whim of a minority of students over the whims of all the others.

This is simply not good enough when you are discussing the allocation of resources which are then not available for other use (be it money, property or human resources) within the college. We can not just go around spending money on every random whim the students have can we?

Kooli wrote: »

Student life can be really tough for some people, so I would never be one to advocate the removal of a student service unless I saw real evidence of harm.

Then your thinking is exactly the wrong way around. If such a service is actually of no demonstrated benefit then it is superfluous. If it is superfluous then it is a resource drain. A resource drain IS harm.

We can not go around financing anything that we can say “Ah sure its harmless isn’t it?” That is NOT a way to allocate real resources from a very limited pool. If you were the manager of a resource pool, your main aim should be to realise that the onus would be ON YOU to allocate those resources wisely to things that actually have a demonstrated real benefit in the context of the intentions of the college and the vested interest we have in our investment in these students.

I even was nice enough to suggest a study method to find if there IS any such benefit. I doubt you are interested though, since you have not even attempted to answer the question of what benefit on an site chaplain has that can not also be achieved by an external referral from someone trained to diagnose the students requirements and match them to external sources of help.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

What I will say is this: If university student services were being designed now, by me, and from scratch, I would not put a chaplaincy in there. It would be anachronistic, and yes, non-secular.

But as they are already there, and people find them helpful and supportive, I would need a stronger argument than 'it's not secular' to argue for their removal, as I think it's hard enough to be a student (for some) without removing a support structure that is already there. If they were not being utilised, then I would shout louder than anyone to get rid of them.

I am afraid I find this whole way of thinking abhorrent. To translate the above specific thing into what you GENERALLY sound like you are saying, it comes out like…

If we started tomorrow I know how to do it right… but since we did it wrong, why fix it?

I see this attitude in many areas… as if people really think that they know the right way to do things, but since it has been done wrong for so long it is wrong to attempt to change it.

If we all went around thinking or talking in this fashion… nothing would be done ever and nothing would get improved anywhere.

I have heard of "I fit aint broke dont fix it" but never "If its broke already, dont bother with it“.

Kooli

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then let them talk to such a person, there is loads of them. This in NO WAY justifies maintaining one ourselves on site.

Your "take" is alas nothing more than your impression. It holds no weight. You have no data to back up this idea? I doubt it as I am not aware of much in the way of studies being done on it. Just because you think Student X would rather talk to any old chaplain regardless of their difference in faiths, rather than a secular counsellor.... does NOT make it so. In fact the entire wealth of history of the problems making people of different faiths (even within the 33000+ different forms of Christianity, let alone other religions) talk to each other seems to throw a lot of suspicion on your "take" here.

Again however I have to point out that merely wanting to talk to someone about X, or wanting to talk to one type of person more than another about X, does not mean that this is automatically something we need to pander to.

Unless A) some real benefit can be found to maintaining such a person to talk to on that subject and some real benefit to maintaining such a person on site rather than for outside referral… is actually shown, then all you are advocating here is pandering to one particular whim of a minority of students over the whims of all the others.

This is simply not good enough when you are discussing the allocation of resources which are then not available for other use (be it money, property or human resources) within the college. We can not just go around spending money on every random whim the students have can we?



Then your thinking is exactly the wrong way around. If such a service is actually of no demonstrated benefit then it is superfluous. If it is superfluous then it is a resource drain. A resource drain IS harm.

We can not go around financing anything that we can say “Ah sure its harmless isn’t it?” That is NOT a way to allocate real resources from a very limited pool. If you were the manager of a resource pool, your main aim should be to realise that the onus would be ON YOU to allocate those resources wisely to things that actually have a demonstrated real benefit in the context of the intentions of the college and the vested interest we have in our investment in these students.

I even was nice enough to suggest a study method to find if there IS any such benefit. I doubt you are interested though, since you have not even attempted to answer the question of what benefit on an site chaplain has that can not also be achieved by an external referral from someone trained to diagnose the students requirements and match them to external sources of help.

I've addressed all these arguments already. Maybe in response to other posters, so maybe you didn't read them. I'm not repeating myself any more so I'll say it again - 'agree to disagree'!! Everyone is just repeating themselves at this point, not just me!

nozzferrahhtoo

I have read every post made on this thread and I reject the inference that I have not. No I do not see my points being addresses, let alone specifically by you.

At the very most I see my points being bypassed with the presentation of an entirely unverifiable anecdote or two, coupled with your declaring what your “take” on things is without once providing a shred of support for that “take” other than the facts it is what it is.

Kooli

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have read every post made on this thread and I reject the inference that I have not. No I do not see my points being addresses, let alone specifically by you.

At the very most I see my points being bypassed with the presentation of an entirely unverifiable anecdote or two, coupled with your declaring what your “take” on things is without once providing a shred of support for that “take” other than the facts it is what it is.

OK. No problem.
I see this as a difference of opinion. You see this as one of us being objectively right and one of us being objectively wrong.

So again - 'agree to disagree'!

nozzferrahhtoo

I see nothing to agree or disagree on. I see points which are either backed up with hard facts or not… or weakly backed up with anecdotes or not.

If you have nothing more to say on the subject, that is fine, there is nothing wrong with that. However I am not about to pander to you pretending that such an exit is due to you having “addressed” everything I have said when this in fact has not occurred. Especially if that means you pretending that you "addressed" them in posts to other people that were not me and suggesting I missed them when in fact I have read every post made on this thread to date.

Truley

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I see nothing to agree or disagree on. I see points which are either backed up with hard facts or not… or weakly backed up with anecdotes or not.

If you have nothing more to say on the subject, that is fine, there is nothing wrong with that. However I am not about to pander to you pretending that such an exit is due to you having “addressed” everything I have said when this in fact has not occurred. Especially if that means you pretending that you "addressed" them in posts to other people that were not me and suggesting I missed them when in fact I have read every post made on this thread to date.

Kooli never claimed to be backing up the chaplaincy with scientific facts, every opinion made on this thread has been based on either direct experience or personal opinion. Even most of the anti-chaplain posters have admitted that their problem is more an ideological one than an actual real, practical issue. Since:

1) Nobody here has been able to provide 'hard facts' as to how much a chaplaincy costs or whether it even costs a university at all.

2) Nobody here has had a negative experience with a chaplain and most have admitted that the service is desired and helpful to the students who use it.

So yes I don't necessarily suscribe to the belief system that it is based on but since it doesn't have a 'real' negative impact on myself or other students any issue I could have with a chaplaincy would be purely ideological, and I am loathe to force my own ideologies on other people.

Kooli is right though I think this thread has run its course. If you have a genuine problem with the existance of College Chaplains I suggest you start a group and campaign to your local Third Level Institute. Why would you expect them to change things if nobody has complained about it.

hivizman

Truley wrote: »

Nobody here has been able to provide 'hard facts' as to how much a chaplaincy costs or whether it even costs a university at all.

