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

[Dancing David]

This may be true but for me would be a dangerous way to think. It is a very short step from:

I did it I deserve the credit!

to:

Hey, I can control my drinking! 1 or 2 after work today won't hurt me, I got the willpower to handle it now...

Nope , you choose not to use. The will power can't be applied directly to the object of addiction.

 

[Dymanic]

Well AA Alfie, the members take them a little more seriously than that, it is one of the fanatic things about the members, along with "You will be in AA your whole life" and "Thou shalt seek no other help", "Thou shalt take no psychotropics", it is not official AA policy but it is just one of those consistent fanaticisms of many group members.

I certainly agree that one does often encounter that sort of fanaticism in AA, and that it can not only be a barrier to sobriety, but can be straight up dangerous. With luck, there will be someone else to provide the reminder that many AA members have obtained great benefit from seeking help outside AA, and that the related experiences of a bunch of drunks does not trump the advice of medical professionals.

The assumption I make whenever I hear someone say something to the effect that you have to do this or that is that they're really talking to themselves -- whether they realize it or not.

 

[Pup]

What it actually says is:
- "Here are the steps we took, which are suggested as a program of recovery:"
then step 1, 2 etc etc

How would you read that?

I'd read it as number 2 in my post #341, but I can imagine other people would read it as number 1. That's my point. Whatever way one individual person reads it isn't necessarily the "right" way--there will always be someone else who reads it the other way for equally valid reasons.

 

[AlBell]

This thread may drive some people to drink.

Luckily AA makes no distinction if you are or are not an atheist; take what you want, leave the rest. I hope atheist alcoholics that find nothing of use in AA find a path that suits them.

Participation in atheist dominated sites like this one gloss over the fact that the great majority of humans appear to have no problem with the possible existence of a higher power, and, if alcoholics, may find AA useful.

 

[ArchieGoodwin]

You forgot to mention that no treatment is just as effective as any treatment. That piece of advice saves them time, money and chairs that make your ass numb.

Only point I was making was that trying to quit is better than giving up. No treatment = doing it on your own, which is still a treatment of a sort compared to just giving in and drinking.

Wrong: yes, it has been studied and proven to the point where many multiple studies, using different methods, have come to the same conclusion. If you'd read the links I repeatedly have been providing and actually read them all the way through, this would be clear to you as well. Perhaps go back and look at my links? Who knows, you might find it enlightening - if not, well at least it's a free educational experience.

Just because I don't think your orange paper links settle the science does not mean I ignored them. I don't find them any more conclusive than all the studies which purport to show AA's positive success rate - and they are out there as well. It has not been proven scientifically one way or another (IMO) and your constant, repeated links to the same site do not make it so.

Ah, I think I might have had a reading mix-up. Right now I'm reading qayak's "no treatment" to mean cold turkey, which obviously isn't the same as giving up completely. I'm listing cold turkey as a treatment, even if it's not the same as any sort of program.

Trying anything to stop is, obviously, more effective than not trying anything to stop - even if you fail.

This is kind of what I meant earlier.

 

[qayak]

Participation in atheist dominated sites like this one gloss over the fact that the great majority of humans appear to have no problem with the possible existence of a higher power . . .

We are fully aware of what makes us atheists and that we are in the minority. That's hardly glossing over the fact. This whole site is dedicated to why people believe all sorts of things without evidence, or contrary to all evidence.

 

[ArchieGoodwin]

Well AA Alfie, the members take them a little more seriously than that, it is one of the fanatic things about the members, along with "You will be in AA your whole life" and "Thou shalt seek no other help", "Thou shalt take no psychotropics", it is not official AA policy but it is just one of those consistent fanaticisms of many group members.

"You have to work the steps", "Without the inventory you can't stop", now again I know that is not official policy but it is a very strong cultural value of the members of AA and one I find to be a barrier, just like the religious aspects. It is why I like DFD groups.

I am only chiming in because of my personal experience again, so of course take with a grain of salt. I've never heard most of these things and except for a few Jesus freaks I've never seen anything I would describe as fanatical.


