Why do people insist AA is not religious?/Efficacy of AA & other treatment programs

[Dymanic]

They've tried to make it more open, but insist that you have a "higher power"

AA really doesn't insist on anything (beyond the usual social conventions one would expect most anywhere, such as refraining from dashing coffee cups against the walls, peeing in the hallway, and that sort of thing).

as an atheist, it took me a long time to come with my "higher power"...nature.

Bingo. Nothing says a 'higher power' has to be a supernatural power. Anyone who can't think of any power in the world greater than they are must either have a very high opinion of their own power, or they really aren't trying very hard.

I've never met anyone who claimed Jupiter as their higher power, but I do remember one lady who reported worshiping Ra the Sun God. Not sure if that counts as a supernatural power or not. (If nothing else, AA is a good place to meet interesting people).

As a long-time AA member (though to be honest, I rarely attend any more), I'm not a closet atheist, but I'm not militant about it. Over the years I've come to care less and less what other people do or don't believe, and I find that as a general rule it is reasonable to assume that most people don't care what I believe, either -- and that anyone who does express concern about my beliefs is motivated by a nagging sense of doubt about their own.

 

[Rasmus]

Bingo. Nothing says a 'higher power' has to be a supernatural power.

Except for the inconvenient fact that that is what the term usually means.

But like I said: If one is sufficiently retarded they can view a doorknob as a higher power and hope to get away with it.

Anyone who can't think of any power in the world greater than they are must either have a very high opinion of their own power, or they really aren't trying very hard.

... or maybe they just won't will fully rape the language they are using solely to be able to claim that AA is not religious at all. But, no, it makes perfect sense to say that a car is a "higher power" because it's faster than me. Yep, people say stuff like that all the time.

I've never met anyone who claimed Jupiter as their higher power, but I do remember one lady who reported worshiping Ra the Sun God. Not sure if that counts as a supernatural power or not. (If nothing else, AA is a good place to meet interesting people).

Ra the sun God. And she was worshipping him. Right, I see how THAT is a sign of all things not religious.

As a long-time AA member (though to be honest, I rarely attend any more), I'm not a closet atheist, but I'm not militant about it. Over the years I've come to care less and less what other people do or don't believe, and I find that as a general rule it is reasonable to assume that most people don't care what I believe, either

I'm sure you'll let us all know what this has to do with the question of whether AA is religious or not in the near and forseeable future, right?

-- and that anyone who does express concern about my beliefs is motivated by a nagging sense of doubt about their own.

No, I was wrong, you didn't.

You chose instead to belittle those who dared suggest that AA might be religious. What a surprise.

Do you realize at all that nobody here is questioning your beliefs in any way whatsoever?

 

[Tinyal]

I feel relatively qualified to comment on this subject: I've attended 1000's of AA & 100's of NA meetings over more than 21 years of soberiety. I've spoken at large AA conventions, medium sized Area functions, as well as many hundreds of smaller meetings - there was a period of nearly 12 years where I attended at least 6 and as many as 10 AA meetings every single week. I've long ago lost count of the number of people I've spoken to, with many in-depth conversations stretching over weeks, months, and years.
I still attend about once a week, at a small meeting where most of the members know I'm non-theist (and frequently outspoken whenever someone mentions something stupid like 'it's impossible to get sober without a higher power' , or 'there are no coincidences, only god at work', or tries to close a meeting with the lords prayer, or some such nonsense.) My reasons for still going? Primarily, they are to associate with friends I've known for decades, and to demonstrate to anyone willing to listen that they don't have to buy the AA higher power package to get - and stay - sober.
So much for my experience in AA - back to on topic:

