Addiction treatment and Faith Healing

iguana

I've been curious for a very long time about why the atheist/skeptic community is so quiet on the fact that the go-to treatment for addictions, the AA/NA/all 12-step rehabs are deeply religious. And unsurprisingly for faith healing, have appalling success rates (lower than "spontaneous remission") and incredibly high relapse rates.

These "treatments" are recommended by doctors, participation is often required by employers, adoption boards, transplant boards and in some countries, the courts. Even when people aren't pushed into these groups/facilities it is very, very hard to find alternatives. Any thread I've ever seen on boards where someone has looked for AA alternatives has been met with more posts urging them to give it a go as it's "spiritual, not religious" than posts providing alternatives.

Alcoholism alone is a massive killer, WHO estimates that more people die annually of alcohol abuse related problems than die of any single form of cancer. I can't imagine how high the outrage would be if the go-to treatment for finding a lump in your breast was to turn it over to a higher power who would take care of it if you wanted it enough. And even worse, this psycho-babble receives state funding, often in lieu of genuine treatments.

But worse than this much of the advice given by 12 step groups is dangerous nonsense and pseudo-science, often advising people in the worst possible ways. For example, family members/friends of addicts are also counselled that they have a disease just by virtue of caring about someone who is addicted to something and they can only heal by also following the steps.

I've been researching this for a number of years and the more I discover about how these groups work and the more testimonies I hear from people who've been badly hurt by these groups the more I'm disturbed by the near silence surrounding the use of the steps as default treatment (with the exception of Penn and Teller's wonderful 12 Step Bullshít!). Especially when there are numerous alternatives, many based on sound psychology and physiology and some with very encouraging results.

Is it just that most people think that addicts are silly idiots who don't deserve anything better than the spiritual path set in place nearly 80 years ago by a known fraudster? Or is it just that most people have no real idea what goes on in AA outside of the lovely peer support groups that are seen on television? I know that up until I was about 25 and one of my uncles developed a drinking problem I hadn't the slightest clue that AA was about God and it wasn't until half a decade later that I actually read the steps and realised just how God-based it was. And only after that did I start to realise how ineffective AA is and how deeply this philosophy is intertwined with state and professional institutions.

To anyone not familiar with the 12 Steps, 7 of them reference God/spiritualism.

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol – that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

The Mad Hatter

You might find some interesting stuff in this article by Roger Ebert, a sober alcoholic and atheist who quit through AA. I'm lucky in that I've never gone through an experience like this, nor has anyone close to me, but I found this compelling and dark reading.

The relevant bit:

Roger Ebert wrote:

The God word. The critics never quote the words "as we understood God." Nobody in A.A. cares how you understand him, and would never tell you how you should understand him. I went to a few meetings of "4A" ("Alcoholics and Agnostics in A.A."), but they spent too much time talking about God. The important thing is not how you define a Higher Power. The important thing is that you don't consider yourself to be your own Higher Power, because your own best thinking found your bottom for you. One sweet lady said her higher power was a radiator in the Mustard Seed [where the meetings were held], "because when I see it, I know I'm sober."

That said, I haven't heard (because I haven't looked for) flaws in the way the groups work, or testimonies from people for whom they've failed. I'd be interested in knowing more of what you're talking about there.

iguana

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You might find some interesting stuff in this article by Roger Ebert, a sober alcoholic and atheist who quit through AA. I'm lucky in that I've never gone through an experience like this, nor has anyone close to me, but I found this compelling and dark reading.

I've read quite a bit from atheists who worked AA but find those equally disturbing. If you look at that piece you quoted it has several bits that showcase some of the awful advice. "Your best thinking got you here" is a slogan used by AA to tell you you can not trust your own cognitive processes, that you can not trust yourself at all, because thinking is what made you an alcoholic. Which is backed up by Ebert's comment. That he himself must not take responsibility for his own actions.

I'd be interested in knowing more of what you're talking about there.

Well right off the bat there is a huge amount of sexual abuse and rape which happens within AA, especially to women and young gay men. The rooms are full of sexual predators as new members are highly vulnerable. This is extremely common and is known as 13th stepping. In fact AA founder Bill Wilson was so notorious at this the governing council had to hire people to keep him away from new female attendees at meetings. Partially due to Wilson's actions the AA set itself up that they were not accountable for the actions held in any meeting as the meetings are considered self-governing, while at the same time suing groups who deviate from their script for breaching their copyright. It's also habitual that members who do report being assaulted in group are coerced into "taking responsibility" for their own part in the incident. (This also happens to people who have been abused in their private lives, with their being many reports of people being told they must write amend letters to the adult who abused them as a child if the want to stay sober.)

Some links for starting off are http://stinkin-thinkin.com/2010/03/16/tell-us-your-story/comment-page-1/#comments and http://stinkin-thinkin.com/why-i-left-aa-stinkin-thinkin-stories/comment-page-1/#comments I used these as a starting off point after reading the Orange Papers but have since been talking to people personally which is where I've come across a lot of the more disturbing stories.

strobe

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

That said, I haven't heard (because I haven't looked for) flaws in the way the groups work, or testimonies from people for whom they've failed. I'd be interested in knowing more of what you're talking about there.

AA and the groups that use their 12 step system have been coming in for criticism as far back as the 1940's. Doctor Arthur Cain and sociologist Edward Sagarin would be two of the better known critics. Here is a copy of Arthur Cains article he wrote for Harpers in '63 http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-ahcain.html for which he came in for mountains of criticism from politicians and clerics and AA themselves along the lines of "if you have nothing nice to say then shut up".