I've been carrying out some research at the college where I currently work. This is a university-level institution in the South of England with about 8,000 students and 1,000 academic and support staff. There is a chaplaincy service with a full-time Anglican chaplain and a part-time RC chaplain, together with an administrative assistant who works two days a week. The total salary costs for 2008-09, the last year for which information is available, were about £50,000. In addition, the chaplaincy service uses a room and incurs office costs - these are not separately itemised, but would probably be a further £10,000 to £15,000.

There is a college chapel, which is used for a range of activities in addition to services. The college graduation ceremonies, which are entirely non-religious events, are held there, thus saving the college the cost of hiring external premises, as many universities in the UK have to do. There are also regular concerts. The college employs a director of music for the chapel, who also teaches in the music department, and there is an active choir. However, the choir is sponsored by an international bank, and I don't think that the choir represents a net cost to the college.

The chapel is regularly used for weddings (about 30 times in 2008-09), and the hire cost, plus the profit on catering, works out at about £1,500 per wedding on average.

The college also recognises other faiths, through an Inter-Faith Council. In most cases, this just provides links with local provision, but there is a Muslim prayer room on campus, and the college makes a large room available at no cost each Friday in term-time for the Friday Prayer.

So the cost of the chaplaincy service is salaries £50,000 plus overheads £15,000, plus say £5,000 for the Muslim prayer-room, less rents and other profits generated directly and indirectly from the chapel of about £45,000, making a net cost of around £25,000, or roughly £3 per student. This does not take into account any saving of rent through using the chapel rather than an outside hall for graduations, while on the other hand it does not allow for the costs of maintenance, heating and lighting, security, and so on, relating to the chapel itself (most of these costs would have to be incurred anyway given the historical and architectural status of the chapel).

The college has a formal faith policy, which I set out below:

1. The College is a secular institution committed to the pursuit of learning. It does not ally itself with any particular faith. It does however commit itself to an active support for the study and celebration of mainstream religious faiths within its community, recognizing that such celebration is a source of individual strength, communal resource and intellectual and artistic excellence. The College will however actively discourage the activities of groups that could reasonably be judged to be harmful either to individual members or to the aims of the College as a whole.

2. Our active support includes:
• Support for students and staff seeking to observe any recognised mainstream faith.
• Recognition and support for ministers of these faiths, in agreement with the College's approach to faith matters to serve their congregation and answer enquires from others within the College.
• Support for academic, artistic and other endeavours to increase our understanding of faith, refine the practice of faith and to promote dialogue between faiths.
• A request that those who undertake the support of a faith within the College Community commit themselves to the active support of those following different faiths and to offer, where appropriate, caring ministry to all students, irrespective of their faith.
• A commitment to oppose within College negative expressions of faith, including disrespect for the life and faith choices of others, harassment of individuals, recruitment of individuals to causes that might reasonably be expected to be harmful to them and others, and attempts to stifle free academic study and debate.

I hope that this information represents sufficiently "hard" facts to contribute to a debate that I agree has pretty much run its course.

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

How do you objectively study and scientifically prove the effectiveness of a counselling service?

Same as anything else. Both Nature and the Journal of the American Medical Association peer review psychiatric papers.

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Same as anything else. Both Nature and the Journal of the American Medical Association peer review psychiatric papers.

Psychiatry and conselling are not the same things. What is 'Nature'?

hivizman

Truley wrote: »

What is 'Nature'?

One of the world's leading academic journals in the field of science. For more information, see the Nature website.

Among the many famous papers published in Nature was Watson and Crick's "Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid", the paper that revealed the structure of DNA.

nozzferrahhtoo

Truley wrote: »

Kooli never claimed to be backing up the chaplaincy with scientific facts

I am a little confused why you addressed this to me? When did I say he WAS claiming to back something up with “scientific” facts? When did I even use the word “scientific”. And if I didn't then what has this to do with me at all?

All I am pointing out is that he decided to put out some opinions backed up with nothing but a personal anecdote or two. I put forward my arguments against them and was told that my arguments had already been “addressed”. This has not occurred.

Truley wrote: »

Even most of the anti-chaplain posters have admitted that their problem is more an ideological one than an actual real, practical issue.

What has it got to do with me what “most of the anti-chaplain posters” have said? If you have a problem with what “most of the anti-chaplain posters” have said then take it up with them, not me.

If you want to take up with me something that I have actually said, I am here for you and more than happy to give you my time. I really am.

Truley wrote: »

1) Nobody here has been able to provide 'hard facts' as to how much a chaplaincy costs or whether it even costs a university at all.

Totally Irrelevant. It is enough to know that a) every college has a limited pool of resources and b) that maintaining a chaplain, even one working volunteer work, costs resources.

That is all we need to know to force us to ask the question “Is the allocation of ANY resources justified?” and the onus is on the management of those resources to answer that. Why? Because the allocation of ANY resource means that resource is taken out of the pool and therefore away from other allocations that ARE justified.

Thus far I have heard no arguments justifying even a single euro of our limited resources to this. The actual real value quantity that you point out we do not know is ENTIRELY irrelevant to anything I just said.

Truley wrote: »

2) Nobody here has had a negative experience with a chaplain

Again entirely irrelevant. Again fort he same reason. We have to allocated resources from our limited pool to actual deserving justifiable uses. Simply allocating resources willy nilly with the argument “Well at least it is not HARMFUL” is just not… good…. enough.

There are a million things we could allocate resources to on a whim that would not cause negative effects to anyone directly. We do not however, because those resources are needed elsewhere.

As I pointed out however, every allocation of a resource negatively affects those things from which the resources are diverted. So despite the fact that your claim is irrelevant (that no one has had a negative experience) it is also wrong. Every single time someone applies for a resource in the college and is told there is no resource to be allocated, they are affected negatively.

Contrary to what you say therefore, it does have a "'real' negative impact"

I repeat therefore that nothing I have said here at all has anything to do with "idealogical differences" which you think "most of the anti-chaplain posters" here have.

Truley wrote: »

Kooli is right though I think this thread has run its course.

Thankfully not your choice to make, but I openly recommend you petition the moderator, whose choice it actually is, to judge and lock the thread should he or she see fit.

hivizman

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is enough to know that a) every college has a limited pool of resources and b) that maintaining a chaplain, even one working volunteer work, costs resources.

That is all we need to know to force us to ask the question “Is the allocation of ANY resources justified?” and the onus is on the management of those resources to answer that. Why? Because the allocation of ANY resource means that resource is taken out of the pool and therefore away from other allocations that ARE justified.