In my view, AA is not only a religious organization, but fully meets the qualifications of a religious cult. My views along these lines are nearly identical with those at the following website http://www.orange-papers.org/menu1.html , and since Agent Orange does such a fine job, I won't repeat them here - interested readers should be warned that although the website is strongly anti-aa, the views and conclusions of it's author are fully researched and supported with documentation and historical information not normally available to the AA going public.
I will mention this: at all area and larger conventions I have attended (or are otherwise familiar with), when anyone tries to update AA information to remove the god nonsense from literature and publications, extreme anger (and removal from the group in a cult sense) occurs - if you want to keep your friends, my suggestions is never to mention any such thing near any AA function unless you are willing to go it alone. Such a person is told nothing should change, since it has worked so well for 70+ years (ignoring all the data showing that AA is at best successful 5-10% of the time - a figure that would rate as 'throw out and try something new' in any other field of endeavor.)
What AA is successful at is in perpetuating AA myths & religious conversion - and in making an awlful lot of money supporting an immense industry of treatment centers, half-way houses, quasi-medical institutions, and gov't funded programs. Do not fall for the 'we are not associated' bs - that's all it is, bs.
Good topic, I will certainly bookmark this for later comment.

 

[jakesteele]

I have been involved in the 12 steps and a number of different recovery/growth methods for a good number of years. I have found that it is almost impossible to nail down a specific number when it comes to recovery stats. When I first got involved with A.A. I was told repeatedly that the only way to recover was thru the 12 steps and if you left the program there only 1 of 3 fates awaiting you: death, jail or insanity. Oo, boogey, boogey! I began to notice that at birthday meetings that when they would call out, “who’s got 30/6/90/ days, 1/yr./2yr.3yr., etc. that at each increment the number of people standing up was fewer and fewer until they got to 5yrs. and beyond and virtually nobody standing up. The obvious conclusion is that you’ve got a whole lot of dead, crazy convicts out there or maybe, just maybe…hmm?

A.A. works if you work it, but it doesn’t work as well for some as it does for others. In that sentence you can replace A.A. with CBT or SOS, or psychotherapy or spiritual pursuits of various kinds and it will still hold true.

I learned a long time ago that a magic wand was nothing more than a magician’s prop. It’s not a god, a group a guru or a any particular technique. In other words, there is no easy way out.

I have found that good spirituality begins with healthy emotionality. Before you go looking for high falooting, top end magical Gods, you need to get your psychological house in order. And that requires slugging it out in the trenches. Figuratively speaking “God helps those that help themselves, Faith without works is dead.”

There are two basic things that make A.A. work: group synergism and the process of ‘chipping away at the stone’.
Of all the groups and techniques out there, A.A. has the best synergism of all because of numbers of members and longest history. A beautiful analogy of this synergism is this:

http://www.evancarmichael.com/Management/3656/Just-Ask-the-Geese.html

1. Geese don't fly in a V-shaped formation just because it looks good. They do it because it protects the members of the flock, conserves energy and allows them to cover more distance.

2. As the bird in front flies forward, it leaves a gap behind it called a vortice. This means that its teammates have less air resistance to fly against. A great example of putting teammates first.

3. When the bird in front gets tired, it moves to the back of the V and all the other birds move up, so that everyone gets a turn at leading and others get to take on other roles. That's in-built versatility and flexibility.

4. The formation allows all the birds to keep an eye on each other and to cover up to 71% more flying distance than if they were on their own. A case of win-win all round.

5. Whenever a bird flies out of formation, it suddenly feels the drag of going it alone and quickly gets back into formation to take advantage of the lifting power of the birds in front.

6. The geese in formation honk from behind to encourage those up front to keep up their speed.

7. When a goose gets sick, wounded, or shot, two geese drop out of line and follow their fellow member to help and provide protection. They stay with their colleague until it recovers or dies. Then they launch out on their own with another formation or re-join their own flock.

As far as ‘chipping away at the stone’, any pursuit can be used in this process; either by repeatedly attempting the same process again and again or a number of techniques again and again because the underlying power and effectiveness comes from a generic sense of unbending intent and unflinching purpose. Think of Pale Rider with Clint Eastwood when the whole mining camp joined together to take turns chipping away at that big rock in the middle of the creek. I find diet fads also are a good example of this concept. Why does an overweight person try 50 different diets all to no avail but the 51st one work? It works because the person keeps trying and slowly gaining ground psychology and then when they are subconsciously ready, any program would probably work instead of the one that actually broke the camel’s back.

