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

[Dymanic]

Sure, the 12 Steps are just "suggestions", except that if you're not doing them, you're not doing AA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Sure, the 12 Steps are just "suggestions", except that "if you're not doing them, you're not doing AA*."

* as most straightforward AAer's will tell you. feel free to pass on the "Scotsman" link to them.

Fixed it.

In other words, they may be "suggestions", but the 12 Steps are ALL considered necessary for any measure of "success" within the definitions of the program (which rather begs the question of the "suggestive" nature of the Steps).

A lot of AAer's, like AAAlfie, will try to deny that their tenets are religious in nature and/or suggest that one can ignore the God-stuff if you want to, but AAAlfie is the first AA zealot I've ever heard that has suggested that you can ignore the 12 Steps and still be "successful."

GB

 

[The Norseman]

I've got to jump in and agree with Gandalfs Beard (and probably the rest of him too, if it shows up).

In my experience, it has always been derisively scoffed at if you "worked your own program" even though they all stand around and exclaim "take what you want and leave the rest". Hmmm. Okay, I'll just take 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 12 and call it good. If I said that now, I'd get (especially from the old timers) grave looks and sad shakes of the head at my eventual (if not imminent) slide back into drug use. Frankly, I think the true power comes from those steps I just stated; they are action-oriented, focused on changing old, dysfunctional behaviors, and are a much healthier way of living life. Kinda reminds me of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in a way, just with free meetings and coffee.

Some of you may find this interesting, but I didn't actually fully 'out' myself as an atheist until I got sober. While in treatment, the whole god thing was irritating and I was seriously pissed off at reading the Chapter to the Agnostics because it was blatantly obvious to me that Bill (or whoever wrote that) had literally no idea what he was blathering on about.

My roommate not only happened to be a computer geek like myself, but also was a much more practiced atheist than I was. Our room assignment was completely random, BTW; we even arrived on the same day. He was a big help to me. There was someone there to share our little 'conspiracy' against all the bible-beaters. Anyway, when the counselors said that spirituality was different than god, was different from religion, I took that and ran with it. It was the last vestige of any woo remaining, but it did help me make the transition to full atheist.

Now that some time has gone by, I am turning a more sober and critical eye towards the program and I do get tired of all the god-talk that goes on in meetings that I attend. Heck, one meeting didn't close with the lord's prayer and it was kind of startling because the meetings in my area all close with the lord's prayer.

So, my point is "is AA religious?" You bet. Did I get help from AA? You bet. Am I now ready for something less religious, Big-Book Thumpy, in your face, if you're not workin' the steps you're not gonna maintain sobriety, support network... a big hell yeah.

 

[Belz...]

Yep. I know plenty.
One former sponsor of mine is now some 30 years sober - an atheist to boot.
Another man, 40 plus years - the is a theist.

The steps are suggested, not compulsory as can be clearly seen by tradition three.

Well, "I know a few people with only nine fingers" doesn't prove that humans don't have ten.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Worst metaphor ever!

 

[Belz...]

That's what everyone says when they hear or read a metaphor.

Your counter-argument doesn't impress me.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And your original was lucky to get any response, but there it is.

 

[Dymanic]

Sure, the 12 Steps are just "suggestions", except that "if you're not doing them, you're not doing AA*."

* as most straightforward AAer's will tell you. feel free to pass on the "Scotsman" link to them.

I won't deny that there are those in AA who would not only take that position but who would (if only tacitly) take the position that no one is "doing AA" who is not doing the steps exactly the same way they did them. These are often the same fanatics who would argue (or at least imply) that AA represents the only hope for recovery from alcoholism. But as a twenty-year veteran of AA and an atheist, I'm as much of a problem for them as I am for you, and for precisely the same reason. It may be worth noting that I never seem to hear any objections from anyone with more time in the program than I have.

In other words, they may be "suggestions", but the 12 Steps are ALL considered necessary for any measure of "success" within the definitions of the program

Being a mental giant is NOT a requirement for AA membership; individuals may consider lots of things. If I declare that I consider to be successful only those who limit their consideration of what is necessary (and while we're at it, sufficient) for their own success, does that redefine "success in AA"? If your answer is no, then why not?

A lot of AAer's, like AAAlfie, will try to deny that their tenets are religious in nature.