Accountants refer to this approach as "zero-based budgeting" - organisations require every activity to establish that it contributes towards the goals of the organisation. These goals are often purely financial, but educational organisations, particularly at tertiary level, are usually not-for-profit organisations, and thus they may ask whether particular activities serve other goals, rather than just financial ones.

I find it significant that universities and colleges, even avowedly secular institutions, find no contradiction to their goals in providing financial support for chaplaincy services. The implication is that the persons on whom the onus of the management of resources fall (who will be much better informed than we are about the benefits and costs, both financial and non-financial, of a chaplaincy service) have answered the question "is the allocation of resources to chaplaincy services justified?" with a "yes".

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

Psychiatry and conselling are not the same things.

If its not psychiatric counselling, then what is it?
Even if it is not psychiatric counselling, what exactly is stopping us from scientifically evaluating like we do psychiatric counselling?

Truley

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am a little confused why you addressed this to me? When did I say he WAS claiming to back something up with “scientific” facts? When did I even use the word “scientific”. And if I didn't then what has this to do with me at all?

You complained that she could only base her reasons on personal anecdote and criticised her argument because of this. I merely pointed out that the poster never claimed to be basing their argument on anything other than personal experience, albeit good personal experience given her profession.

All I am pointing out is that he decided to put out some opinions backed up with nothing but a personal anecdote or two. I put forward my arguments against them and was told that my arguments had already been “addressed”. This has not occurred.

Your argument that was "addressed" was the statement that chaplains can be easily replaced with counsellors. This idea has been addressed numerous times. If a qualified and practicing counsellor comes out and says that they can't replace a chaplain, then I don't know how much more of an answer you need.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If its not psychiatric counselling, then what is it?
Even if it is not psychiatric counselling, what exactly is stopping us from scientifically evaluating like we do psychiatric counselling?

Well if 1000s of students every year claim that seeing a chaplain has improved their happiness and wellbeing, then I don't know how an impartial scientific study can come out and prove that their feelings are wrong. Even if it was possible, then what?

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

Well if 1000s of students every year claim that seeing a chaplain has improved their happiness and wellbeing, then I don't know how an impartial scientific study can come out and prove that their feelings are wrong.

Easy. We look at the underlying real world causes of these peoples problems and see if chaplaincy sessions actually help deal with these causes, or if it is just a placebo that makes people feel good for a few days. Its no different than homeopathy, nothing more than the placebo effect, which we can scientifically determine.

Truley wrote: »

Even if it was possible, then what?

Then you do what we always do when we find that a service we provide doesn't work, we replace it.

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Easy. We look at the underlying real world causes of these peoples problems and see if chaplaincy sessions actually help deal with these causes, or if it is just a placebo that makes people feel good for a few days. Its no different than homeopathy, nothing more than the placebo effect, which we can scientifically determine.


Then you do what we always do when we find that a service we provide doesn't work, we replace it.

I look forward to reading the outcomes of this study

nozzferrahhtoo

hivizman wrote: »

I find it significant that universities and colleges, even avowedly secular institutions, find no contradiction to their goals in providing financial support for chaplaincy services. The implication is that the persons on whom the onus of the management of resources fall (who will be much better informed than we are about the benefits and costs, both financial and non-financial, of a chaplaincy service) have answered the question "is the allocation of resources to chaplaincy services justified?" with a "yes".

I find it interesting too, considering there has been no benefit shown and it IS a resource drain. Any resource drain failing to provide a benefit relevant to the organisation is indeed a curiosity. I am as curious as you why it is not addressed.

However unlike your claim here, they have NOT answered us with a "yes" or any justification for a "yes". You are assuming that the fact that they ARE spending that money means they have good reason to do so. I am afraid I do not share your faith in good management to that degree. Unless good reasons for this expenditure are presented and adumbrated to us, I am not simply going to assume they have good reasons for it like you do.

nozzferrahhtoo

Truley wrote: »

You complained that she could only base her reasons on personal anecdote and criticised her argument because of this. I merely pointed out that the poster never claimed to be basing their argument on anything other than personal experience, albeit good personal experience given her profession.

I am aware of what my own points are, thanks for reminding me. I am also aware that if someone throws around baseless opinions that genuinely affect a whole section of our society, then the onus is on us the reader to point this out and to suggest (s)he go and get some actual basis before throwing opinions about.

This is, after all, a forum for the discussion of opinions where we get to evaluate the opinions of others and, more importantly, evaluate whether they are opinions we should be sharing. I shall therefore not be pandering to people butting in and suggesting there is some issue with me choosing to point out the weakness of another’s position, thanks.

If someone does not want their opinion pulled apart, reverse engineered, and critiqued, I would peacefully suggest they reconsider the use of this forum.

Truley wrote: »

If a qualified and practicing counsellor comes out and says that they can't replace a chaplain, then I don't know how much more of an answer you need.

You are engaging in the fallacy of "argument from authority" right here. You might want to address that for your own sake if not ours. Something is not correct merely because of WHO is saying it, we have to evaluate WHY they are saying it, and contrary to your and his claims... this has NOT been addressed.

Nor, I should add, should you put faith in total strangers that they are qualified in the area they say they are just because it happens to fit the thread topic. I see no conformable credentials on here.

If he or she is so "qualified" in the area of discussion then he or she should be able to adumbrate the reasons why X is not replaceable by Y, instead of you and they just declaring it by fiat.

Truley wrote: »

Well if 1000s of students every year claim that seeing a chaplain has improved their happiness and wellbeing

Nice big IF there. I have seen no studies of figures to say that many people are claiming what you say they are. Do you?
`

Truley wrote: »

, then I don't know how an impartial scientific study can come out and prove that their feelings are wrong. Even if it was possible, then what?

I already suggested a study, 4 or 5 times on this thread.

First get a group of students with no known issues. Then get a group with medical issues. Then get a group with mental issues. Compare the results of them at the end of the year. This should show you whether addressing the physical and mental needs of students is conducive to improved results.

Now get a group of Atheists, of Christians with a chaplain and of Christians without. Compare their results. This should tell you if pandering to the religious whims of Christians is conducive to improved results.

Now compare the relative comparisons between both studies.

This is the kind of study that needs to be done to justify the expenditure of OUR money in OUR colleges and universities. I imagine such a study is nothing something they will rush to partake in however because my own guess, subjective as it is, is that you will find it shows that maintaining the physical and mental health of students has massive implications on end results...... while having a religion, or maintaining a religion if you have one, is entirely irrelevant.

johnfás

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I find it interesting too, considering there has been no benefit shown and it IS a resource drain.

Nobody has shown a cost-benefit analysis of any resource provided in a university in Ireland thus far - even in respect of resources which those who are against the chaplaincy support. For example, no poster has shown that the provision of an STI clinic has either,
i) diminished the prevalence of STI's on university campuses, or
ii) that those making use of a subsidised STI clinic could not otherwise afford the service, or
iii) that those who make use of the STI clinic on campus would not otherwise participate in screening off campus.