And lastly, a ‘Higher Power' is truly whatever you want it to be. When a new comer asks me for help I tell them a couple, three things:
1. if you are here with even a day’s worth of sobriety you are automatically working the first step which I phrase to them as Don’t drink or drug no matter what.
2. take the first year of sobriety to explore different types of spirituality, religion, metaphysical pursuits, etc. Don’t just jump into some kind of God vision you had imprinted on you from childhood on because it obviously didn't work. For the first year think of the group as your high power. G.O.D. Group Of drunks, druggers, etc. The group is a force/power that is outside of and greater than you. Collectively, they are doing something you can’t do alone. (Goose analogy goes here)
3. I tell them to read, in addition to the Big Book, a book by the new guru in recovery, Terrance Gorsky, The King of Recovery, Staying Sober

(http://www.amazon.com/Staying-Sober-Guide-Relapse-)Prevention/dp/083090459X/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1

He takes a scientific approach and explains what happens physically and psychologically better than anything else I’ve ever read.

One quick side note: nothing personal, but one of the major ways that people set themselves up for a relapse is that they start developing resentment toward the program and the people in it; “the program is a bunch of **** and the people suck.” Of course, this means they are going to stop going, be all by their lonesome, which means they are going to be very vulnerable to the psychological and physical forces that drive the addiction and inevitable relapse.

Also, here are some quotes from an article linked from the Skeptics Dictionary:

http://www.skepdic.com/sat.html


http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/06/ff_alcoholics_anonymous/

**“In my 20 years of treating addicts, I’ve never seen anything else that comes close to the 12 steps,” says Drew Pinsky, the addiction-medicine specialist who hosts VH1’s Celebrity Rehab. “In my world, if someone says they don’t want to do the 12 steps, I know they aren’t going to get better.” (Please, no ‘killing the messenger to not have to hear the message.)

…a big part of AA’s effectiveness may have nothing to do with the actual steps. (**It may derive from something more fundamental: the power of the group. Psychologists have long known that one of the best ways to change human behavior is to gather people with similar problems into groups, rather than treat them individually.

But how effective is AA? That seemingly simple question has proven maddeningly hard to answer...

…But researchers are most stymied by the fact that AA’s efficacy cannot be tested in a randomized experiment, the scientific gold standard.

…AA research tends to come to wildly divergent conclusions, often depending on an investigator’s biases. The group’s “cure rate” has been estimated at anywhere **from 75 percent to 5 percent, extremes that seem far-fetched…

…Between 1989 and 1997, a multisite study called Project Match randomly assigned more than 1,700 alcoholics to one of three popular therapies used at professional treatment centers. The first was called 12-step facilitation, in which a licensed therapist guides patients through Bill Wilson’s method. The second was cognitive behavioral therapy, which trains alcoholics to identify the situations that spur them to drink, so they can avoid tempting circumstances. And the last was motivational enhancement therapy, a one-on-one interviewing process designed to sharpen a person’s reasons for getting sober.
Project Match ultimately concluded that all three of these therapies were more or less equally effective at reducing alcohol intake among subjects. But 12-step facilitation clearly beat the competition in two important respects: It was more effective for alcoholics without other psychiatric problems, and it did a better job of inspiring total abstinence as opposed to a mere reduction in drinking. The steps, in other words, actually worked slightly better than therapies of more recent vintage, which were devised by medical professionals rather than an alcoholic stockbroker.

 

[blutoski]

Isn't NA an offshoot of scientology, and a gateway cult for scientology? Or is there a difference between NA and NarcAnon?

Correct: Narcotics Anonymous^WP (12-step program) is different than NarcOnon^WP (scientology). And different still from NarAnon^WP (support for families of addicts).

 

[Dymanic]

Ra the sun God. And she was worshipping him. Right, I see how THAT is a sign of all things not religious.

What is at issue here is whether AA is religious, not whether a particular individual in AA is religious. If all the members of a bowling league were religious, it might be reasonable enough to say that the group was religious, though perhaps not a religion. What if only half of them were religious? One tenth? Nine tenths? How can this question possibly be anything but entirely subjective?

I'm sure you'll let us all know what this has to do with the question of whether AA is religious or not in the near and forseeable future, right?

By the logic you just used above, I guess it's a matter of whether you would include atheism as a religion (or, alternatively, whether you would include as religions those systems which accept atheists as full-fledged members).

