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

[Dymanic]

Embracing AA's core doctrine - that being Bill's claim that except in very rare, unheard of cases, it is impossible to get and maintain sobriety unless one develops a concious contact with a 'higher power' - no, that did not work for me.

That didn't work for me either; certainly not for any definition of "conscious contact" that I could accept as both meaningful and sane. On the advice that all that was required was a willingness to believe, I tried. What that effort led me to was a realization that belief is not a choice; it resides at a level I don't have access to. I cannot give AA credit for making me into an atheist; I started out as an atheist. AA simply helped me to get comfortable with that.

socializing/relearning how to be part of a social group - these are what worked for me

I think that's what worked for me as well. Or, as marlots puts it above:

In my opinion, to the extent AA helps someone, it is dependent on a sense of community, the AA group itself.

I say "I think", because I've come to see both addiction and recovery as rather complex, the oft-heard claim that AA is a simple program notwithstanding. People often have interesting and detailed explanations for why something does or doesn't work for them; a job, or a relationship, for example. But the other person (the employer or the S.O. -- or the ex-employer or S.O.) may questionn the accuracy of those insights. I think recovery is like that. Abstinence does not automatically equal success, and relapse does not automatically equal failure, and as helpful as it might be to be able to put a finger directly on the causes for one or the other, it's rarely very easy to do so.

What seems most relevant to the OP of this thread is the question of the extent to which AA may be considered to be something more than what you refer to as its "core doctrine" (defining "doctrine" as something like: a body of knowledge to be accepted and absorbed without critical thought). Unless I have misunderstood, and you did your "socializing/relearning how to be part of a social group" somewhere other than AA, you seem already to have conceded that AA is more than mere doctrine.

I suggest everyone interested in what AA doctrine really says about 'higher powers' read Chapter 4, as in it Bill quite clearly states that using the group as a higher power is only meant as a small start - a first step - to developing a relationship with god, and is not meant as a final choice.

Bill W's memory is much cherished, and his words often quoted, but (as Alfie has pointed out) his take on a particular point is no more regarded as the final word on the matter than is Darwin's on some point related to evolutionary theory. In my view, it's one of the main things that disqualifies AA as a "cult". But I have a bigger problem with your statement: I cannot find in chapter 4 of the Big Book anything remotely resembling the statement you claim is there.

 

[Dancing David]

??

here ya go!

You are half right here.
Alcoholism is not a choice, drinking is. One will rarely know of they are going to be an alcoholic until it is too late.



Hobbies become obsessive, not addictive - the word addictive is being misused here. Hobbies are a mental obsession only. Addiction is the physical dependance coupled with the mental obsession.
The physical dependance is the what moves it from (say) a mental disorder to a disease.

I hope that helps clear things up.

Um, no.

It is the behavior that defines addiction, physical withdrawal symptoms are not needed. Now I know that you have probably been trained or something, but you are wrong in that.

There is addiction, there is addiction, there is no 'disease addiction', there is no 'psychological addiction' there is addiction.

Symptoms of physical withdrawal are NOT needed, this is the crazy thinking that led many people to believe 'cocaine is not addictive'.

And your nomenclature is way messed up, some 'mental disorders' are diseases, some are not . But addiction is a mental health issue, it is not a 'disease' in the most common usage of the word.

Now since you are from Aussieland you are more likely to use the ICD-10

Here is the qualifier for *.2 dependence

.2 Dependence syndrome
A cluster of behavioural, cognitive, and physiological phenomena that develop after repeated substance use and that typically include a strong desire to take the drug, difficulties in controlling its use, persisting in its use despite harmful consequences, a higher priority given to drug use than to other activities and obligations, increased tolerance, and sometimes a physical withdrawal state.

The dependence syndrome may be present for a specific psychoactive substance (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, or diazepam), for a class of substances (e.g. opioid drugs), or for a wider range of pharmacologically different psychoactive substances.

Note the ‘sometimes a physical withdrawal state’.

Now the DSM is similar BUT ‘symptoms of withdrawal’ are not a requirement for addiction.

And IN FACT you can be an ‘alcoholic’ and NOT have any symptoms of withdrawal.