I think maybe I need to move somewhere else so as to experience the full AA program because mine is missing all the important elements you guys say make up the program.

To be fair one of those statements is close. There is a lot of talk about working the steps. No one put it to me quite that way, saying I "had" to.

I have only been going to meetings since 2006 so maybe there were a lot of changes made before then.

 

[Tinyal]

This thread may drive some people to drink.

Pure Hogwash. 'Threads' do not drive anyone to do anything - people make decisions, decisions have consequences. Another fallacy AA drills into people through the steps - in one you are told you have no control ('We were powerless over alcohol') - that's bullcrap. Take some responsibility. Of course if you think you have no control whatever - that it's not your fault your hand is lifting yet another drink to your lips - then someone might actually believe a 'thread' will drive someone to drink. This sort of BS (summarized as 'turning one's Will & Life over' to a non-existent god is another restatement of one definition that fits cult-like religious behavior. Spoken like a True Believer.

Luckily AA makes no distinction if you are or are not an atheist; take what you want, leave the rest. I hope atheist alcoholics that find nothing of use in AA find a path that suits them.

Of course AA makes no distinction - AA itself (the organization in NY) hardly does anything distinctive or otherwise, other than publish books, set up conferences, and the like. It's the AA groups where such idiocy as the steps are driven into the members. How is this 'driven'? My concern (one of many, of course, as this thread shows) is that vulnerable people are shoved into AA and told stuff that isn't true .
This 'take what you want and leave the rest' was rarely heard in AA until the rise of the new age movement. The massive influx of new recruits driven to AA by supposedly non-affiliated 12 step treatment centers as well as the courts has resulted in all sorts of odd things heard at individual meetings, things which may be heard in one area but not in another (Australia, for instance, where some things may very well not be heard that I hear quite frequently in the US) . I've been to meetings all across the country over the decades, there are substantial local differences (Pacific Group anyone?), none of which changes NY's mind that the first 164 pages (and Bill's writings in general) are the unchangeable Word of AA - and members (such as I've seen all through this thread) start claiming 'Why change it if it works just fine & doesn't cause any harm?), ignoring completely the data that shows AA does not work, and in some cases is associated with more harm (binge drinking, for example) than good. Summarizing yet again : AA's 5% success rate , it's 95% failure rate, is exactly the same result one would get if one did no treatment at all. Added to the fact that AA teaches cult behavior and is heavily religious surely means that , as a 'treatment' modality costing people billions of dollars every year, it's a failure and should be completely overhauled, if not dropped completely, and all the wasted 12 step treatment center money (billions every year) should be directed to real research for a real 'treatment' that doesn't consist of religious conversion.
Dogma for breakfast anyone?

Participation in atheist dominated sites like this one gloss over the fact that the great majority of humans appear to have no problem with the possible existence of a higher power, and, if alcoholics, may find AA useful.

I don't particulary care what a 'great majority' of human beings think is useful, or true. I care about what is true, what is actually useful, what the data actually shows. You do know what an argument from popularity is I assume?

 

[Rasmus]

This thread may drive some people to drink.

Luckily AA makes no distinction if you are or are not an atheist; take what you want, leave the rest. I hope atheist alcoholics that find nothing of use in AA find a path that suits them.

Participation in atheist dominated sites like this one gloss over the fact that the great majority of humans appear to have no problem with the possible existence of a higher power, and, if alcoholics, may find AA useful.

no,

sceptics dominated sites like this simply point out that what you claim follows the exact logic of every homoeopath or psychic out there.

 

[qayak]

In other words, doing nothing is the same as doing something.

That is exactly what the study found . . . and technically, the no treatment group did slightly better at 37% while the two treatment types had a 32% and 33% success rate respectively.

Treatment by way of detox, rehab and maintenance (or a combination) will always be better than just stopping or continuing to drink.

One would intuitively think this but there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support it. There is also evidence that belonging to A.A. leads to a significant increase in binge drinking.