You chose instead to belittle those who dared suggest that AA might be religious.

We're talking about two different things here. One has to do with beliefs; the other with facts. Belittling others for holding beliefs I find absurd I regard as a futile endeavor; there are too many of them, it takes too much energy, and I really don't care enough to bother (not to mention that it can be a bit sadistic if you're particularly good at it and willing to take it that far). On an internet forum where "Educational Foundation" appears in the title, my reasons for challenging facts are quite different, and if you choose to take that sort of thing personally, you may not always find your participation here to be an entirely pleasant and rewarding experience.

Do you realize at all that nobody here is questioning your beliefs in any way whatsoever?

Yes I do, and considering were we are, I'd be surprised if they did. But I didn't realize that we were talking about the JREF forum at all -- which makes your knee-jerk reaction rather inappropriate in my opinion. You seem to be rather heavily emotionally involved here, and it appears to be clouding your logic.

 

[Pup]

What is at issue here is whether AA is religious, not whether a particular individual in AA is religious. If all the members of a bowling league were religious, it might be reasonable enough to say that the group was religious, though perhaps not a religion. What if only half of them were religious? One tenth? Nine tenths? How can this question possibly be anything but entirely subjective?

I'm not sure why this would be difficult. If conforming to the norms of the group requires religion, it's a religious group.

If a bowling league expects everyone to think of a higher power before a game, even if the group offers the loophole of calling anything a higher power, it's different from a bowling league that only requires members to actually bowl.

 

[Dunstan]

Project Match ultimately concluded that all three of these therapies were more or less equally effective at reducing alcohol intake among subjects. But 12-step facilitation clearly beat the competition in two important respects: It was more effective for alcoholics without other psychiatric problems, and it did a better job of inspiring total abstinence as opposed to a mere reduction in drinking. The steps, in other words, actually worked slightly better than therapies of more recent vintage, which were devised by medical professionals rather than an alcoholic stockbroker.

(adjusted the emphasis)

Whether that is a "better" result depends on the goal, doesn't it? If you assume that the goal is abstinence, then it's unsurprising that AA would do better. But a "mere reduction in drinking" may be closer to the ideal for many people. If I was an alcoholic, I'd look much more favorably on a program that could get me back to being a normal person who can handle a few drinks from time to time (assuming such a thing is possible, which I realize AA denies) as opposed to one that requires me to abstain forever.

I mean, if we were comparing the success of "sex addiction treatments," would we say that Treatment X is "better" if it has a higher rate of getting people to abstain from all sex than Treatment Y which allows for healthy sexual relationships?

 

[marplots]

Getting back to the original post, we could look at AA in Europe. For instance, Sweden (often touted as the country with the most people who do not believe in God) has AA, as does Britain and France (France ranks high on the 'don't believe in any spiritual powers at all' scale).

They've managed it somehow.

 

[Sledge]

Getting back to the original post, we could look at AA in Europe. For instance, Sweden (often touted as the country with the most people who do not believe in God) has AA, as does Britain and France (France ranks high on the 'don't believe in any spiritual powers at all' scale).

They've managed it somehow.

And your point...?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I'm not sure why this would be difficult. If conforming to the norms of the group requires religion, it's a religious group.

If a bowling league expects everyone to think of a higher power before a game, even if the group offers the loophole of calling anything a higher power, it's different from a bowling league that only requires members to actually bowl.

You would be right except AA does not require one to conform to any certain type of religion or belief. A higher power is optional, it is however suggested and it can take any form one wants. If a doorknob is your higher power - fantastic! - whatever blows your skirt up is fine; whatever works.
Moreover these so called "norms" are suggestions only; it is perfectly acceptable to take what parts you like and leave the rest.

You call it a loophole, that's fine too. I see it as a way towards inclusivity for anyone.
The AA fellowship itself can be ones higher power - surely groups of hundreds of thousands of people have more power then me, surely they have near unlimited collective wisdom for me to tap into and "restore me to sanity".

It is true the word "God" scares a lot of people away from AA (I honestly have no real idea why). Two things spring to mind however:
1/. A further reason to run from the fear of recovery (yep - recovery is a very scary thing).
2/. A preconceived and irreversible belief in what a higher power is and their rejection of same.

