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

[Elizabeth I]

No doubt you doubt this Christian/overly religious group attitude by virtue of your country of origin. The word God, it seems to me - polarises you USAians more than anywhere else in the world.
The easy going nature of Australians simply means we don't give a toss whether one believes or not.

Sure, there are some religious overtones in the literature and elsewhere.
I have friends in AA (many in fact) that have far more sobriety than any of the early members including Bill and Bob. They have made their way through sobriety using whatever tools they wanted - rejecting others. Some are religious, some agnostic, some atheist but all agree they are spiritual.

They have had more experience here than any - why wouldn't I seek some guidance from these guys. They are not priests, they are coaches, mentors etc. I seek guidance from them in the same way I would seek guidance from my father, my boss,

I go to AA to tap into rooms filled with life coaches today, not so much form my sobriety which (a day at a time) is being managed.

btw, I was unaware we were talking of a cult however I posted a few prerequisites of a cult earlier which are not met in my opnion. Yours differs, I respect that but I disagree.

And the fact is - as I've said repeatedly: AA is not a "cure" and it does not work for all.
Alcohol kills alcoholics. Many do die, many don't, but many get a daily reprieve through AA, religious or not - and that can't be a bad thing.

I used to work for a substance abuse treatment center (not as a counselor or therapist, but I was interested because I grew up with an alcoholic father) and I too have heard the 5% success rate figure quoted. Would you address that?

Again, no one denies that it worked for you. Some just question the laudatory attitude for a program that, in general, seems to work no better than chance.

1)The spirit is an actual healer?
2)The guy works in a building that is built the tomb of a saint and simply entering the building cured you.
3)The headache was only temporary and faded on its own.

You forgot (4) You hedged your bets and took an aspirin before you left to visit the faith healer.

 

[Dymanic]

I'm angry, however, that you and many others deliberately misrepresent AA as not being religious.

I wonder if you concur with the agreement Pup and I reached above that JREF is an atheist organization in much the same sense, and to much the same extent, that AA is a religious organization.

If so, I wonder if you experience the same sense of outrage upon reading this statement by James Randi himself:
"I want this fully understood: the James Randi Educational Foundation is not an atheist organization...""

 

[Tinyal]

I for one certainly do not agree that JREF is an atheist organization in the same sense & in the same way that AA is a religious organization (or, as I've stated, an actual religious cult).
They are miles apart.
If one cannot clearly see the relationship of AA to a typical religion - and also then see it's similarities to a typical cult - then one very well might not see just how different JREF is from AA (comparing the atheist dogma, for instance, with the AA dogma as expounded in the big book - oh, it appears I've lost my links to the atheist dogma! doh <sarcasm off>.
It might be helpful, in my view, for those people who see the two as similar to further study AA - go indepth at the links I provided earlier.

 

[Malerin]

I wonder if you concur with the agreement Pup and I reached above that JREF is an atheist organization in much the same sense, and to much the same extent, that AA is a religious organization.

If so, I wonder if you experience the same sense of outrage upon reading this statement by James Randi himself:
"I want this fully understood: the James Randi Educational Foundation is not an atheist organization...""

JREF is a de facto atheist organization, though not a de jure one.
AA seems to be a de jure theist/religious/spiritual organization, though not a de fact one.

That being said, I bet you'd find less religious discussion at an AA meeting, than at a JREF one.

 

[Pup]

If, upon my first arrival, the group had declared that it was a religious organization, I would've left and probably never came back. Fortunately, it didn't and I wasn't instantly turned off.

After spending some time here and listening and learning from people with different viewpoints, I found out that Christians were not the judgmental, close-minded people I had always been taught they were. I began to change the way I looked at things. I started questioning my atheism and trying to develop faith in god. It is an ongoing process, but I have taken some big steps in what I feel is the right direction. The “me” of yesterday would feel so sorry for me today because of some ideas I have given up, but I look back and feel bad for the little boy who had no idea of the peace and security that faith in god could bring. I am happier now.

Leaving the doors open to everyone is, in my opinion, the only way to go. If we turn people away at the door, even inadvertently, we're missing out on a wealth of new potential converts. I don't want to even imagine where or what shape I'd be in now, had it not been for the group. Once we've offended those that need us most, all that's left is the choir to hear the preaching.

How does that strike you? A sneaky and manipulative strategy by the group? Or is it a good strategy to be welcoming and encourage open-mindedness that leads to conversion?

Personally, I think it's a good strategy if the group thinks like me, but sneaky if the group doesn't.