And ALL psychoactive substances do WHAT? They cross the blood brain barriers and all people who have addictions that are not to substances have physical brains, they are ALL 'mental disorders'.

Addiction is a behavioral disorder is may or may not have biological vulnerabilities, it may or may not have withdrawal syndromes, BUT they are behavioral.

 

[Tinyal]

But I have a bigger problem with your statement: I cannot find in chapter 4 of the Big Book anything remotely resembling the statement you claim is there.

I will answer the other questions you brought up in this post shortly, in another reply I am composing, but wanted to answer this one about Chapter 4 'We Agnostics' first, as that particular chapter is one of the worst in the entire book - it's full of misleading information, false & poor analogies, logical falacies, and outright lies.

The quote I was referring to is actually the very end of chapter 3, not chapter 4. That quote is the following:

"Once more: The alcoholic at certain times has no effective mental defense against the first drink. Except in a few cases, neither he nor any other human being can provide such a defense. His defense must come from a Higher Power. "

Chapter 4 proceeds to define 'higher power' as god, then - as the book progresses - the judeochristian God.

More stupid quotes from chapter 4:

"If, when you honestly want to, you find you cannot quit entirely, or if when drinking, you have little control over the amount you take, you are probably alcoholic. If that be the case, you may be suffering from an illness which only a spiritual experience will conquer. "

"Well, that's exactly what this book is about. Its main object is to enable you to find a Power greater than yourself which will solve your problem. That means we have written a book which we believe to be spiritual as well as moral. And it means, of course, that we are going to talk about God. Here difficulty arises with agnostics. Many times we talk to a new man and watch his hope rise as we discuss his alcoholic problems and explain our fellowship. But his face falls when we speak of spiritual matters, especially when we mention God, for we have re-opened a subject which our man thought he had neatly evaded or entirely ignored. s"

<I have to comment here - notice in the last sentence that the AA program is directly claiming the only reason people are agnostic is because they've evaded or ignored god? Not a word about the extensive effort and research many (if not most) agnostics and atheists have gone through, only to discover, at the end, that there is absolutely no evidence of any god whatsoever? Slimy bullcrap writing, condenscing BS! Continuing with the direct quotes from AA's manual>

"We found that as soon as we were able to lay aside prejudice and express even a willingness to believe in a Power greater than ourselves, we commenced to get results, even though it was impossible for any of us to fully define or comprehend that Power, which is God. "<note here how AA is claiming any agnostic thoughts are the result of prejudice, not honest research. Of course thats what AA and bill w claim, since to bill, everyone who doesn't agree with him is prejudiced>


Reading this chapter should make any informed skeptic ill, it's so full of logical mistakes, bad analogy's, typical theist arguments that have been debunked for 1000's of years, outright lies about agnostics and atheists, etc. All to be expected from a narcissistic maniac like Bill (bob was even worse) who knew - they just knew!- it was their way or the highway.
Or their way or death.

And 'their way' is not only does the AA member need to find god to get - and stay - sober, but the member's family should convert also! More on what AA thinks the family should do in a day or so, when I have more time.

Sorry again the quote I was referring to was at the end of chapter 3, not chapter 4.

 

[Tinyal]

I see the AA supporters are still ignoring the fact that I posted the

information on actual studies previously in my posts. Since they appear to have a problem finding them, I'll place links here - these refer to the studies, court cases, data that show a 95% (or greater) failure rate for AA, etc: The following links do make for a bit of reading, but I urge everyone to read the following material if they are interested in learning more about the religious nature & cult aspects of AA.

One more thing I will repeat - and keep repeating until AA supporters either stop lying about what AA is, or stop intentionally lying about what I am asserting:


AA is flatly religious. Dozens of major courts have ruled AA is religious. AA's material is nearly completely religious. It appears to help the same people (around 5%) as get sober on their own willpower, those who are ready and willing to quit already - the same 5%, not additive. Another way to put that - doing nothing has the same failure / success rate as AA. And, if you are in a group that doesn't use the 12 steps, the big book, or the 12x12 as written, and you are sober - great!! But stop claiming such a thing is an AA group - if it's not religious & spiritual, it's not AA..if god and the higher power is removed from your program & group, it's not AA - it's something else. If it's worked for you, well then I'm happy for you - but stop claiming it's AA.