The first might be delusion, denial and fear, the second is pigheadedness with an unwillingness to be open to alternate suggestions.

Getting back to the original post, we could look at AA in Europe. For instance, Sweden (often touted as the country with the most people who do not believe in God) has AA, as does Britain and France (France ranks high on the 'don't believe in any spiritual powers at all' scale).

They've managed it somehow.

Yep.
It seems to me that the word "God" in some countries (and especially the US I would suggest) invokes a lot of negativity.


I would like some thoughts on this too.

If one has come to a point of rock bottom, has created and is feeling sufficient pain through their addiction and is ready to surrender. If one has come so far down they are willing to go to any lengths to get sobriety and return their life to something close to normal, why wouldn't one look at finding a higher power (in any form)?

And then answer these:

Why would AA desire them to find a higher power, what's in it for them?
Does AA reap millions of dollars from their followers that runs to an elite few at the top of the chain?
Does AA have a charismatic leader asking for the surrender of possessions or subservience of self to them?

So, why do people see something sinister in this word God, or higher power? Why the objection when a higher power is one of your own choosing, not one being dictated to you by someone else?

At the end of the day, one can choose or not to follow the examples set in AA whilst in AA.
One can choose or not to have a higher power.
One can choose or not to try and get sober.
Everyone is entitled to make these choices and no-one in AA cares what you decide. If you want to get sober, maybe we can help. If not, do more research and have more pain. The choice is yours.

 

[MatildaGage]

I agree, it's upsetting and wrong.

I would argue it's not only spiritual, not only religious--it's monotheistic and Protestant. The emotional highs and lows (did you ever notice how much they laugh at AA meetings and then they're crying the next minute?), the praying, the endless self deprecation, repeating one's sins over and over, cognitive dissonance, powerlessness, edict to help others....all smacks of Protestantism to me.

There are secular self help options, though not as many. (Want to hear my theory about why? Because secularism doesn't preach dependence on a group as the only vehicle to recovery. Not that some people don't need or want that, but not everyone does.)

There are online secular self help groups.

The thing to remember is it's all self help, not professional treatment. I don't find it surprising that a room full of people with the same issue, with no professional training or obligation to exercise good technique and boundaries, don't help each other that much.

People do question AA being religious. All the time, in fact.

One person took it to court--now in my state judges can't compel a person to go to AA because it is forcing someone to practice religion.

 

[calebprime]

... If you want to get sober, maybe we can help. If not, do more research and have more pain. The choice is yours.

I'm not disagreeing with the thrust of your post, but I can't help being reminded of this notorious bit of Scientology rhetoric:

""You could jump off a bridge or blow your brains out, it'd be stupid, but the choice is yours".

Because you seem to reference Scientology (by repudiating any similiarity), maybe this is a sly allusion.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I'm not disagreeing with the thrust of your post, but I can't help being reminded of this notorious bit of Scientology rhetoric:

""You could jump off a bridge or blow your brains out, it'd be stupid, but the choice is yours".

Because you seem to reference Scientology (by repudiating any similiarity), maybe this is a sly allusion.

I think you are suggesting I am a closet scientologist. lol.
Interestingly, you seem to know a fair bit about them.

Any parralel you wish to draw is yours and yours alone. I know virtually nothing about scientology and any similarity is nothing more than a coincidence.

But on the bridge jumping etc. Is it not true that we have the choice? Suicide is a choice, continuing to drink is a choice, all my behavious are a choice.
Are you suggesting that these truths were not present until scientology came along?
My point however was and is, that if one wishes to continue to practice their addictions, go ahead - we really don't mind. AA is not there to try and convert anyone to anything, but simply to asssist the suffering to find some sobriety.

 

[godofpie]

That answers your question MG. The reason I am outraged that AA is religious is that courts can order people do undertake it.