That's based on the testimonial for the JREF quoted in Randi's post, except turned around the other way.

However, I think it's clear that such a group has an ulterior goal behind the open-minded welcoming, and if that goal were religion, any government-sanctioned pressure to join the group would go against the ideal of separation of church and state in the U.S.

 

[Complexity]

I wonder if you concur with the agreement Pup and I reached above that JREF is an atheist organization in much the same sense, and to much the same extent, that AA is a religious organization.

If so, I wonder if you experience the same sense of outrage upon reading this statement by James Randi himself:
"I want this fully understood: the James Randi Educational Foundation is not an atheist organization...""

I don't agree that JREF is an atheist organization in the same way that AA is a religious one.

As has been noted, the founder of AA laid down the religious aspect of AA.

Randi, in founding JREF, did not create it as an atheist organization, nor did he align it with atheist.

Randi is a skeptic. I'm not sure what his religious beliefs are - I think he's at least an agnostic, but am not sure.

I personally think that, if skepticism is applied uniformly and carried to its logical conclusion, one becomes either an agnostic or an atheist, depending on your understanding of those terms.

I am quite comfortable accepting Randi's assertion that JREF is not an atheist organization. It is his organization to do with as he chooses. I respect the goals of JREF.

 

[Complexity]

JREF is a de facto atheist organization, though not a de jure one.
AA seems to be a de jure theist/religious/spiritual organization, though not a de fact one.

Nonsense.

 

[Dymanic]

JREF is a de facto atheist organization, though not a de jure one.
AA seems to be a de jure theist/religious/spiritual organization, though not a de facto one.

A rabbi, a voodoo priestess, and a yogi are out on a lake fishing; is that a religious organization, either de facto or de jure? In my opinion it is not, because being either would require that it be, at least to some degree, an organized religion; there would have to be at least some shared religious beliefs.

I agree that critical thinking is implicitly biased toward atheism; the lack of evidence for the existence of supernatural beings seems to me to make atheism the reasonable default (Occam's razor and all that), and therefore in a venue where the highest value is placed on evidence, it would be surprising not to see a consensus favoring atheism, whether that was embraced as official policy or not.

I bet you'd find less religious discussion at an AA meeting, than at a JREF one.

Interesting point. I was going to say that the difference is probably more a matter of quality than quantity, but the more I think about it the more I think you may be right.

As I think I may have mentioned above, the AA group generally tends to be mostly uninterested in the details of one person's beliefs, and a member rambling on at length about that may (or may not) notice people getting fidgety, yawning, or even walking out of the room (it's not unusual for a few people to come and go during the course of a meeting anyway, but if you can't hold the room, it may be that you need to revise your material). If it starts to sound too much like proselytizing, the droner-on may even find himself cut off by the chairperson.

By contrast, the JREF forum often features lengthy and very heated discussions on the minutest details of one person's beliefs, with many of the participants apparently very motivated to dissuade that person from continuing to hold those beliefs. In more than twenty years, I have never seen anything remotely like that in an AA meeting. In AA, the highest value is placed on results. If you're clean and sober and claim that your higher power is a doorknob, then everybody's just happy that that's working for you even if they themselves think it's completely idiotic. (Note: as a critical thinker, I too would question the post hoc ergo propter hoc assumption implicit in that, and I'll state for the record that I am not here advocating AA; I went to AA, and I stayed sober, but I can't claim that as evidence for the effectiveness of AA because the experiment uses a sample size of one and includes no control group).

 

[Complexity]

Dynamic - You're comparing apples and oranges to no effect.

 

[Rasmus]

By contrast, the JREF forum often features lengthy and very heated discussions on the minutest details of one person's beliefs, with many of the participants apparently very motivated to dissuade that person from continuing to hold those beliefs.

Of course. People here tend to care about being right or wrong.

In more than twenty years, I have never seen anything remotely like that in an AA meeting. In AA, the highest value is placed on results. If you're clean and sober and claim that your higher power is a doorknob, then everybody's just happy that that's working for you even if they themselves think it's completely idiotic.

Yes.

Which, I suppose, is grand if you're the type of addict who doesn't care whether he's being idiotic or not. If you do, I'd think chances are AA is not the place for you.

And, maybe, when you are an addict you shouldn't care all that much about looking like an idiot. (Maybe you already do, anyway, I don't know.) But that boils down to an "it's better than nothing" approach, and the actual numbers don't seem to be supporting that, even.