Also, my take on the "no treatment" is that people, for whatever reason, decide to stop and they do. Some make an effort to stop and some drink until one day they decide it's enough and quit cold turkey. Some even just cut down to the point of being social drinkers. Different strokes for different folks, as they say.

At some point a person has to look at the evidence and ask why A.A. hasn't changed to address any of these issues and why they find it necessary to perpetuate lies to keep membership up? That is, if A.A. is truly interested in helping alcoholics.

 

[qayak]

I don't particulary care what a 'great majority' of human beings think is useful, or true. I care about what . . . what the data actually shows.

Exactly. Follow the data, it's how skeptics should always make up their minds.

 

[ArchieGoodwin]

Exactly. Follow the data, it's how skeptics should always make up their minds.

So are you saying that science has weighed in and the issue is settled?

As someone who spent some time on the google looking for "the data", it appeared to be all over the map to me. Maybe I should ignore some studies and only look at the orange-papers...

 

[Dunstan]

Participation in atheist dominated sites like this one gloss over the fact that the great majority of humans appear to have no problem with the possible existence of a higher power, and, if alcoholics, may find AA useful.

If your position is that "yes, AA is religious, and that's ok because it can still serve the vast majority of the population," I have no issue with that. (There's still a discussion to be had about whether AA is effective even for the believers, of course.)

I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim that AA should become non-religious, out of some supposed duty to help 100% of the population. Rather, the debate is between those who claim that it already is non-religious, and those who dispute that.

 

[Drysdale]

To the naysayers...it works.

If you dont agree with it, dont go.
Not that hard a concept.

 

[Drysdale]

I guess to the OP though.

Religion can be defined many different ways.

There are some who believe atheism is a religion.

In a sense it's religious yes. I've known many drunks/addicts that curb the addiction thru AA/NA that dont believe in a God.

 

[calebprime]

To the naysayers...it works.

If you dont agree with it, dont go.
Not that hard a concept.

I guess to the OP though.

Religion can be defined many different ways.

There are some who believe atheism is a religion.

In a sense it's religious yes. I've known many drunks/addicts that curb the addiction thru AA/NA that dont believe in a God.

It's been argued that:
1) It doesn't work as well as no treatment at all.
2) Some people are ordered by courts to attend AA.
3) Statistics are hard to come by, however.
4) Cultish behaviour is pretty well-defined.
5) Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a religion.
6) The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence".

However, I'm sure we'd all agree with the rest of your points, were there any.

 

[Drysdale]

It's been argued that:
1) It doesn't work as well as no treatment at all.
2) Some people are ordered by courts to attend AA.
3) Statistics are hard to come by, however.
4) Cultish behaviour is pretty well-defined.
5) Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a religion.
6) The plural of anecdotes is not evidence.

However, I'm sure we'd all agree with the rest of your points, were there any.

Huh?

What is your point from that mismash?

 

[calebprime]

Huh?

What is your point from that mismash?

That everything you've said is wrong, point by point, and that you haven't read the thread.

 

[qayak]

One we haven't hit on in this thread is that A.A. and all 12 Step Programs are based on the disease model of alcoholism. There is no real evidence to suggest that this model is correct.

There are other programs out there that do not use this model and claim a higher success rate than A.A. Some of these claims result from studies done by independant researcher organization.

If the disease model is wrong, it stands to reason that A.A. would have no more success than one would expect from spontaneous remission, which is what the rate appears to be.

Perhaps it is a subject for another thread though.

Other claims that A.A. makes which turn out to be untrue by their own admission:

1- A.A. is completely funded by memeber contributions. (A.A. stated in their annual report that if they had to rely on member contributions there would be no A.A.)

2- A.A. does not own propery or concern itself with money. (There's the $10,000,000.00 slush fund and properties of various sorts.)

3- Etc.

 

[Rasmus]

To the naysayers...it works.

If you dont agree with it, dont go.
Not that hard a concept.

homoeopathy and psychics all over again ...