Comments on: Faith-Based Mental Health http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/12/faith-based-mental-health/ The Sweet Release of Reason Tue, 22 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: Tim http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/12/faith-based-mental-health/#comment-1998 Tim Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:31:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=530#comment-1998 How about this: If my justification for funding mental health services involves public scientific evidence, I am offering a reason that can be accepted by people with many different reasonable comprehensive doctrines. If my justification for funding scientology is not based on any publically available evidence that others could accept, but is only based on my comprehensive doctrine, then political liberalism could rightly rule it out. Will seems to neglect a second aspect associated with the reasonable, the burdens of judgment. Someone could say that scientific explanations are themselves part of a comprehensive doctrine. Or that denying funding actually means we must endorse skepticism. But this is a problem that Rawls has faced. Whether he was successful or not, the problem is much larger than just what gets funding. (If I believe that allowing homosexuality to be illegal will cause God's wrath to rain on the U.S., am I being reasonable?) Will also seems to neglect here that Rawls is concerned not with the fact of pluralism as such, but the fact of reasonable pluralism. How about this: If my justification for funding mental health services involves public scientific evidence, I am offering a reason that can be accepted by people with many different reasonable comprehensive doctrines. If my justification for funding scientology is not based on any publically available evidence that others could accept, but is only based on my comprehensive doctrine, then political liberalism could rightly rule it out. Will seems to neglect a second aspect associated with the reasonable, the burdens of judgment. Someone could say that scientific explanations are themselves part of a comprehensive doctrine. Or that denying funding actually means we must endorse skepticism. But this is a problem that Rawls has faced. Whether he was successful or not, the problem is much larger than just what gets funding. (If I believe that allowing homosexuality to be illegal will cause God’s wrath to rain on the U.S., am I being reasonable?) Will also seems to neglect here that Rawls is concerned not with the fact of pluralism as such, but the fact of reasonable pluralism.

]]> By: Tim http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/12/faith-based-mental-health/#comment-1999 Tim Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:31:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=530#comment-1999 How about this: If my justification for funding mental health services involves public scientific evidence, I am offering a reason that can be accepted by people with many different reasonable comprehensive doctrines. If my justification for funding scientology is not based on any publically available evidence that others could accept, but is only based on my comprehensive doctrine, then political liberalism could rightly rule it out. Will seems to neglect a second aspect associated with the reasonable, the burdens of judgment. Someone could say that scientific explanations are themselves part of a comprehensive doctrine. Or that denying funding actually means we must endorse skepticism. But this is a problem that Rawls has faced. Whether he was successful or not, the problem is much larger than just what gets funding. (If I believe that allowing homosexuality to be illegal will cause God's wrath to rain on the U.S., am I being reasonable?) Will also seems to neglect here that Rawls is concerned not with the fact of pluralism as such, but the fact of reasonable pluralism. How about this: If my justification for funding mental health services involves public scientific evidence, I am offering a reason that can be accepted by people with many different reasonable comprehensive doctrines. If my justification for funding scientology is not based on any publically available evidence that others could accept, but is only based on my comprehensive doctrine, then political liberalism could rightly rule it out. Will seems to neglect a second aspect associated with the reasonable, the burdens of judgment. Someone could say that scientific explanations are themselves part of a comprehensive doctrine. Or that denying funding actually means we must endorse skepticism. But this is a problem that Rawls has faced. Whether he was successful or not, the problem is much larger than just what gets funding. (If I believe that allowing homosexuality to be illegal will cause God’s wrath to rain on the U.S., am I being reasonable?) Will also seems to neglect here that Rawls is concerned not with the fact of pluralism as such, but the fact of reasonable pluralism.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/12/faith-based-mental-health/#comment-1996 Will Wilkinson Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:29:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=530#comment-1996 Javier, The aim/effect distinction is pretty fuzzy. If it becomes common knowlegde that as certain kind of policy has a particular effect, and one promotes it over alternatives that satisfy the original aim equally well, then it is hard to say that one is not really aiming at the particuar effect. Javier,

The aim/effect distinction is pretty fuzzy. If it becomes common knowlegde that as certain kind of policy has a particular effect, and one promotes it over alternatives that satisfy the original aim equally well, then it is hard to say that one is not really aiming at the particuar effect.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/12/faith-based-mental-health/#comment-1997 Will Wilkinson Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:29:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=530#comment-1997 Javier, The aim/effect distinction is pretty fuzzy. If it becomes common knowlegde that as certain kind of policy has a particular effect, and one promotes it over alternatives that satisfy the original aim equally well, then it is hard to say that one is not really aiming at the particuar effect. Javier,

The aim/effect distinction is pretty fuzzy. If it becomes common knowlegde that as certain kind of policy has a particular effect, and one promotes it over alternatives that satisfy the original aim equally well, then it is hard to say that one is not really aiming at the particuar effect.