(Note: as a critical thinker, I too would question the post hoc ergo propter hoc assumption implicit in that, and I'll state for the record that I am not here advocating AA; I went to AA, and I stayed sober, but I can't claim that as evidence for the effectiveness of AA because the experiment uses a sample size of one and includes no control group).

Well said.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning.
Which usually leads to any form of ilogical way of thinking or conducting an intelectual debate.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Very droll.
Now, where is the fallacy in my argument?

Wrong. We have offered you numerous ways of prooving it actually.
It can be done. Any form of "treatment" can be verified for it's effectiveness.
We don't ask you to prove us it works 100% of the time.
We just want proof that it works better than any other treatment including no treatment.

As I said earlier, this probably can't be quantified in the sense you want.
Nor have I ever said that it works better than "any other treatment instead of no treatment". Moving of goalposts noted.

Anonymity is the foundation of AA. Theye don't take roll call and it seems you don't like it

We asked you for the statistics, you completely ignored and dodged the issue.
We asked you to define the basics, you completely ignored and dodged the issue.

The Australian Government in their June 2009 publication on "treatment of alcohol problems" says:

"Research suggests that patients who attend AA as part of a structured treatment program, in addition to outpatient sessions, and begin attendance early in their treatment, demonstrate better outcomes than people attending either AA or treatment alone".

"Several studies haver also suggested that AA-facilitated abstinence is partly due to an increase in self-efficacy, which arises from recovery".

No you do not know that. Period.

So I don't love my family? Nice.
I feel sad for you now; it must be awful not kniowing whether one loves or is loved.

Okay, finally some honesty here. So from now on, please never use the words "AA or die" as you have just stated yourself that is completely false.

For some that is true. My evidence - me! Anecdotal I know, but evidence nonetheless.
Please show me where I said "AA or die" without some qualification around it.

But it can be a terrible thing!

I insist you explain this statement.

Yet for some reason you seem convinced that AA works for some people that's good enough for you.

Sure, why not?

There should be no attempt to improve it, no attempt to test it and certinly no one should even attempt to alter it's holy bible.

Improve it? Sure. How?

"Alter it's (sic) holy bible". Firstly, how would that help? It is a largely historical document showing where AA came from and how early success was achieved. A lot has changed since then and as I said earlier, many many local members have far longer sobriety than any of the founders. Neither Bill or Bob ever suggested they had the first or last word on recovery; they - like everyone else - simply explained what worked for them.

JREF is a de facto atheist organization, though not a de jure one.
AA seems to be a de jure theist/religious/spiritual organization, though not a de fact one.

That being said, I bet you'd find less religious discussion at an AA meeting, than at a JREF one.

Tha would be my experience too.

Which, I suppose, is grand if you're the type of addict who doesn't care whether he's being idiotic or not. If you do, I'd think chances are AA is not the place for you.

Is it more idiotic for the alcoholic to drink themselves to death rather than actually try AA?
Is it more idiotic for someone to gamble, drink or drug their income before feeding the family than trying AA?
Is it more idiotic to wet the bed each night than try AA?
Is it more idiotic to soil ones pants frequently than to try spirituality?
Is it more idiotic to lose one's job and livelihood through drink rather than try AA?
Is it more idiotic (aside - I could go on all day here - to continue to drink and drive with children in the car than give AA a go.
Is it more idiotic for the addict to steal from family, friends and strangers that to try 12 step fellowships?
Is it more idiotic to sell one's body to get drug money than try AA?

Seriously, what is the more idiotic?

And, maybe, when you are an addict you shouldn't care all that much about looking like an idiot. (Maybe you already do, anyway, I don't know.) But that boils down to an "it's better than nothing" approach, and the actual numbers don't seem to be supporting that, even.

So nothing is better than something? Gotcha.

Hang on, what?

 

[Dymanic]

Dynamic - You're comparing apples and oranges to no effect.

Complexity - You're arguing from bald assertion to no effect.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Complexity - You're arguing from bald assertion to no effect.

It does that a lot I've noticed.

 

[Rasmus]

Is it more idiotic for the alcoholic to drink themselves to death rather than actually try AA?
Is it more idiotic for someone to gamble, drink or drug their income before feeding the family than trying AA?
Is it more idiotic to wet the bed each night than try AA?
Is it more idiotic to soil ones pants frequently than to try spirituality?
Is it more idiotic to lose one's job and livelihood through drink rather than try AA?
Is it more idiotic (aside - I could go on all day here - to continue to drink and drive with children in the car than give AA a go.
Is it more idiotic for the addict to steal from family, friends and strangers that to try 12 step fellowships?
Is it more idiotic to sell one's body to get drug money than try AA?

