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

[I Am The Scum]

I am one of the persons who does not understand the word "spiritual" as it is being used in this discussion. I have an idea that may clear everything up.

The word "spiritual" is often used as a contrast to "religious." We've all heard "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual," about a hundred times. The interesting thing about this sentence is that I can easily grasp the first part, but not the second. I can distinguish between a religious man and a non-religious man. Obviously, this will vary depending on the religion, but it's easy to tell them apart. Using Christianity, for example:

The religious man goes to church every Sunday.
The non-religious man does not.

The religious man prays for his sins to be forgiven.
The non-religious man does not.

And that leads me to this simple challenge: Can someone defending the term please show me the difference between a spiritual person, and a non-spiritual person?

 

[maddog]

The religious man goes to church every Sunday.
The non-religious man does not.

The religious man prays for his sins to be forgiven.
The non-religious man does not.

And that leads me to this simple challenge: Can someone defending the term please show me the difference between a spiritual person, and a non-spiritual person?

A spiritual person *believes*; believes in some sort of god or other spirit beings, whether they take any outward action (praying, going to church, etc.) based on that belief or not.
A non-spiritual person does not believe in god or other spirit beings.

 

[Dancing David]

That makes sense.

To the extent I had a point at all, it was that I was noticing a similarity in presenting a stark alternative.

That is probably appropriate for people with serious drinking problems.

But surely there are non-joiner types, like Guy Waterman*, Piggy, or me*, who just quit whatever our bad habits are on our own.

Not a major point.

Carry on.

*Not a poster boy for mental health, but his story sprang to mind.

*idem

Many people do, I had a girlfriend that just quit cocaine one day, and was a heavy user.

Some can, some struggle.

 

[Dancing David]

I agree with all that, too. Much of which is 'taught' in 12 step fellowships. As I said, the program is multi-faceted (whether you actually use the steps or not), these facets might include:
- your model above.
- Something I like to call CRT (constant reminder therapy)
- getting honest with yourself.
- Changing old thoughts and behaviours and replacing them with healthy ones (as per your model also).
- Social interaction, development of new social networks and supports *i.e. psychosocial and/or spiritual development).
- Ego deflation, creation of healthy personal boundaries, stopping emotional investment in outcomes (i.e. expectations).
- Re/connection with your chosen religion (if one wishes).

You have described an integral part of recovery which is maintenance, while much of what you have listed encompasses that, the CRT and support networks remain invaluable and desirous for many. Clearly AA includes what you describe as "social networks not associated with use". And it is free, easily accessable and filled with people who have the same problems or have succesfully managed their way through similar/same.

In general terms, I'm not sure we aren't that far away from one another when all is said and done.

Many people many paths, I have stated the issues that I have with AA, it works for some, not for others.

Just don't drag psychology into why social structures may have similarities.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm very sorry that you and your husband are going through this. Struggling with alcoholism is a very tough and (sometimes) lonely road.

I haven't read all the replies here, but something came to mind: Have you considered a group called SOS? http://www.sossobriety.org/

Yay for Jeane Jordan Kirkpatrick! (And many others!)

 

[Elizabeth I]

I do not follow any particular religion, rather I consider myself to be an inquisitive agnostic. Not following a religion and having an agnostic leaning doesn't mean that I lack a sense of spirituality.

Instead of having rituals or teachings prescribed by a religious faith, I developed my own ways to get in touch with my spiritual side. I base my spirituality and beliefs on my interpretation of facts rather than faith, and I consider my quest for knowledge and my spirituality linked.

Reading the histories and teachings behind various religious faiths and having lively discussions and debates with believers and non-believers allows me to feel spiritually alive. I find spirituality in appreciating beautiful art, literature and music as well as from feeling love from family and friends. Taking long walks in the woods near my house, appreciating all the beauty around me and becoming one with nature also awakens my spiritual side.

To some people the concept of a "spiritual agnostic" may be an oxymoron, but I believe that one does not have to possess faith in a higher power or a particular religion in order to be spiritual. Spirituality is highly personal, and all people, including atheists and agnostics, can have a spiritual side. I feel fortunate to have been able to tap into my spirituality and still maintain my agnostic viewpoint.

This looks to me to be just redefining "spirituality" to mean "appreciating beauty," "exercising," "loving those close to me," or anything else you like to do.

I do all those things. If redefine them as "being a millionaire," will that make it true?

 

[jakesteele]

Emphasis mine.