]]> By: Javier http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/12/faith-based-mental-health/#comment-1994 Javier Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:42:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=530#comment-1994 It is not necessarily the case that Tomasi's conclusions follow. Everything hinges on whether neutrality of aim or neutrality of effect is adopted. To recap, neutrality of aim says that the state should not do anything that intentionally promotes comprehensive doctrines. Neutrality of effect says that the state should not do anything that promotes one comprehensive doctrine over another, intentional or not. Rawls endorses only neutrality of aim rather than neutrality of effect. Thus if Rawls is correct, he may be able to resist Tomasi's conclusions, as Tomasi's argument hinges on political liberals adopting neutrality effect. Tomasi's argument is more fruitfully read as "If political liberals adopt neutrality of effect, what would follow?" It is not necessarily the case that Tomasi’s conclusions follow. Everything hinges on whether neutrality of aim or neutrality of effect is adopted. To recap, neutrality of aim says that the state should not do anything that intentionally promotes comprehensive doctrines. Neutrality of effect says that the state should not do anything that promotes one comprehensive doctrine over another, intentional or not. Rawls endorses only neutrality of aim rather than neutrality of effect. Thus if Rawls is correct, he may be able to resist Tomasi’s conclusions, as Tomasi’s argument hinges on political liberals adopting neutrality effect.

Tomasi’s argument is more fruitfully read as “If political liberals adopt neutrality of effect, what would follow?”

]]> By: Javier http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/12/faith-based-mental-health/#comment-1995 Javier Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:42:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=530#comment-1995 It is not necessarily the case that Tomasi's conclusions follow. Everything hinges on whether neutrality of aim or neutrality of effect is adopted. To recap, neutrality of aim says that the state should not do anything that intentionally promotes comprehensive doctrines. Neutrality of effect says that the state should not do anything that promotes one comprehensive doctrine over another, intentional or not. Rawls endorses only neutrality of aim rather than neutrality of effect. Thus if Rawls is correct, he may be able to resist Tomasi's conclusions, as Tomasi's argument hinges on political liberals adopting neutrality effect. Tomasi's argument is more fruitfully read as "If political liberals adopt neutrality of effect, what would follow?" It is not necessarily the case that Tomasi’s conclusions follow. Everything hinges on whether neutrality of aim or neutrality of effect is adopted. To recap, neutrality of aim says that the state should not do anything that intentionally promotes comprehensive doctrines. Neutrality of effect says that the state should not do anything that promotes one comprehensive doctrine over another, intentional or not. Rawls endorses only neutrality of aim rather than neutrality of effect. Thus if Rawls is correct, he may be able to resist Tomasi’s conclusions, as Tomasi’s argument hinges on political liberals adopting neutrality effect.

Tomasi’s argument is more fruitfully read as “If political liberals adopt neutrality of effect, what would follow?”

]]> By: dc http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/12/faith-based-mental-health/#comment-1992 dc Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:35:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=530#comment-1992 Actually, a lot of mental health services - namely therapy as in the talking kind - are not scientifically backed at all. Actually, a lot of mental health services – namely therapy as in the talking kind – are not scientifically backed at all.

]]> By: dc http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/12/faith-based-mental-health/#comment-1993 dc Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:35:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=530#comment-1993 Actually, a lot of mental health services - namely therapy as in the talking kind - are not scientifically backed at all. Actually, a lot of mental health services – namely therapy as in the talking kind – are not scientifically backed at all.

]]> By: Matt http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/12/faith-based-mental-health/#comment-1990 Matt Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:43:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=530#comment-1990 Gee, thanks for opening another front in the culture wars, Will. Tomasi's question obliges the state to draw a line between "organic" ailments, the treatment of which can be subsidized only when performed by accepted medical professionals, and "noetic" afflictions, which anybody with a funny hat and/or a nonprofit can get government funding to cure. Gee, thanks for opening another front in the culture wars, Will.