Seriously, what is the more idiotic?

Right now, only your logical fallacies that you can't seem to be doing without. might I suggest a twelve steps program against those?

So nothing is better than something? Gotcha.

Yes. If it is true, as others have suggested here, that AA offers no benefits over simply quitting cold turkey by yourself, then AA would actually be counter productive in at least some cases.

AA could never help me, because I can't stand dishonest and anti-intellectual ******** and I can't stand religion - both of which AA seems to be supplying in generous amounts. So chances are that AA would only add to the list of my problems rather than be part of a solution.

Good thing I'm not an addict, then, Well, even if I was, it wouldn't matter since I could just do something other than AA. Or nothing at all.

Did you watch the linked Penn and Teller Videos? I like the one-step-program: Just quit drinking.

 

[Dymanic]

Of course. People here tend to care about being right or wrong.

Heh. Yow. Er, uh... yeah. Sure said a mouthful there, you did.

And, maybe, when you are an addict you shouldn't care all that much about looking like an idiot.

One way I've heard it expressed in AA is that you can't always save your ass and your face at the same time. It may also be helpful for the addict (if you insist) to have it pointed out that getting puking-on-your-shoes drunk at important social functions may not be the best way to impress others with one's intelligence and sophistication either. What is perhaps most pertinent to this discussions is that tips like those have nothing to do with religion. To the extent that AA is "religious', it sure isn't all religious. You take what you can use, you leave the rest.

 

[Malerin]

A rabbi, a voodoo priestess, and a yogi are out on a lake fishing; is that a religious organization, either de facto or de jure? In my opinion it is not, because being either would require that it be, at least to some degree, an organized religion; there would have to be at least some shared religious beliefs.

Even in your example, there are shared religious beliefs: they all believe in the supernatural (I assume the Yogi does). Now, are they starting an organization of some sort, dedicated to a common purpose (e.g., staying sober, debunking "woo", etc)?

I agree that critical thinking is implicitly biased toward atheism; the lack of evidence for the existence of supernatural beings seems to me to make atheism the reasonable default (Occam's razor and all that), and therefore in a venue where the highest value is placed on evidence, it would be surprising not to see a consensus favoring atheism, whether that was embraced as official policy or not.

Atheism, maybe (though there are plenty of critical thinkers who are theists) Militant atheism of the type expressed here? That's as much a religious attitude as the people who come to my door on certain Sundays handing out tracts.

Interesting point. I was going to say that the difference is probably more a matter of quality than quantity, but the more I think about it the more I think you may be right.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

As I think I may have mentioned above, the AA group generally tends to be mostly uninterested in the details of one person's beliefs, and a member rambling on at length about that may (or may not) notice people getting fidgety, yawning, or even walking out of the room (it's not unusual for a few people to come and go during the course of a meeting anyway, but if you can't hold the room, it may be that you need to revise your material). If it starts to sound too much like proselytizing, the droner-on may even find himself cut off by the chairperson.

In other words, they don't care about God, they care about staying sober. I've never been to a meeting (ironically, I type that as I drink my 3rd beer of the day), but they don't sound like a religious organization. Maybe they were at one point, like Unitarians?

By contrast, the JREF forum often features lengthy and very heated discussions on the minutest details of one person's beliefs, with many of the participants apparently very motivated to dissuade that person from continuing to hold those beliefs. In more than twenty years, I have never seen anything remotely like that in an AA meeting. In AA, the highest value is placed on results. If you're clean and sober and claim that your higher power is a doorknob, then everybody's just happy that that's working for you even if they themselves think it's completely idiotic.

Very true, and not what you generally find in an overtly religious setting.

(Note: as a critical thinker, I too would question the post hoc ergo propter hoc assumption implicit in that, and I'll state for the record that I am not here advocating AA; I went to AA, and I stayed sober, but I can't claim that as evidence for the effectiveness of AA because the experiment uses a sample size of one and includes no control group).

It was effective for you, right?

 

[Malerin]

Right now, only your logical fallacies that you can't seem to be doing without. might I suggest a twelve steps program against those?



Yes. If it is true, as others have suggested here, that AA offers no benefits over simply quitting cold turkey by yourself, then AA would actually be counter productive in at least some cases.