AA's Failure Rate
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters62.html#coins

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters181.html#Green

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters178.html#success

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters177.html#what_works

The Effectiveness of the 12 Steps
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html

 

[marplots]

I feel enough pages have passed that I can repeat myself.

I have seen many excellent critiques of the AA methodology and evidence to make the case that AA is religious/faith-based in nature.

BUT, as the OP asks, "Why do they insist it isn't religious?"

 

[tsig]

I feel enough pages have passed that I can repeat myself.

I have seen many excellent critiques of the AA methodology and evidence to make the case that AA is religious/faith-based in nature.

BUT, as the OP asks, "Why do they insist it isn't religious?"

It's part of their creed.

 

[marplots]

It's part of their creed.

Can you expand on that? Do you mean it falls under the "all are welcome" bit? I only ask because many religions have that as well and do not deny they are religious.

 

[ArchieGoodwin]

I feel enough pages have passed that I can repeat myself.

I have seen many excellent critiques of the AA methodology and evidence to make the case that AA is religious/faith-based in nature.

BUT, as the OP asks, "Why do they insist it isn't religious?"

I find it interesting that you replaced the word "people" in the OP with the word "they." I suppose if I try to answer the OP i'm going to be one of "them" but here goes...

In my personal experience only, I found AA useful and no more religious than any other organization here in the deep south. Which is to say there's more religion in it than I care for but it is easy to ignore. For me.

By the way, I don't "insist" on it, at all.

 

[Dymanic]

...wanted to answer this one about Chapter 4 'We Agnostics' first, as that particular chapter is one of the worst in the entire book - it's full of misleading information, false & poor analogies, logical falacies, and outright lies.

You may be surprised to hear that I actually agree with that. It is often assumed that those chapters were written by Bill W himself, but that is just as often disputed. Whoever wrote it was clearly not very well versed in either theology or philosophy, because I find most of the arguments laughable, and always have.

All to be expected from a narcissistic maniac like Bill (bob was even worse) who knew - they just knew!- it was their way or the highway.

I agree with that as well. What's worse is that there are still plenty of AA members who take the same approach. I find it relatively easy to overlook when it reflects the type of rigidity in thinking that typifies the newly recovering alcoholic, not the least reason being that I've so often seen it appear to work. As an alternative to the chaotic, antisocial existence of the active alcoholic, a formal, regimented approach may be just the ticket. For a while. But I feel sorry for those who never progress beyond that as the years pass by (as well as for those upon whom they attempt to inflict their rigidity). I think the take-home message is that no one person defines what AA is for anyone but himself. The door opens right out onto the street, and there's no telling what sort of maniac may wander in. I've encountered people in AA who were off on all kinds of weird trips; not just religious trips. It hardly seems reasonable to expect anything else, considering the reason for AA existing in the first place. It doesn't have to be an obstacle.

 

[Dymanic]

I feel enough pages have passed that I can repeat myself.

I have seen many excellent critiques of the AA methodology and evidence to make the case that AA is religious/faith-based in nature.

BUT, as the OP asks, "Why do they insist it isn't religious?"

I guess that means that enough pages have passed that I can also repeat a question I asked earlier: Why do JREFers (James Randi in particular) insist that the JREF is not an atheist organization?

 

[Dancing David]

The main problem with research into relapse prevention is that they need to be longitudinal and comprehensive. You would need to do a long term study of substance users and then do a post hash out on the factors that support not dependant vs. dependant.

So first many studies are only a year long, which si evry short term in substance dependance, and then I believe there are other factors that support non-dependance.

I really like the Big Choice "I choose not to use."

 

[tsig]

Can you expand on that? Do you mean it falls under the "all are welcome" bit? I only ask because many religions have that as well and do not deny they are religious.

BUT, as the OP asks, "Why do they insist it isn't religious?"
It's part of their creed.

Irony was my intention. Missed by that ll much.

 

[godofpie]

information on actual studies previously in my posts. Since they appear to have a problem finding them, I'll place links here - these refer to the studies, court cases, data that show a 95% (or greater) failure rate for AA, etc: The following links do make for a bit of reading, but I urge everyone to read the following material if they are interested in learning more about the religious nature & cult aspects of AA.