That is not a definition of spirituality at all. It's not a defintion of anything else, either.

You start out by telling us how "good" spirituality begins.

so, there is bad spirituality, and it might begin in some other way. Also, regardless of how it began, good spirituality in progress, as it were. doesn't need to still display those signs anymore.

And the "etc." is a dead giveaway: You have no clue. You do not define spirituality at all, you just throw a few buzzword around that you think ought to relate to it. Do you really thing that "the process of growth" tells me anything at all?

A definition of "spirituality" would allow me to look at something and find out if that something is or is not spiritual.

Oh, my, my! I do believe you could benefit from working the "spiritual aspects" of the program.

As they say in the program, "What's really going on?"

p.s. you didn't tell me about this 'woo word' stuff, how come?

 

[Dymanic]

If a bowling group had twelve official steps written into the club bylaws and one of the steps talked about using a higher power to improve their skill at bowling, it wouldn't fit that definition.

Given the choice of a bowling group that had that in its bylaws, and one that didn't, I can imagine which an atheist would look first toward joining, all else being equal. That in itself shows the bias.

The steps are not bylaws. They are suggestions.

 

[Dymanic]

A spiritual person *believes*; believes in some sort of god or other spirit beings, whether they take any outward action (praying, going to church, etc.) based on that belief or not.
A non-spiritual person does not believe in god or other spirit beings.

And what difference (if any) do you see between that and "religious"?

 

[Sledge]

No, seems you might be though. However, I would suggest you need to return to school for some lessons in comprehension and the written word - you clearly have some difficulty in this area.

None whatsoever. You seem to be having trouble communicating what you mean. Perhaps it's time you returned to school? Assuming you ever did, of course.

See? I can be rude too. In fact, I'll wager I can be much ruder than you. What say you stop trying to wind me up and answer my question?

If, as you say, you did read the article, you should really be able to determine what spirituality means to the writer.

It seems to mean they enjoy reading books. This isn't called "spirituality," it's called "enjoying reading."

I have made efforts to explain what it means to me, others too have tried.

Try again. Try harder.

Too bad if it doesn't fit your beliefs or understanding, but frankly - no-one cares.

"No one" isn't hyphenated. And you're challenging MY language abilitites? Hypocrite.

Moving on, it's interesting that you don't consider the possibility that it's your explanation that's at fault. So far, you've pointed to an article about a woman wittering about how she enjoys flowers and books. This does not tell me what spirituality means. Do you know, or are you just hoping to fend people off with a pile of bovine excrement?

It seems you too have an axe to grind: Why not tell me why, perhaps I can help.

We mad? You getting a little defensive? Feeling a little challenged? Good. You're taking the first step into a larger world.

 

[Pup]

The steps are not bylaws. They are suggestions.

Exactly. If a group suggests that the members believe in a higher power, that's a less-atheist-friendly group than one that doesn't.

Lots of groups make no mention of higher powers or anything similar at all. It's not like every group needs to make a suggestion to its members on the topic.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You sound like you're trying to recruit or something. In fact, it sounds just like a sales pitch or a religous person talking about their church.

Really!? All I'm trying to do is explain my understanding

I'm not interested in joining AA; I'm interested in seeing how or why people spin things the way they do and how pervasive religion is in American society even when people disingenously claim it isn't.

I don't live in the US. AA is a worldwide felloeship and every group and individual can express their spirituality or lack of it in any way they like.

There seems to be a strong undercurrent of recruiting here, with overtones of "it's all voluntary, we don't care." Just from your replies to my posts, it feels more like talking to a cult recruiter than anything else.

To what end would I be recruiting anyone? I have no dog in yourrace nor anyone elses.

Many people do, I had a girlfriend that just quit cocaine one day, and was a heavy user.

Some can, some struggle.

There is a percentage of the population that processes drugs etc differently to the rest. After a period of time they move into dpendance addiction. Just because one once used doesn't mean they were an addict.
For mine, 12-step fellowships is for addicts.

Many people many paths, I have stated the issues that I have with AA, it works for some, not for others.

Just don't drag psychology into why social structures may have similarities.

Why not - if there are valid parallels why shouldn't they be used?

None whatsoever. You seem to be having trouble communicating what you mean. Perhaps it's time you returned to school? Assuming you ever did, of course.