AA could never help me, because I can't stand dishonest and anti-intellectual ******** and I can't stand religion - both of which AA seems to be supplying in generous amounts. So chances are that AA would only add to the list of my problems rather than be part of a solution.

Good thing I'm not an addict, then, Well, even if I was, it wouldn't matter since I could just do something other than AA. Or nothing at all.

Did you watch the linked Penn and Teller Videos? I like the one-step-program: Just quit drinking.

Just stop being an asshat? Easier said than done...

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Right now, only your logical fallacies that you can't seem to be doing without. might I suggest a twelve steps program against those?

Dodges noted

Yes. If it is true, as others have suggested here, that AA offers no benefits over simply quitting cold turkey by yourself, then AA would actually be counter productive in at least some cases.

You give the "suggested" of others. Hypocrite: where are your facts, sir?

AA could never help me, because I can't stand dishonest and anti-intellectual ******** and I can't stand religion - both of which AA seems to be supplying in generous amounts. So chances are that AA would only add to the list of my problems rather than be part of a solution.

Good thing I'm not an addict, then, Well, even if I was, it wouldn't matter since I could just do something other than AA. Or nothing at all.

Yes is fortunate for us all that you are a perfectly balanced reasonable, clear sighted and tolrant individual, and not an addict.
In actual fact, I believe you speak from a position of hatred of religion, intolerance and ignorance.

Did you watch the linked Penn and Teller Videos? I like the one-step-program: Just quit drinking.

No I didn't see it. I was also unaware they were at the cutiing edge of professionals in the field.


I also note that you fail to respond to any questions I put to you. Not that you would care, but the ignore button is looming fast.

 

[godofpie]

I wonder if you concur with the agreement Pup and I reached above that JREF is an atheist organization in much the same sense, and to much the same extent, that AA is a religious organization.

If so, I wonder if you experience the same sense of outrage upon reading this statement by James Randi himself:
"I want this fully understood: the James Randi Educational Foundation is not an atheist organization...""

QFT
Nail meet head. It's cool though. We all have our skeptical blind spots.
I thought of an analogy the other day. Who remembers "A Few Good Men."?
The scene that I refer to is in the military trial where the defense attorney (Kevin Bacon as ROSS)tries to sabotage the prosecutor’s (Tom Cruise as KAFEE) whole strategy by attempting to deny that a ‘code red’ even exists. Here is the relevant part out of the script:

ROSS takes three books out of his briefcase and puts them on
the table. He brings one to HOWARD.

ROSS
Corporal Howard, I hold here The Marine
Guide and General Information Handbook for
New Recruits. Are you familiar with this
book?

HOWARD
Yes sir.

ROSS
Have you read it?

HOWARD
Yes sir.

ROSS
Good.
(hands him the book)
Would you turn to the chapter that deals
with code reds, please.

HOWARD
Sir?

ROSS
Just flip to the page in that book that
discusses code reds.

HOWARD
Sir, you see, Code Red is a term we use–
it’s just used down at GITMO, sir. I
don’t know if it actually–

ROSS has produced another book.

ROSS
We’re in luck, then. The Marine Corps
Guide for Sentry Duty, NAVY BASE
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I assume we’ll find
the term code red and its definition in
this book, am I correct?

HOWARD
No sir.

ROSS
No? Corporal Howard, I’m a marine. Is
their no book, no manual or pamphlet, no
set of orders or regulations that let me
know that, as a marine, one of my duties
is to perform code reds?

HOWARD
(pause)
No sir. No books, sir.

ROSS
No further questions.

ROSS sits. KAFFEE walks over to ROSS‘s table and picks
up one of the books. He brings it to HOWARD.

KAFFEE
Corporal, would you turn to the page in
this book that says where the enlisted
men’s mess hall is?

HOWARD
Lt. Kaffee, that’s not in the book, sir.

KAFFEE
I don’t understand, how did you know where
the enlisted men’s mess hall was if it’s
not in this book?

HOWARD
I guess I just followed the crowd at chow
time, sir.

KAFFEE
No more questions.

KAFFEE chucks the book back on ROSS‘s desk.

Just because it's not in the book doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The literature is a small part of AA. The big book and a fair amount of the literature is dogmatic, just like religion, but those of you that continue to try and pigeon hole AA Alfie because he can't provide hard evidence of his claims refuse to accept reality.
AA worked for this atheist and countless others.
AA keeps 0 records.
AA could care less weather or not courts send convicted criminals to it or not.
AA is to god
What the JREF is to atheism.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Bravo Sir
Well said.