One more thing I will repeat - and keep repeating until AA supporters either stop lying about what AA is, or stop intentionally lying about what I am asserting:


AA is flatly religious. Dozens of major courts have ruled AA is religious. AA's material is nearly completely religious. It appears to help the same people (around 5%) as get sober on their own willpower, those who are ready and willing to quit already - the same 5%, not additive. Another way to put that - doing nothing has the same failure / success rate as AA. And, if you are in a group that doesn't use the 12 steps, the big book, or the 12x12 as written, and you are sober - great!! But stop claiming such a thing is an AA group - if it's not religious & spiritual, it's not AA..if god and the higher power is removed from your program & group, it's not AA - it's something else. If it's worked for you, well then I'm happy for you - but stop claiming it's AA.

AA's Failure Rate
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters62.html#coins

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters181.html#Green

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters178.html#success

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters177.html#what_works

The Effectiveness of the 12 Steps
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html

Have you actually read the crap that you post? The Orange Papers!?!?!?!?!?!?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Did you see how he arrived at his numbers!?!?!? Yea, real scientific. Try working on that resentment. You might feel better.

 

[tsig]

I guess that means that enough pages have passed that I can also repeat a question I asked earlier: Why do JREFers (James Randi in particular) insist that the JREF is not an atheist organization?

The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

The Foundation's goals include:

* Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards.
* Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.
* Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.
* Assisting those who are being attacked as a result of their investigations and criticism of people who make paranormal claims, by maintaining a legal defense fund available to assist these individuals.




I don't see "promote atheism" in there or any requirement that only atheists can join.

 

[calebprime]

Have you actually read the crap that you post? The Orange Papers!?!?!?!?!?!?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Did you see how he arrived at his numbers!?!?!? Yea, real scientific. Try working on that resentment. You might feel better.

For us lurkers, will you simply say what's wrong with this?

That is, put it in the form of an assertion, save me some time?

(I'm multitasking)

eta: In particular, at first glance the Vaillant study seems to show no benefit for his method of choice. Is there something wrong with it?

 

[Malerin]

The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

The Foundation's goals include:

* Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards.
* Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.
* Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.
* Assisting those who are being attacked as a result of their investigations and criticism of people who make paranormal claims, by maintaining a legal defense fund available to assist these individuals.




I don't see "promote atheism" in there or any requirement that only atheists can join.

Does AA promote religion? If so, which one? Is there a requirement that only religious people can join?

As for JREF, are most members here atheists? Is atheism vigourously argued for and defended? Are non-atheists put down and ridiculed?

This goes back to the de facto/de jure distinction. JREF may not be a de jure atheist organization. It sure is a de facto one.

 

[Tinyal]

And off we go again with the personal attacks....

Have you actually read the crap that you post? The Orange Papers!?!?!?!?!?!?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Did you see how he arrived at his numbers!?!?!? Yea, real scientific. Try working on that resentment. You might feel better.

<sigh> I expect nothing less than baseless personal attacks from theists, whether in or out of AA. That's all you've got, as regardless of whether or not you agree with Orange's conclusions, those links lead to many other researchers & studies and all those agree with Orange. You haven't a clue who Dr. George Valiant is, do you?
Of course not.
I'll even give you the courtesy of answering your (dumb) question,which is more than I got from you: Yes, I read every word of the links I post, and much I can quote from multiple readings.

 

[Tinyal]

You may be surprised to hear that I actually agree with that. It is often assumed that those chapters were written by Bill W himself, but that is just as often disputed. Whoever wrote it was clearly not very well versed in either theology or philosophy, because I find most of the arguments laughable, and always have.
I agree with that as well. What's worse is that there are still plenty of AA members who take the same approach. I find it relatively easy to overlook when it reflects the type of rigidity in thinking that typifies the newly recovering alcoholic, not the least reason being that I've so often seen it appear to work. As an alternative to the chaotic, antisocial existence of the active alcoholic, a formal, regimented approach may be just the ticket. For a while. But I feel sorry for those who never progress beyond that as the years pass by (as well as for those upon whom they attempt to inflict their rigidity). I think the take-home message is that no one person defines what AA is for anyone but himself. The door opens right out onto the street, and there's no telling what sort of maniac may wander in. I've encountered people in AA who were off on all kinds of weird trips; not just religious trips. It hardly seems reasonable to expect anything else, considering the reason for AA existing in the first place. It doesn't have to be an obstacle.