The court orders you to go. AA does not make you stay. I am not going to be the AA apologist for this thread but a couple of things-
1) I am in AA and I am an atheist.
2) Courts order you to go. AA keeps 0 records. If you can't figure this one out, you should quit drinking.
3) AA literature was written in the 1930's, is religious and dogmatic. The Agnostics made a big enough stink to get their own chapter, #4 The Chapter to the Agnostics, which I just recently reread after another thread here at the JREF and I have to admit that that crap would not work for me today but here I am, 14 years later and the strongest thing that I have put in my body since I got sober is an aspirin.
4) 5% success rate is BS. Proof please? Let's first define success. Is it picking up one white chip? (you get this chip when you make the decision to stop drinking. You can still be drinking.) So if you pick up your white chip and go out road testing does that make you a failure? Not in AA's eyes. Some people mark success by the day, hour , or sometimes minute.

I guess I am a bit of an apologist

 

[Pup]

You would be right except AA does not require one to conform to any certain type of religion or belief. A higher power is optional, it is however suggested and it can take any form one wants. If a doorknob is your higher power - fantastic! - whatever blows your skirt up is fine; whatever works.
Moreover these so called "norms" are suggestions only; it is perfectly acceptable to take what parts you like and leave the rest.

That strikes me as a salesman's double-talk, and the dishonesty would turn me off.

The higher power is one of the steps.

I don't think it's truly "optional" in the sense that it's not really considered a vital part of following the program and there's no pressure to do it. I think you mean it's only "optional" in the sense that even attending AA meetings and following the steps is, obviously, optional for every human being who has free will.

The commonly-given doorknob example isn't encouraging. It makes me think that the higher power idea is so important that people are expected to tell a white lie to get past it. Obviously, no one believes a doorknob is a higher power. So the implication is that it's so vital to the program that one just needs to make up something silly, to pass that step, rather than skipping it.

You call it a loophole, that's fine too. I see it as a way towards inclusivity for anyone.

Obviously it's an attempt at inclusivity, and I think that's a good thing. But only because the program was designed around exclusivity before.

It is true the word "God" scares a lot of people away from AA (I honestly have no real idea why).

There's the problem. If one can't understand that "higher power" is generally used as a euphemism for something supernatural in general and God in particular, and that not everyone wants to be part of a group that expects people to believe in the supernatural, then inclusivity is only lip service.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

That strikes me as a salesman's double-talk, and the dishonesty would turn me off.

The higher power is one of the steps.

.. big snip ..

Please explain your understanding of this supposed "higher power" step.

How many AA meetings have you gone actually attended that allows you to speak with such 'authority'?
Are you an alky/addict?
Why did you not address my other questions?

It seems you have an axe to grind and are stuck on a higher power having to be supernatural (which it isn't as has been previously outlined), why not share why and what this axe is? Perhaps I can help.

 

[Pup]

I would argue it's not only spiritual, not only religious--it's monotheistic and Protestant. The emotional highs and lows (did you ever notice how much they laugh at AA meetings and then they're crying the next minute?), the praying, the endless self deprecation, repeating one's sins over and over, cognitive dissonance, powerlessness, edict to help others....all smacks of Protestantism to me.

I wonder if one could say that both religions and AA produce a kind of psychological or social situation that's attractive to a certain kind of people? There may be some underlying formula that both have gravitated toward, that meets the emotional needs of a segment of the population.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I wonder if one could say that both religions and AA produce a kind of psychological or social situation that's attractive to a certain kind of people? There may be some underlying formula that both have gravitated toward, that meets the emotional needs of a segment of the population.

That is precisely what the skull jockeys would call psychosocial health. You are starting to get it. The social interaction is a very important part of AA. It certainly isn't all "religious" as you call it. It is a many faceted diamond - don't get bogged down with one aspect, look to the whole.

 

[Dymanic]

I'm not sure why this would be difficult. If conforming to the norms of the group requires religion, it's a religious group.

If a bowling league expects everyone to think of a higher power before a game, even if the group offers the loophole of calling anything a higher power, it's different from a bowling league that only requires members to actually bowl.

So if a bowling league didn't place any such expectation upon its members but left that sort of thing up to the discretion of the individual instead, and did not require its members to conform to any norm, religious or otherwise, and if the primary purpose of the group was bowling rather than lengthy discussion of higher powers and whatnot, and even though its membership might include some who were religious and who perhaps were even convinced that contact with some god improved their game and talked about that while bowling, you would not consider it a religious group.

Right?