See? I can be rude too. In fact, I'll wager I can be much ruder than you. What say you stop trying to wind me up and answer my question?
It seems to mean they enjoy reading books. This isn't called "spirituality," it's called "enjoying reading."
Try again. Try harder.

It's interesting to me that you set the rules for engagement then squawk like an infant when someone else plays rough. You then have the temerity to suggest I am winding you up.

You can start again if you like - nicely, or I'm pretty much done responding to you.

"No one" isn't hyphenated. And you're challenging MY language abilitites? Hypocrite.

That depends on where one lives. The hyphen is perfectly acceptable in many circles. At ant rate, it is your comprehension that requires assistance.

We mad? You getting a little defensive? Feeling a little challenged? Good.

Not even close, but thanks for trying.

 

[jakesteele]

I just read chapter 4 myself. It seems to contend an alcoholic can NOT stay sober while still being an Atheist or Agnostic. A Direct quote "To be doomed to an alcoholic death or to live on a spiritual basis are not easy alternatives to face." Also, notice the capitilisation of God all throughout Chapter 4.

If you're a non-addict looking at the program from the outside in, you will never understand the program as well as a recovering addict who is living it from the inside out. I think it's kind of silly for people Penn and Teller to try do their angry little ******** routine and attack something they don't really know that much about. That's like me reading up on magic and criticize their act. (by the way, I think Penn might have come from an alcoholic family because he's got a very pronounced anger problem. And, no, it's not part of the act, it's him)

You have to realize some things about the program. It was written in an era where virtually every citizen in this country was a Christian by default so, of course, they are going to be referring to God with a capital G. It was a central point of reference for society. And, yes, there are evangelical type members who are that way about their religion(s) of Jesus and The Program. They'll jam it down your throat if you let them.

And also, the term 'spirituality' can mean anything. The group itself, G.O.D, Group Of Drunks. The group represents a force/power that it outside of and greater than you. Collectively, they are doing something you can't do yourself.

Also, the program has a saying, "Take what you need and leave the rest behind."

 

[Dymanic]

If a group suggests that the members believe in a higher power, that's a less-atheist-friendly group than one that doesn't.

Atheist or not, a person with a serious drinking problem is likely to receive a less-than-friendly welcome in most any group. The local tavern may not even want his business. By contrast, AA is expressly committed to accepting him regardless of what he does or doesn't believe and regardless even of whether he is able to stop drinking. AA has its share of curmudgeons, without a doubt. Rigid thinking and alcoholism go hand in hand. But there are just as many who are not merely friendly but nauseatingly friendly, so that sort of makes up for it.

The general rule of thumb in AA is that you share your own experience. Because it is understood that individual beliefs vary widely, the fine details tend to be treated as less appropriate for discussion at group level than other aspects of one's recovery. Not that it never comes up; it's just that dwelling on it can quickly become an exercise in self-centeredness, and proselytizing is almost universally regarded as a distinct breach of decorum. Those who are relatively new to the program may take a while to understand some of this (and, unfortunately, they are often the most vocal).

Lots of groups make no mention of higher powers or anything similar at all.

That's true, but openly proclaim yourself an atheist and see what happens.

 

[Rasmus]

If you're a non-addict looking at the program from the outside in, you will never understand the program as well as a recovering addict who is living it from the inside out.

You're making Tinyal's poinmt here ...

I think it's kind of silly for people Penn and Teller to try do their angry little ******** routine and attack something they don't really know that much about.

Care to point out where they have been actually and demonstratably wrong?

That's like me reading up on magic and criticize their act.

And your criticism might be totally justified. Or someone could just point out to you where your errors are.

(by the way, I think Penn might have come from an alcoholic family because he's got a very pronounced anger problem. And, no, it's not part of the act, it's him)

Ad Hominem.

You have to realize some things about the program. It was written in an era where virtually every citizen in this country was a Christian by default so, of course, they are going to be referring to God with a capital G.

there'd be nothing to stop them from changing and revising their texts. And taking down the posters in their HQ, come to think of it. that aside: The spelling is only a minor point - it's not about how the word god is spelled, but about it being there at all.

It was a central point of reference for society. And, yes, there are evangelical type members who are that way about their religion(s) of Jesus and The Program. They'll jam it down your throat if you let them.

And are these members in any way in violation of the program? Are they contradicting it?

And also, the term 'spirituality' can mean anything. The group itself, G.O.D, Group Of Drunks. The group represents a force/power that it outside of and greater than you. Collectively, they are doing something you can't do yourself.