Thanks for your comments, much better than the juvenile personal attacks I typically receive (see below, for another example). On a side note, nearly all of the first 164 pages was personally written by Bill, there is solid proof of that (for instance, the memoirs of his wife, secretary, & mistress are all in agreement he wrote all of that - AA archives (which I've personally viewed several times, including archives which have never been publically released) also confirm that.

Another interesting tidbit - out of the ordinal 100 members of AA, did you know that just about 50 (1/2) of them died either drunk (not able to stay sober for more than a few years) or from alcoholism related causes? That was the first, last, and only time AA had a 50% or better success rate, it went downhill fast from that original group.

 

[tsig]

Does AA promote religion? If so, which one? Is there a requirement that only religious people can join?

As for JREF, are most members here atheists? Is atheism vigourously argued for and defended? Are non-atheists put down and ridiculed?

This goes back to the de facto/de jure distinction. JREF may not be a de jure atheist organization. It sure is a de facto one.

Is Latin your native language?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

here ya go!

Got it.
No offense taken DD.

I will answer the other questions you brought up in this post shortly, in another reply I am composing, but wanted to answer this one about Chapter 4 'We Agnostics' first, as that particular chapter is one of the worst in the entire book - it's full of misleading information, false & poor analogies, logical falacies, and outright lies.

One more thing I will repeat - and keep repeating until AA supporters either stop lying about what AA is, or stop intentionally lying about what I am asserting:

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters62.html#coins

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters181.html#Green

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters178.html#success

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters177.html#what_works

The Effectiveness of the 12 Steps
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html

<sigh> I expect nothing less than baseless personal attacks from theists, whether in or out of AA. That's all you've got, as regardless of whether or not you agree with Orange's conclusions, those links lead to many other researchers & studies and all those agree with Orange. You haven't a clue who Dr. George Valiant is, do you?
Of course not.
I'll even give you the courtesy of answering your (dumb) question,which is more than I got from you: Yes, I read every word of the links I post, and much I can quote from multiple readings.

You seem to give an awful lot weight to the opinions of a handful of people (i.e. Bill, Bob and Orange). Each are simply individuals with their own opinions and experience. None of them is or has the last word. Why you keep rolling out the Bill and Orange as proof of anything is beyond me to be honest - it is tedious and pointless.

The first two lines of the Organge paper website confirms same:

THE ORANGE PAPERS
One Man's Analysis of Alcoholics Anonymous....

This nutter has the final word? Please!
Perhaps he is in denial and is justifying his disease? If nothing else he's probably obsessive compulsive, filled with resentment, hate and revenge. Poor fellow, I feel sorry for him that his life has to be about bringing others down rather than helping (himself and) other up.


You need to prove to us AA is religious, not by using one man's opinions but by showing what religion, what god, what tenets etc are required.

And I repeat:
- Tradition Three: The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking
- The 12 steps are "suggested".
- Where does AA say it has the first and last word on recovery?

And btw, to you and others - I am still waiting on some stats for other forms of recovery that can add to our 5% "just stopped" and AAs 9%.

Another interesting tidbit - out of the ordinal 100 members of AA, did you know that just about 50 (1/2) of them died either drunk (not able to stay sober for more than a few years) or from alcoholism related causes? That was the first, last, and only time AA had a 50% or better success rate, it went downhill fast from that original group.

Good point.
It actually shows us a number of things, but also raises some questions you might like to answer:
- The disease is cunning baffling and powerful.
- For far too many, it is "stop drinking or die". Most alcoholics can't do that alone, (that is the true strength of AA in my opinion). Alone we have to do it, but we don't have to do it alone.
- How many of these members who 'failed' followed the program from go to woe?
- Many of them were 'gutter drunks', out of hospital etc. i.e. Bill and Bob '12 stepped them from a very low rock bottom. Most AA walk ins these days have far higher rock bottoms, they are in a contemplative stage rather than (say) in a decision and/or action stage. They still have research to do.

There are more, but that will do for now.