It isn't only chaplaincy which is being talked about on this thread without recourse to a cost benefit analysis - nobody has produced such a study in respect of any service provided by Irish universities. Quite likely this is because nobody here is privvy to any such study, not being a member of a university administration. If you wish to frame it in such terms, it appears quite likely that nobody on this thread has any knowledge of such analyses and thus cannot have make an informed judgment either way. The only poster who has make reference to such an analysis is hivizman who demonstrated that such analyses do take place within university administrations. In the absence of such data, in respect of all student services, what is being discussed here is purely personal philosophy.

However, on a forum of skeptics, it is somewhat humorous that posters are assuming a positive answer in respect of some campus services, and assuming a negative answer in respect of other services despite there being no evidence being proffered either way in respect of any campus service.

nozzferrahhtoo

Truley wrote: »

If a qualified and practicing counsellor comes out and says that they can't replace a chaplain, then I don't know how much more of an answer you need.

I think you missed a point by the way that way made many times on the thread.

I am perfectly aware that you can not "replace" the chaplain as such on Campus.

As I said, if you had a practicing Octologists on Campus you could not replace him with a GP wither.

The question is NOT one of "replacing" the Chaplain. The question is one of whether there is any benefit at all with maintaining one on Campus using College funds.

A counsellor of even the most basic training can diagnose a students needs and refer them on to the relevant external sources for further help and assistance.

There is NO justification for maintaining a college Octologist. The GP can diagnose an "ear problem", reach into his drawer, and come out with a pamphlet on ear problems and contact information for an Octologist and job is done.

Similarly, you might not be able to "replace" the chaplain, but you are wholly assuming you need to? Any Counsellor can diagnose a "spiritual" issue, and pull out the relevant pamphlets and contact numbers for the relevant person and institution to speak to.

This is of course entirely secular, and would avoid issues such as.... a Muslim or Wiccan finding himself in a college with only a Christian Chaplain to talk to. ALL faiths can be pandered to at one point with one good Counselor possessing a good selection of contacts.

So as I said, it is not about "replacing" a chaplain, but about whether his presence is justifiable in the first place to even worry about whether to "replace" it or not.

nozzferrahhtoo

johnfás wrote: »

Nobody has shown a cost-benefit analysis of any resource provided in a university in Ireland thus far -

It isn't only chaplaincy which is being talked about on this thread without recourse to a cost benefit analysis - nobody has produced such a study in respect of any service provided by Irish universities.

Well if you feel the existence of such clinics is not beneficial then start a thread on it and it can be discussed with as much gusto as this "service" has been.

This thread is about the Chaplaincy Service however and just because you can point out that ONE is not justified, that does not somehow excuse the fact the OTHER is not justified either.

Your whole post smacks of “Leave X alone as Y and Z are doing it wrong too!!!!”. It sounds like trying to justify politicians lack of declaring expenses by saying "Ah but no one else was doing it either".

No, this is NOT a reason to leave it alone. If the other services need to be discussed also then so be it, start a thread on them and have them discussed. I have no interest in a “They aren’t doing it so why should we” mentality though.

It is OUR money going into the colleges and the administration should be justifying all of its allocation to us. The Chaplaincy just happens to be the one I am focusing on. If you have an issue with STI Clinics or anything else, then I invite you to do the same as I.

johnfás

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well if you feel the existence of such clinics is not beneficial then start a thread on it and it can be discussed with as much gusto as this "service" has been.

This thread is about the Chaplaincy Service however and just because you can point out that ONE is not justified, that does not somehow excuse the fact the OTHER is not justified either.

Your whole post smacks of “Leave X alone as Y and Z are doing it wrong too!!!!”. It sounds like trying to justify politicians lack of declaring expenses by saying "Ah but no one else was doing it either".

What shrill. Your comments might make limited sense if I had argued against the provision of an STI clinic, which I don't. I fully support the provision of any student service which ensures the wellbeing of the student body.

The point remains though, that a cost benefit analysis only seems to be necessary in respect of the chaplaincy, and is to be presumed in respect of other student services. Furthermore, that in the absence of a cost benefit analysis being proffered on the thread, its outcome is to be presumed. Finally, that even if a cost benefit analysis were produced (as was made reference to by hivizman) and if such an analysis were to favour the continuance of chaplaincy services (as that referenced by hivizman at a UK university did) then its results would continue to be ignored on the basis that the provision of chaplaincy services is an erosion of secularism (sic).

It is clear that you are less interested in a cost-benefit analysis and, rather, that you are predisposed against the provision of such services on the basis of your philosophical understanding of the concept of secularism. You raise issues like cost-benefit, which naturally should be carried out in respect of all services, in order to couch the philosophical nature of your posts, with a pseudo scientific language.

nozzferrahhtoo

johnfás wrote: »

What shrill.

Decorum please. Stick to the points, not the name calling.

johnfás wrote: »

I fully support the provision of any student service which ensures the wellbeing of the student body.

As do I, where such well being is beneficial to our vested interest in the college.... namely the good results of the students in the courses there.

The issue is that no one here is showing that the maintenance of Religious positions in the student body IS even a little beneficial. This is why I am questioning it.

This is not the same as an STI clinic, as the benefits to students results of keeping them STI free is clear.

johnfás wrote: »

The point remains though, that a cost benefit analysis only seems to be necessary in respect of the chaplaincy, and is to be presumed in respect of other student services.

Heartily disagree, I think it should be necessary on an on going rolling basis across the board. It just happens that THIS thread is about the Chaplaincy, hence me focusing on it. I am not suggesting we ask these questions of just this one service to the exclusion of all others. I am just saying that I wish to stay on the topic of the thread.

There is a massive difference, which you would do well to note, between saying "We do not need to do X" and "The discussion of X is off topic for this thread".

johnfás wrote: »

Finally, that even if a cost benefit analysis were produced (as was made reference to by hivizman) and if such an analysis were to favour the continuance of chaplaincy services (as that referenced by hivizman at a UK university did) then its results would continue to be ignored on the basis that the provision of chaplaincy services is an erosion of secularism (sic).

I never knew you were both Psychic AND could see the future! Wow.

No, until such a study is done and presented, you have nothing on which to base a presumption of how people will react to it. Pretending you know how people will react to the existence of something that apparently does not exist yet is, at the very best, guess work on your behalf and at worst is an arrogant presumption to pre-react to peoples impressions of something before having the decency to let them form one.

johnfás wrote: »

It is clear that you are less interested in a cost-benefit analysis and, rather, that you are predisposed against the provision of such services on the basis of your philosophical point of view on the issue of secularism.