One of the things I've often found the most obnoxious in fundamentalists is an inability to appreciate how an atheist could possibly have a sense of morality -- lacking, as he does, a prescribed code of ethics. Without such a sense, how could an atheist know whether his actions were wrong? How could he know what he needed to make amends for? What could possibly motivate him to make the effort to try to help others? After all, these are religious tenets, are they not?

AAAlfie is the first AA zealot I've ever heard that has suggested that you can ignore the 12 Steps and still be "successful."

The point at issue is whether one can do that and still be a member of AA.

 

[Belz...]

And your original was lucky to get any response, but there it is.

Yes, how silly of me to expect you to understand it.

 

[AlBell]

I don't mean that people can't help you to reach your goals, but ultimately, YOU are the one making the steps towards recovery, not some imaginary higher power.

We should define 'YOU', perhaps.

Nearly all, if not completely all, the behaviors performed by your brain/body systems are beyond any conscious (can we say ego?) control.

"YOU" are just along for the ride. That sounds like a higher power to 'YOU" as I see things, and I don't see that as imaginary.

As to your comment on 'addiction and mental illness' rather than alcoholism, AA groups I've attended tend to relate to drunks like themselves. People that have other addiction problems are welcomed, but tend to remain outsiders to group dynamics.

NA groups I've been to tend to have very different personalities and dynamics.

AA takes no position on mental illness, and a drunk schizophrenic would be treated as just another drunk assuming his behavior at a meeting was not highly disruptive.

 

[laursaurus]

Alcoholics use any excuse to keep drinking.
"I refuse to go to AA because it's a religious cult" is by no means limited to atheists. Plenty of believers find the same argument conveniently changes the topic of conversation. Instead of acknowledging the serious nature of his/her deadly self-destructive behavior, switch to an endless argument about something comparatively trivial. An introductory level sociology course quickly disqualifies the definition of "cult."

Would there be even a slight hesitation to drink the favorite type of liquor from a bottle because the label contains that word with a capital G? Or if the winery was founded by an order of nuns? If the best place to hide the stash was inside or behind a Bible (or even an AA big book), doesn't bother an atheist's conscience.
Nope! Those treasured critical thinking skills fail to produce logical actions for an alcoholic.
When a JW refuses a life-saving blood transfusion, the self-proclaimed skeptic quickly points out the senseless risks. When a child dies because his parents believe that prayer is the sole intervention, it's negligent homicide. But they,themselves refuse the established standard treatment that physician's, psychiatrists, mental health professionals, social workers, etc officially endorse because of their deeply held anti-religious convictions. They continue to allow their families, loved-ones, and society suffer. I wonder if they are the same skeptics who denounce those who are unconvinced of CAGW as "deniers."
Anyway, AAAlfie and a few other patient souls have been tirelessly explaining the fact that AA welcomes and is effective even for atheists.
It's strange that the JREF forum obsesses on the topic of religion and a god that doesn't exist. But this long and redundant thread is remarkably similar to trying to argue with someone who's drunk.
Anyone in AA, understands that fear is the underlying emotion that drives irrational behavior. The majority of alcoholics have a big problem with God. But how is it possible for a fictitious being have any power over atheists? What are they afraid of?
(everything, that's why the need to self-medicate).
Back to the endless argument.........

 

[calebprime]

...AA ...is effective....

Evidence, in the form of studies?

 

[AlBell]

...AA ...is effective....

Evidence, in the form of studies?

Who cares? Have another drink.

ps. Given the 'strict anonymity' provision that is a central tenet of the program, how would you suggest a valid study be run?

 

[calebprime]

Is the Vaillant study--that was linked to previously--valid?

p.s. I don't drink.

Here's something that seems to mention some studies.

http://hamsnetwork.org/effective.pdf

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Alcoholics use any excuse to keep drinking.
"I refuse to go to AA because it's a religious cult" is by no means limited to atheists. Plenty of believers find the same argument conveniently changes the topic of conversation. Instead of acknowledging the serious nature of his/her deadly self-destructive behavior, switch to an endless argument about something comparatively trivial. An introductory level sociology course quickly disqualifies the definition of "cult."