Tomasi’s question obliges the state to draw a line between “organic” ailments, the treatment of which can be subsidized only when performed by accepted medical professionals, and “noetic” afflictions, which anybody with a funny hat and/or a nonprofit can get government funding to cure.

]]> By: Matt http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/12/faith-based-mental-health/#comment-1991 Matt Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:43:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=530#comment-1991 Gee, thanks for opening another front in the culture wars, Will. Tomasi's question obliges the state to draw a line between "organic" ailments, the treatment of which can be subsidized only when performed by accepted medical professionals, and "noetic" afflictions, which anybody with a funny hat and/or a nonprofit can get government funding to cure. Gee, thanks for opening another front in the culture wars, Will.

Tomasi’s question obliges the state to draw a line between “organic” ailments, the treatment of which can be subsidized only when performed by accepted medical professionals, and “noetic” afflictions, which anybody with a funny hat and/or a nonprofit can get government funding to cure.

]]> By: lobster http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/12/faith-based-mental-health/#comment-1988 lobster Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:47:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=530#comment-1988 Arguably mental health services have the force of science behind them (or at least there is that pretense), although the efficacy of the services is really what matters, and I don't know this for a fact, but I'd venture to say that religion-oriented services are more effective at helping people than secular services. I've never heard of a secular services helping to cure homosexuals with much success, but then, I guess they don't have the force of Jesus behind them. *wink* Arguably mental health services have the force of science behind them (or at least there is that pretense), although the efficacy of the services is really what matters, and I don’t know this for a fact, but I’d venture to say that religion-oriented services are more effective at helping people than secular services. I’ve never heard of a secular services helping to cure homosexuals with much success, but then, I guess they don’t have the force of Jesus behind them. *wink*

]]> By: lobster http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/12/faith-based-mental-health/#comment-1989 lobster Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:47:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=530#comment-1989 Arguably mental health services have the force of science behind them (or at least there is that pretense), although the efficacy of the services is really what matters, and I don't know this for a fact, but I'd venture to say that religion-oriented services are more effective at helping people than secular services. I've never heard of a secular services helping to cure homosexuals with much success, but then, I guess they don't have the force of Jesus behind them. *wink* Arguably mental health services have the force of science behind them (or at least there is that pretense), although the efficacy of the services is really what matters, and I don’t know this for a fact, but I’d venture to say that religion-oriented services are more effective at helping people than secular services. I’ve never heard of a secular services helping to cure homosexuals with much success, but then, I guess they don’t have the force of Jesus behind them. *wink*

]]> By: lobster http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/12/faith-based-mental-health/#comment-1979 lobster Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=530#comment-1979 Arguably mental health services have the force of science behind them (or at least there is that pretense), although the efficacy of the services is really what matters, and I don't know this for a fact, but I'd venture to say that religion-oriented services are more effective at helping people than secular services. I've never heard of a secular services helping to cure homosexuals with much success, but then, I guess they don't have the force of Jesus behind them. *wink* Arguably mental health services have the force of science behind them (or at least there is that pretense), although the efficacy of the services is really what matters, and I don’t know this for a fact, but I’d venture to say that religion-oriented services are more effective at helping people than secular services. I’ve never heard of a secular services helping to cure homosexuals with much success, but then, I guess they don’t have the force of Jesus behind them. *wink*

]]> By: Matt http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/12/faith-based-mental-health/#comment-1980 Matt Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=530#comment-1980 Gee, thanks for opening another front in the culture wars, Will. Tomasi's question obliges the state to draw a line between "organic" ailments, the treatment of which can be subsidized only when performed by accepted medical professionals, and "noetic" afflictions, which anybody with a funny hat and/or a nonprofit can get government funding to cure. Gee, thanks for opening another front in the culture wars, Will.

Tomasi’s question obliges the state to draw a line between “organic” ailments, the treatment of which can be subsidized only when performed by accepted medical professionals, and “noetic” afflictions, which anybody with a funny hat and/or a nonprofit can get government funding to cure.

]]> By: dc http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/11/12/faith-based-mental-health/#comment-1981 dc Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=530#comment-1981 Actually, a lot of mental health services - namely therapy as in the talking kind - are not scientifically backed at all. Actually, a lot of mental health services – namely therapy as in the talking kind – are not scientifically backed at all.

]]>