False and you are now engaged in Ad Hominem ignoring of the points I am making, by instead attempting to establish a straw man bias on my part that you hope will allow you to bypass my points. My points that I have made stand independent of any imagined bias you want to invent for me. You either can address them, or you can not, but do not engage in this level of dishonesty please. You owe yourself more.

Not to mention that even if I did have such a bias, right to my very core, it still does not affect whether what I have said in the previous posts is true or not. So not only are you establishing a false bias on my part, it is also an irrelevant one.

johnfás

Oh dear, it appears a raw nerve has been hit. Shrill was a reference to your statements, not your being. I have no interest in offering an opinion on your nature, which if I did would be more likely based on your call for people to consider thieving on another thread in this forum, rather than any position you might hold on the provision of student services.

It is quite clear that you have a bias (your term, not mine). I used the term philosophy. That your position is based on your philosophical point of view on the concept of secularism. This is not based on your personal characteristics, but rather the contradictory nature of your comments on this thread.

You agree, that a cost-benefit analysis is necessary in respect of student services. Yet in the absence of such an analysis in respect of STI clinics you maintain that the benefits of such a clinic is "clear". You have no basis for making this statement without reference to studies as to the efficacy of on campus STI clinics. Such studies would surely have to compare the provision of these clinics as compared to investing the money in ongoing sexual health awareness campaigns (you have identified that resources are limited so choices are necessary). A study would also have to take into account the three questions which I outlined above - i) has a reduction in prevalence occurred ii) could the students who attend afford to attend elsewhere iii) are students anymore likely to attend because the service is on campus. Yet on the absence of such a study you maintain that the benefits of such a clinic is "clear".

Personally, I agree with you, the benefits are "clear". This is however, only anecdotally clear as you have not produced any firm analysis. Based on the personal testimony of people I know who have benefited from the chaplaincy services, and of Kooli on this thread, who works in the provision of student services, it is equally "clear" that the chaplaincy services are also beneficial to the student body.

nozzferrahhtoo

johnfás wrote: »

Oh dear, it appears a raw nerve has been hit. Shrill was a reference to your statements, not your being. I have no interest in offering an opinion on your nature

Irrelevant. Stick to addressing the points, not the tone you imagine them said in.

johnfás wrote: »

which if I did would be more likely based on your call for people to consider thieving on another thread in this forum

Irrelevant to this thread, off topic, ad hominem. Again please stick to the relevant points of this thread. Anway I am unsure what is wrong with asking people to consider things. I ask them to consider things all the time. It is a lot better than not considering anything at all.

johnfás wrote: »

It is quite clear that you have a bias (your term, not mine).

Again false. If you keep insisting on presuming to know people that you do no know, you will continue to be this wrong, this often.

johnfás wrote: »

That your position is based on your philosophical point of view on the concept of secularism.

Again false as this is not what my position on this thread is based on. My position on this thread is based on the fact that colleges have a limited pool of resources and that therefore there should be an onus on them to spend and allocate those resources in a beneficial way to the ends that the college wishes to meet.... namely the education of students and the achievement of good results.

Given that there is nothing on offer here to even suggest that pandering to the spiritual whims of the students by maintaining an on Campus representative... I therefore think the service should be removed.

Nothing to do with secularism OR your imagined biases for me there at all. So when you feel like addressing my actual points, rather than inventing new ones for me, I am here for you.

johnfás wrote: »

You agree, that a cost-benefit analysis is necessary in respect of student services. Yet in the absence of such an analysis in respect of STI clinics you maintain that the benefits of such a clinic is "clear".

It is clear as the effects of contracting an STI are themselves clear. They are massively expensive to treat, they are detrimental to the students ability to engage in study, and they are massively contagious to other students on the campus. Making ANY attempt to stem their contraction is therefore in my opinion a good thing.

However with the maintenance of a Chaplain and the pandering to students Spiritual whims nothing is so clear. There is no sign that Religion is required in order to achieve good results, nothing about it is contagious, no benefits are to be seen and a lack of religion is not a huge financial drain as is an STI.

So even before we get on to the subject of how effective STI clinics actually are... we are already a massive step ahead in the conversation in that the very attempt itself is justified, where as it is not with a Chaplain.

If STI clincs fail in achieving this, I would of course be sitting here calling for their discontinuation. I am of course intrested in studies to find out what their effectiveness is. And if no effectiveness could be shown I would call for their closure. However I am not discussing or asking for such things here, because it is not the topic of this thread. Start a thread on this topic and you will find me over there demanding to hear how we know the expenditure has been justified just like I am here.

Truley

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am aware of what my own points are, thanks for reminding me. I am also aware that if someone throws around baseless opinions that genuinely affect a whole section of our society, then the onus is on us the reader to point this out and to suggest (s)he go and get some actual basis before throwing opinions about.

If someone does not want their opinion pulled apart, reverse engineered, and critiqued, I would peacefully suggest they reconsider the use of this forum.

Personal experience was the basis for her points and there is nothing wrong with her sharing them. Her points were not 'baseless,' any more or less than yours.

However you are critiquing her opinions with ... more opinions? Absolutely no problem with that. But the difference is you think your opinions are more valid and factual. When in fact they are not, they're just more opinions with no scientific (or even anecdotal) evidence.

You are engaging in the fallacy of "argument from authority" right here. You might want to address that for your own sake if not ours. Something is not correct merely because of WHO is saying it, we have to evaluate WHY they are saying it, and contrary to your and his claims... this has NOT been addressed.

Well only the poster can say why they are saying it. What ever her motivations, at least she can back her argument up with personal experience, giving it a bit more weight than yours which is entirely opinion based.

Nor, I should add, should you put faith in total strangers that they are qualified in the area they say they are just because it happens to fit the thread topic. I see no conformable credentials on here.

Do you think that real life counsellors would agree with what you said? Have you any experience of employees in University health services complaining about a chaplaincy? Or calling for its closure? You appear to be speaking on their behalf when you say what they can and should do. What's your real life experience with college mental health services? I've already outlined mine.

Nice big IF there. I have seen no studies of figures to say that many people are claiming what you say they are. Do you?

Nope purely based on personal experience. In my three years in Uni I worked with the chaplaincy once because of my dying mother, another two times due to the death of a classmate, and maybe another two or three times with various charities and fundraisers. So in my experience with one university, at one period in time, I've seen a few hundred students use the chaplaincy services. The service in case of memorials for my friends was universally welcomed, and I know there were no complaints from a class of 300+. In fact I have never heard of a significant formal complaint being made by students against chaplaincies in Ireland. You should really get on to that.

I already suggested a study, 4 or 5 times on this thread.