Further repetition will not make this argument any less ridiculous.

Also, the program has a saying, "Take what you need and leave the rest behind."

Again, you're making the point for Tinyal rather well.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

If you're a non-addict looking at the program from the outside in, you will never understand the program as well as a recovering addict who is living it from the inside out.

Have to be honest, that sounds 100% like every cult person \ serious woo-ster I have ever met.

I think it's kind of silly for people Penn and Teller to try do their angry little ******** routine and attack something they don't really know that much about. That's like me reading up on magic and criticize their act. (by the way, I think Penn might have come from an alcoholic family because he's got a very pronounced anger problem. And, no, it's not part of the act, it's him)

Idiotic Ad Hominem. First off, he is like that in every single episode, heck that episode was a particular calm one for him.

Second, if you think they are wrong about something, state the exact facts you think they got wrong.

You have to realize some things about the program. It was written in an era where virtually every citizen in this country was a Christian by default so, of course, they are going to be referring to God with a capital G. It was a central point of reference for society. And, yes, there are evangelical type members who are that way about their religion(s) of Jesus and The Program. They'll jam it down your throat if you let them.

Absolute rubbish. You are again talking exactly like your basic fundie.
"The bible was written in another time and so it says bla bla bla"

Well, why don't they change it? It's not because it's a "holy text" is it?
AA isn't a religion, right? So what's the problem?

Since we mentioned the Penn and Teller episode...

AA was started in 1935 and the treat remained exactly the same. If your doctor told you he was going to use the same method that was used in 1935 you'd scream and run. Real science is refined and changed all the time. Now maybe we are being too harsh. There are 2 reasons it might not change since 1935.
1) It's religion. And religion changing is tentem to herassy. It's faith it's not supposed to be tested by sciene.
2) The treatment is perfect and works for everyone 100% all of the time.

I wonder which it is?

 

[Rasmus]

Have to be honest, that sounds 100% like every cult person \ serious woo-ster I have ever met.

Lest we be accused of using ad hominems ourselves:

It is not a valid point for a debate to claim that outsiders cannot understand something.

All insiders have started as outsiders and somehow gained the knowledge. It is transferable, so whoever thinks the outsiders have it wrong needs to explain why.

And it must be explainable, otherwise you couldn't know that you were right. You might have a feeling that the outsiders are wrong, but if you *know* that they are you ought to know why. and then, you could simply tell us.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Lest we be accused of using ad hominems ourselves:

Naturally, my point was against the argument not the person saying it.

I always find it hilarious when people say "you don't understand because you haven't tried it".

Do I need to jump off a roof to know that it's a bad idea?

Any proper medical treatment has sufficient repeatable studies that show the treatment works and that it is exactly the way it is.

I don't have to be a lab rat to find out.

Yet all the woosters keep saying "it works just try it out".

 

[Rasmus]

Naturally, my point was against the argument not the person saying it.

I made the same point earlier and I agree. I just thought under the circumstances some elaboration would be a good thing.

I always find it hilarious when people say "you don't understand because you haven't tried it".

Yep.

Do I need to jump off a roof to know that it's a bad idea?

Well ... maybe, right, it is like this: It's the best thing ever and totally worth it. If only we knew how utterly wonderful it was. we'd all go and jump right now!

then again, maybe not.

Yet all the woosters keep saying "it works just try it out".

Like I said, no argument from me.

I find it particularly telling that we are getting the "it's your choice, you can either do it or die"-rhetoric here, that's just utterly flying in the face of all the other claims of "take only what you need", "they are suggestions" and what not.

It doesn't really go together very well, does it?

Either AA does something that works, and it might be the only thing in the world that works. Then yes, the choice of an alcoholic would indeed be AA or death. (We know it ain't and that claim fails on several levels, but bear with me.)

But then, you couldn't just take those parts of AA that you happen to agree with, could you? There would have to be something in it that is absolutely needed. It might be that any of the steps alone is sufficient and the entirety of AA is just a combination of all working methods - but that seems a little far fetched, doesn't it? (Plus, of course, what if I didn't go to the meetings and did just one other thing instead - could that still be called "AA"? I think not.)

 

[GrandMasterFox]

I made the same point earlier and I agree. I just thought under the circumstances some elaboration would be a good thing.

Of course. I realized your comment was correct that it might seem as if I was attacking the person rather than the argument and simply wanted to clarify my position so that jakesteele wouldn't think that I was attacking him.