Would there be even a slight hesitation to drink the favorite type of liquor from a bottle because the label contains that word with a capital G? Or if the winery was founded by an order of nuns? If the best place to hide the stash was inside or behind a Bible (or even an AA big book), doesn't bother an atheist's conscience.
Nope! Those treasured critical thinking skills fail to produce logical actions for an alcoholic.
When a JW refuses a life-saving blood transfusion, the self-proclaimed skeptic quickly points out the senseless risks. When a child dies because his parents believe that prayer is the sole intervention, it's negligent homicide. But they,themselves refuse the established standard treatment that physician's, psychiatrists, mental health professionals, social workers, etc officially endorse because of their deeply held anti-religious convictions. They continue to allow their families, loved-ones, and society suffer. I wonder if they are the same skeptics who denounce those who are unconvinced of CAGW as "deniers."
Anyway, AAAlfie and a few other patient souls have been tirelessly explaining the fact that AA welcomes and is effective even for atheists.
It's strange that the JREF forum obsesses on the topic of religion and a god that doesn't exist. But this long and redundant thread is remarkably similar to trying to argue with someone who's drunk.
Anyone in AA, understands that fear is the underlying emotion that drives irrational behavior. The majority of alcoholics have a big problem with God. But how is it possible for a fictitious being have any power over atheists? What are they afraid of?
(everything, that's why the need to self-medicate).
Back to the endless argument.........

Very nice Laursaurus.
Welcome aboard

Evidence, in the form of studies?

I have been asking for studies on the other forms of recovery for days and pages. Why haven't they yet been produced?

Given the 'strict anonymity' provision that is a central tenet of the program, how would you suggest a valid study be run?

They just don't get it, and because they don't, they think there is something hidden.

Why, in short (very short) for two reasons:
- the protection of the individual. Those new to recoverty alcoholics just wont turn up if they are or there is a possibility they will be identified publicly - they have a hard enough time admitting a problem in the first place.
- the protection of the fellowship and the future recovery of others.
Let's say a high profile person became the public face of AA (e.g. a prominent actor, sportsman or such) - what happens if they have a bust? - a very public bust. People will say things like " see! AA doesn't work, I'm not going. Things are hopeless and I have no chance at recovery ever". Obviously this could undermine the future chances of others as well as casting a negative or more doubtful light on AA in the larger public domain, whilst ignoring the many that do get recovery in the rooms.

 

[Dymanic]

Is the Vaillant study--that was linked to previously--valid?

Whether AA's effectiveness is zero, or one hundred percent, or somewhere in between, it's irrelevant to the question raised by the OP of this thread.

 

[calebprime]

Narrowly true, but it doesn't matter--threads can and do drift.

You could humor someone's curiosity.

Seems like a fairly basic question, and it wasn't hard to find some info, after all.

Also, to be a little more forthcoming, at JREF, factual discussions turn on evidence, as they ought to.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Whether AA's effectiveness is zero, or one hundred percent, or somewhere in between, it's irrelevant to the question raised by the OP of this thread.

Moreover it is an advertisement against AA to solicit alcoholics to buy their product rather than something else (i.e. AA). Whilst there is nothing necessarily invalid with that, it paints a very one sided view and could hardly be described as an unbiased study.

 

[Dymanic]

Narrowly true, but it doesn't matter--threads can and do drift.

It does matter. Discussions devolve into chaos when the participants collectively fail to distinguish that which is relevant from that which is irrelevant. In the absence of any argument which represents at least a token attempt at tying the question of whether AA is effective to the question of whether it is religious, it's not drift; it's a derail. Yes, that does happen -- and when it does, those who prefer to discuss the topic at hand (rather than any of the countless others that might arise tangentially) can and do ask for a return to that topic. Starting a new thread is always an option for those who prefer the tangent. The JREF forum does not consist of a single free-for-all thread in which we discuss everything all at once, and there's a reason for that.

Also, to be a little more forthcoming, at JREF, factual discussions turn on evidence, as they ought to.

Not merely on evidence, but also on the logic used in interpreting the evidence. In philosophical discussions -- that is, those involving the sorts of questions which, being presently outside the scope of empirical science, are likely to appear in a subforum titled "Religion and Philosophy" -- arguments sometimes have to stand solely on the merits of their logic. Presenting evidence not related to the subject at hand does not seem to me like the best way to demonstrate one's ability to either think or argue logically.

 

[Belz...]

Nearly all, if not completely all, the behaviors performed by your brain/body systems are beyond any conscious (can we say ego?) control.

Evidence ?

"YOU" are just along for the ride. That sounds like a higher power to 'YOU" as I see things, and I don't see that as imaginary.

Semantics. YOU is the sum of things that are your body. That's not a higher power, that's still you, no matter what percentage of your actions are due to your own choices. Your post is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.