First get a group of students with no known issues. Then get a group with medical issues. Then get a group with mental issues. Compare the results of them at the end of the year. This should show you whether addressing the physical and mental needs of students is conducive to improved results.

Now get a group of Atheists, of Christians with a chaplain and of Christians without. Compare their results. This should tell you if pandering to the religious whims of Christians is conducive to improved results.

Now compare the relative comparisons between both studies.

Your study sucks tbh.

This is the kind of study that needs to be done to justify the expenditure of OUR money in OUR colleges and universities. I imagine such a study is nothing something they will rush to partake in however because my own guess, subjective as it is, is that you will find it shows that maintaining the physical and mental health of students has massive implications on end results...... while having a religion, or maintaining a religion if you have one, is entirely irrelevant.

While it didn't go as far as looking into students' brains hivizman already demonstrated how a university conducted a cost benefit analysis which showed that the benefits to having a chaplaincy outweighed the costs. Whether you think the services themselves are legitimate is really irrevelant, we could prove that having a rag week isn't condusive to good end results but it benefits the university from the point of view that it attracts students, makes them happier and makes them more likely to stay. Consequently more profitable for the institution and its students in the long run.

nozzferrahhtoo

Truley wrote: »

Personal experience was the basis for her points and there is nothing wrong with her sharing them.

Nor do I think there is. But similarly there is also nothing wrong with me pointing out exactly how and why her personal experience is irrelevant, is useless to submit as evidence, and useless to us in evaluating a real and useful answer to the questions at hand.

I am not sure why you have decided to step up to play the “her hero” role as she is more than capable of speaking for herself, but if your entire point is to tell me there is nothing wrong with her saying what she wants then I agree. Just do not expect me to pander to this in such a way that requires me to point out how and why what she chose to say is useless, irrelevant and likely wrong.

Maybe when you finish defending her uselessly, you can let her speak for herself and get back to posting your OWN evidence and arguments on the topic at hand. You will likely be more successful with this approach too.

Truley wrote: »

they're just more opinions with no scientific (or even anecdotal) evidence.

If you require something I say to be backed up simply tell me what and ask.

Truley wrote: »

she can back her argument up with personal experience, giving it a bit more weight than yours which is entirely opinion based.

Anecdote is not evidence or back up for anything I am afraid, so no, she can not thus far back up what she has said. This is before you even consider the problem that you are taking her "personal experience" to be true on face value. It may be entirely made up. We can all go around simply making up personal experience to fit whatever argument we wish to espouse. It is not hard.

I have literally seen people make up vast amounts of personal experiences as a scientist, only to then come out and say things like: the reason we have gravity is because the earth is spinning.

If you want to be gullible enough to accept anecdote as evidence, especially entirely unverifiable possibly made up personal experience, then so be it, that is your choice and more power to you. Just do not sit there acting like the problem lies with me when I do not make the same questionable choices as you.

Truley wrote: »

Do you think that real life counsellors would agree with what you said? Have you any experience of employees in University health services complaining about a chaplaincy? Or calling for its closure? You appear to be speaking on their behalf when you say what they can and should do.

Irrelevant. It is not their decision either. What one department think should or should not happen to another is of no concern to me. My concern lies with the university itself and the fact that it should be spending OUR money in ways that are demonstrably beneficial and useful to the ends that university is presumed to strive for: The education of the students.

Thus far no one can make any such argument AT ALL and what little arguments there appears to be on face value evaporate when you realise that they can be just as easily, if not actually better, served by a counsellor trained to diagnose the requirements of a student and then refer them on to external sources of that help. JUST LIKE, I add not for the first time, the college GP diagnoses the medical requirements of the students and refers them on to specialists outside the college where necessary.

Truley wrote: »

Nope purely based on personal experience.

What a shame. Come back to me if you ever do find evidence that is not purely anecdotal and unverifiable.

Truley wrote: »

Your study sucks tbh.

Wow, really in depth critique there. Blown away. You really added to the discussion there. Maybe we can conduct the entire rest of the conversation at this level? It would certainly be easier, and quicker. How should I start? "You suck and everything you have said so far sucks, so go suck somewhere else you sucky suck suck".

Seriously, you feel smarter submitting arguments of this caliber? Do you really think it representative of your knowledge, wisdom, experience, education and upbringing all added together?

Truley wrote: »

While it didn't go as far as looking into students' brains hivizman already demonstrated how a university conducted a cost benefit analysis which showed that the benefits to having a chaplaincy outweighed the costs.

Er no he did not. He discussed that the costs were. That is all. The single only "benefit" that he mentioned was that some number of the students in his unverified opinion wanted such a service there. That is, however, not a benefit, that is just pandering to whims, which is not what the management of our funds should be engaged in.

Evidence? Well lets look at his most recent post paragraph by paragraph shall we? I will break it down one paragraph at a time and simultaneously show you how to treat other peoples arguments with actual long thought out critique and argument, rather than just saying "Nah that all sucks" or whatever intellectual diarrhea you want to apply today.

Post number 324. I will show how it not only mentions NOTHING about “benefits” but also lays out a LOT about costs and in fact supports my position very strongly.

First paragraph: Nope nothing to do with benefits here, just a sum of how many people are in the college and a generalised break down of just how complex and expensive it is to offer such a service (not just the salaries of the chaplains, but resources such as rooms are used, office costs, administrative assistant and more). It also does not mention all the associated expenses, but leaves much of them out as you will see in a later paragraph.

Second paragraph: Nope nothing to do with benefits here, in fact quiet the opposite. He speaks here of how the facilities normally used by the chaplaincy are actually most beneficially used for NON chaplain events. This is exactly my point, that maintaining a chaplain involves diverting resources that can… and according to hivizman usually are… beneficially used in other ways.

Third Paragraph: Nope nothing to do with benefits here, Same as paragraph two, showing that the same facilities actually bring money IN when not being used by the chaplaincy service itself. This further proves my point. Not only is the diversion of limited resources a COST, but it also causes negative earning potential by taking up the resource that otherwise can be a money draw.

Fourth Paragraph: Nope nothing to do with benefits here, in fact quiet the opposite. Now that the college has gone as far as providing a chaplaincy service with a full-time Anglican chaplain and a part-time RC chaplain the college must now divert further resources to going on to recognise other faiths in the form of full time dedicated prayer rooms for other faiths, and part time (Fridays) dedication of rooms generally. There is a flood gate effect here which is very important in that once you start pandering to one faith for no reason at all, you then have to throw good money after bad pandering to the others.

Fifth Paragraph: Nope nothing to do with benefits here, and in fact there is a dishonest attempt to justify the expenses by appealing to the money made back by renting the rooms out. However this is useless to us as renting the rooms out can still be done in the absence of the chaplain expenses. The paragraph also mentions, but fails to quantity, a whole HOST of other expenses which I think it important to have quantified.

Summary therefore: We can see that every college resource can be used to bring money in. We see that diverting that resource to other uses therefore not only costs money, but costs earning potential too. This supports my argument that if you wish to use college resources then the onus should be on us to use it only in ways that are demonstratably beneficial and so justify the costs and loss of earnings. However NOTHING in hivizmans post mentions any such benefit at all.

Summary for the not so gifted: Your argument apparently "sucks"

hivizman

I just wanted to mention that the analysis in post #324 was provided in response to Truley's statement "Nobody here has been able to provide 'hard facts' as to how much a chaplaincy costs or whether it even costs a university at all." There is no mention of benefits because Truley didn't ask for information on benefits.

My post #208 reports on a rough-and-ready cost-benefit analysis of a university's chaplaincy service, where the university authorities were satisfied that an economic case (that is, ignoring any spiritual case) for the continued support of the chaplaincy service had been established, on the basis that support provided to students by the chaplaincy service reduced the drop-out rate and consequent loss of fee income.

Kooli

OK so personal experience of having clients helped by the chaplaincy is not acceptable. Personal experience of being personally helped by the chaplaincy, and having classmates helped by the chaplaincy, is not acceptable. Accounts that an economic basis for the continued use of the chaplaincy has been established in a university are not acceptable.
Comparisons to other student services that have just as little 'scientific evidence' to back them up as chaplaincy are not acceptable.

I know you want scientific evidence that a chaplaincy is beneficial. I don't have any. So can we drop it now? Or do you want to keep asking the same question over and over again?

I look forward to your campaigning to also shut down other services that lack evidence. Oh no wait, this is an ideological issue, not a pragmatic one.

I work in a counselling service, and I don't know if we have any direct scientific evidence that our service is beneficial to the college, although we have plenty of anecdotal evidence that it is. But that's not enough, so we'd better shut up shop!!

And Mark Hamill, I'm baffled by your constant reference to placebo - what exactly would a 'placebo' be in this situation? Someone pretending to be a priest? I know you're determined to compare chaplaincy to homeopathy, and placebo is very relevant to homeopathy because homeopaths provide a pill and claim that it has physical/medical effects, but what is the 'placebo' that would perform just as well as the chaplaincy? And what exact and specific claims by the chaplaincy would you actually be testing with this placebo??

I'm annoyed I've been dragged back into this thread but I didn't want to leave Truley to have to defend my points in my absence (because apparently that's not 'acceptable' either!!)

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

OK so personal experience of having clients helped by the chaplaincy is not acceptable. Personal experience of being personally helped by the chaplaincy, and having classmates helped by the chaplaincy, is not acceptable.

First of all no it is not acceptable unless it is verifiable. You might be wholly making it up this anecdotal evidence so how CAN I accept it???

Secondly no it is not acceptable because it is wholly irrelevant to the point I am making.

Why?

Because you could just as effectively helped in the same way with a counselor who diagnosed that a chaplain was required and provided the students in question with a valid external source.

In other words, you are missing my point which is: There is no argument here in your anecdote for maintaining such a contact ON SITE. Or put another way: I am NOT denying that a chaplain can help SOME students and you might find anecdote to this effect. What I AM denying is that this is enough on its own to justify maintaining such a person ON SITE.

I already gave the example that we could maintain an on site Octologist to help with students ear problems and you might even find anecdotal evidence that students were happy to avail of this service should you provide it. Does this mean maintaining an onsite octologist is therefore justified? Of course not.

What we DO instead is maintain an onsite GP, who diagnoses the need for an octologist and refers the student to one externally. Or an optician. Or some other specialist.

I will now put the parallels here in brackets to make them even clearer:

All I am espousing here therefore, which directly means your unverifiable anecdote is irrelevant, is that you can achieve the same thing by maintaining a counselor (like A GP) who can diagnose the requirements of a student and refer him to a Chaplain (octologist), Imam (Optician), Wiccan (Dentist) or whatever else is required without maintaining one of each of those specialists on site.

Is the parallel here really so opaque to you, and therefore the reason why anecdotes of a few students who were happy a chaplain was there are wholly irrelevant????

Kooli wrote: »

I know you want scientific evidence that a chaplaincy is beneficial. I don't have any. So can we drop it now?

Wow, you just want me to convieniently drop the one part of my argument that is the most inconvenient to you? Would you walk into a court of law and act like this? "Sorry your honor, I know you want a murder weapon and a witness, I dont got them... any chance we could just, you know, drop it?"

No I can not just drop it. The lack of evidence that providing such a service is beneficial IS MOST OF MY ENTIRE POINT here. How can I "just drop it"?

Kooli wrote: »

Oh no wait, this is an ideological issue, not a pragmatic one.

Back to playing this record are you? You run back to it every time you can not answer my actual points. I adumbrated my entire argument for you last time you played this record and you were unable to find a single idealogical link or bias with in. Should I do it again? Do you like going in circles this much? Show me ONE part of the points I have raised in the last handful of points that are idealogical in nature. When you fail to do that I will note this post number so I can refer to it NEXT time you run back once again to this wholly inaccurate straw man of my arguments.

nozzferrahhtoo

hivizman wrote: »

on the basis that support provided to students by the chaplaincy service reduced the drop-out rate and consequent loss of fee income.

Which is nothing at all but your assumption. You simply say in post #208 “allowing the college to continue to receive fees from students who might otherwise have dropped out“.

That is a big massively huge whopping wholly assumed “might” on your part.

Have you any evidence whatsoever to suggest a lack of a chaplaincy would have resulted in any such thing?

Kooli

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

First of all no it is not acceptable unless it is verifiable. You might be wholly making it up this anecdotal evidence so how CAN I accept it???

Secondly no it is not acceptable because it is wholly irrelevant to the point I am making.

Why?

Because you could just as effectively helped in the same way with a counselor who diagnosed that a chaplain was required and provided the students in question with a valid external source.

In other words, you are missing my point which is: There is no argument here in your anecdote for maintaining such a contact ON SITE. Or put another way: I am NOT denying that a chaplain can help SOME students and you might find anecdote to this effect. What I AM denying is that this is enough on its own to justify maintaining such a person ON SITE.

I already gave the example that we could maintain an on site Octologist to help with students ear problems and you might even find anecdotal evidence that students were happy to avail of this service should you provide it. Does this mean maintaining an onsite octologist is therefore justified? Of course not.

What we DO instead is maintain an onsite GP, who diagnoses the need for an octologist and refers the student to one externally. Or an optician. Or some other specialist.

I will now put the parallels here in brackets to make them even clearer:

All I am espousing here therefore, which directly means your unverifiable anecdote is irrelevant, is that you can achieve the same thing by maintaining a counselor (like A GP) who can diagnose the requirements of a student and refer him to a Chaplain (octologist), Imam (Optician), Wiccan (Dentist) or whatever else is required without maintaining one of each of those specialists on site.

Is the parallel here really so opaque to you, and therefore the reason why anecdotes of a few students who were happy a chaplain was there are wholly irrelevant????



Wow, you just want me to convieniently drop the one part of my argument that is the most inconvenient to you? Would you walk into a court of law and act like this? "Sorry your honor, I know you want a murder weapon and a witness, I dont got them... any chance we could just, you know, drop it?"

No I can not just drop it. The lack of evidence that providing such a service is beneficial IS MOST OF MY ENTIRE POINT here. How can I "just drop it"?



Back to playing this record are you? You run back to it every time you can not answer my actual points. I adumbrated my entire argument for you last time you played this record and you were unable to find a single idealogical link or bias with in. Should I do it again? Do you like going in circles this much? Show me ONE part of the points I have raised in the last handful of points that are idealogical in nature. When you fail to do that I will note this post number so I can refer to it NEXT time you run back once again to this wholly inaccurate straw man of my arguments.

OK I'll try to answer what you've raised here.

So in the above post you have said that you are not infact arguing that chaplains are not helpful, you are just saying that they should not be provided on site whether they are helpful or not. But then you go on to say that lack of evidence for their helpfulness is the crux of the issue for you?

Please choose which point you are actually making:

a) Whether a chaplaincy is helpful or effective for students is actually irrelevant. Either way, there is no need for a university to provide them when that support is available off campus

OR

b) The helpfulness or benefit of the chaplaincy is the important point. I need to see evidence that the chaplaincy is effective or beneficial and you're not giving it to me.

That would clear things up for me, because in the above post you seem to be saying both things. They're both relevant arguments, but I'm not sure which one you are going for.

As for your next point, that a counsellor could easily refer to a chaplain. Yes, I suppose they could, but as I have said time and time and time again, why on earth would a student looking for spiritual guidance, or any of the other services offered by a chaplain, turn up in a counsellor's office in the first place to get that referral? They are completely different services. Do you really think a student would go to a university counsellor looking for religious guidance? For this reason, I don't think the 'referring on' issue is as simple a replacement as you do.

And I do understand your octologist comparison. But I think that enough people required or used or benefited from the services of an octologist, there would be a hypothetical argument for bringing this service on campus. I imagine this is what happened with the STI services.

If there are enough students using the chaplaincy, then I have no problem with it continuing. If the numbers are dwindling, then it should be gotten rid of, same as any service that is no longer relevant to the institution and is not getting value for money anymore. But you don't seem to be concerned about how many students use it, or whether they find it helpful, or whether it prevents dropout. Which to me make it sounds like an ideological issue, rather than a pragmatic one (which is why you don't like the comparison to the STI service, I imagine).


And by 'drop it', I just meant stop asking for scientific evidence repeatedly when I'm not going to give you any!! Asking again isn't going to make any difference!

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

Please choose which point you are actually making:

I am making both. Here is some further clarification which should help you.

I am saying that there is no argument I have heard strong enough, even if someone students are happy to have the service, to justify having one on site.

Of course no matter what service you offer SOME student somewhere is going to be happy about it. Try an on site auto mechanic for example!!! Show me how half the faculty would not be happy about THAT? I imagine they would be over joyed at the prospect.

The fact is however we can not pander to every single whim that some student somewhere would be happy to see on site. We have to only cater to the ones that are relevant to the vested interest and goals of our investment in the college: Namely the successful education of students with good results.

Just because some students are happy, or helped, in some way by this service is therefore not enough. We need to demonstrate they were helped in such a way as to positively effect their course completion and improved grades.

No one has shown any such thing, except for hivizman pulling out of thin air that without the service in questions students would have dropped out... a claim he seems to base on nothing except he knows how to claim it.

Kooli wrote: »

as I have said time and time and time again, why on earth would a student looking for spiritual guidance, or any of the other services offered by a chaplain, turn up in a counsellor's office in the first place to get that referral?

Quite a lot of reasons actually. Here are random ones:

1) People seeking help from a counselor are not always aware of what it is they need. That is half the use of a counselor. They are trained to diagnose the kind of help people need even if those people do not know it themselves.

2) In my scenario a counselor would be known as a point of contact for private issues and information that others may not have. If I have spiritual issues and I do not know who to talk to, and it is too private to me just to go around asking people who I should talk to willy nilly... the counselor would be a trusted source for such information on the QT.

3) Also I must add that who says they HAVE to go to a counselor. I have already stated that if there is a society of people in the college who want religious services then why not allow them to come together, form a college society, and apply for funding like every other society in a college does every day. If they are successful, let them pay for their OWN chaplaincy contact to come in occasionally and talk to them. One of my main objections here is that one societies whims are being given a free ride over that of others who DO have to follow the standard red tape procedure. What is it that makes these people think it is one rule for them and one for everyone else?

Kooli wrote: »

But I think that enough people required or used or benefited from the services of an octologist, there would be a hypothetical argument for bringing this service on campus.

The IF there is the problem. Where is the data to suggest that "enough" people are using the chaplaincy service? So far I have seen nothing but anecdotes on this thread, and even if I did accept those anecdotes (which clearly I do not) we can not be talking about more than a handful of people.

Kooli wrote: »

But you don't seem to be concerned about how many students use it, or whether they find it helpful, or whether it prevents dropout.

I am not concerned with how many people use it unless it can be shown to provide a service that is relevant to the vested interests of the college. Even 100% of people using it still does not justify it if the "benefits" it provides can not be shown to have any useful relevance to the successful education of students or an increase in their grading.

You talk of dropouts for example. OF COURSE this would be relevant, if you could show it. However nothing has been offered on this thread AT ALL (ok save for hivizmans wholesale assumptions) that this is the case.

Kooli wrote: »

Which to me make it sounds like an ideological issue

Change the record would you? I have explained my position at length in this post and the last one, and nothing about it is idealogical in nature. It is about finances, justifiable use of finances, and successful education of students. No more.

Kooli

Firstly, you can't really be making both points. Either it DOES matter whether the services are helpful or not, or it DOESN'T. You can't just say 'yeah, both of those things'

So you still don't have an issue that there is no concrete evidence that the student counselling service prevents dropout? Or the careers service? It only matters if it's the chaplaincy that is lacking in evidence.

If a study was done that showed that use of the chaplaincy prevents dropout (let's say for a number of students per year whose fees outweigh what the college spends on the chaplaincy), would you still be arguing that it should be abolished? Just hypothetically. In fact, you probably don't have to answer that. You've made it very clear that this is not an ideological issue for you, so of course you wouldn't. You'd be happy for it to continue, funded by the college. Right?