The head of the addiction response programme which I attended as an addict and subsequently volunteered for in Tallaght for several years had nothing but scorn for their system. It's an attitude I've encountered from many others, both addicts and those working with them as well.

There are some good points to their system as well of course but, quite like with religions, the bad parts shouldn't be ignored.

The Mad Hatter

I didn't know any of that - thanks for the info. Damn, reality is depressing sometimes.

hiorta

There are many forms of addiction to choose from though the most commonly known are substance addiction.
The addict, once wanting to be free of the chains of addiction find it virtually impossible to achieve this, as it seems rooted in body, Mind and Soul. So few, if any, feel equipped to deal with, and overcome, such a commanding compulsion at these levels.
The various programmes mentioned seem to have a range of effectiveness in helping the individual break free of their addiction(s). Whether this can be attributed to a Religious or Spiritual belief would be a matter of debate, but to the addict, anything is worth a try. So if something should succeed in some cases, then more power to them
As far as I know, there is no claim to effect a 'cure' - which would appear to have varied facets, with the 'recovering' addict in a position of permanent respite - but if it helps even one individual (and let's not forget the families who suffer perhaps even more) to live independently of their chains, then isn't that worthwhile?

I have known and worked with a variety of folk who had a variety of beliefs and none, a range of education and social standing, also having achieved 'success' in everyday living, but all had something somewhere within them that the power to render them helpless at intervals.

The programmes seem to be able to assist the seeker to address the effects of their plight, without attempting to examine causes, and without reproach or proselytising.

Nothing seems to have a guarantee, whether it is presented as a god, a religion, or a suggested way of Life.

antiskeptic

iguana wrote: »

I've been curious for a very long time about why the atheist/skeptic community is so quiet on the fact that the go-to treatment for addictions, the AA/NA/all 12-step rehabs are deeply religious. And unsurprisingly for faith healing, have appalling success rates (lower than "spontaneous remission") and incredibly high relapse rates.

Someone else will have made the point about a 'higher' power not being confined to the spiritual.

I'm interested in this notion that the kind of people who end up in AA programmes (people who've reached the very bottom of the barrel in my limited experience) would be more likely to achieve remission spontaneously than through completing such a programme.

Surely the very absence of a spontaneously occurring remission figures in the person entering an AA programme?

strobe

antiskeptic wrote: »

Someone else will have made the point about a 'higher' power not being confined to the spiritual.

Surprisingly nobody has made that point yet, what with God or spirituality being mentioned 7 times in the 12 steps quoted in the OP. Unless you are going to try and go down the road of God and spirituality not being confined to the spiritual.

iguana

antiskeptic wrote: »

Surely the very absence of a spontaneously occurring remission figures in the person entering an AA programme?

What? There are actually quite high rates of spontaneous remission recorded. Long-term (as in over the course of 20 years) rates as high as 80% are seen. While the AA has a success rate lower than 5%.

There is a high rate of recovery among alcoholics and addicts, treated and untreated. According to one estimate, heroin addicts break the habit in an average of 11 years. Another estimate is that at least 50% of alcoholics eventually free themselves although only 10% are ever treated. One recent study found that 80% of all alcoholics who recover for a year or more do so on their own, some after being unsuccessfully treated. When a group of these self-treated alcoholics was interviewed, 57% said they simply decided that alcohol was bad for them. Twenty-nine percent said health problems, frightening experiences, accidents, or blackouts persuaded them to quit. Others used such phrases as "Things were building up" or "I was sick and tired of it." Support from a husband or wife was important in sustaining the resolution.
Treatment of Drug Abuse and Addiction — Part III, The Harvard Mental Health Letter, Volume 12, Number 4, October 1995, page 3.
(See Aug. (Part I), Sept. (Part II), Oct. 1995 (Part III).)

iguana

strobe wrote: »

Unless you are going to try and go down the road of God and spirituality not being confined to the spiritual.

Also many US courts have after long deliberation ruled that AA is indeed highly religious.

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?47+Duke+L.+J.+785

If AA is a religion, then it easily follows that the government may not order you to attend it. But is AA really a religion? The 2nd Circuit Court decision states that AA “placed a heavy emphasis on spirituality and prayer, in both conception and in practice,” that participants were told to “pray to God,” and that meetings began and adjourned with “group prayer.” The court therefore had “no doubt” that AA meetings were “intensely religious events.” Although some have suggested that AA is spiritual but not religious, the court found AA to be religious.

amacachi

Penn and Teller had a good episode on this, work tracking down.

Galvasean

A close family member of mine goes to AA. He's not religious in the slightest. According to him a 'higher power' is simply someone who can help you. It could be anyone.
But hey, I wouldn't knock it anyhow. It has helped him (and by extension me) to no end.

iguana

Galvasean wrote: »

A close family member of mine goes to AA. He's not religious in the slightest. According to him a 'higher power' is simply someone who can help you. It could be anyone.
But hey, I wouldn't knock it anyhow. It has helped him (and by extension me) to no end.

So you think that state recommended faith healing is ok then?

We all know that the placebo effect is a real thing. If faith healing was offered as the main treatment for cancer and a small number of people said it worked for them would that be ok? Or do you think that faith groups belong on the fringe of treatment and genuine medicine at it's centre?

The Mad Hatter

amacachi wrote: »

Penn and Teller had a good episode on this, work tracking down.

Tracked.

PDN

iguana wrote: »

So you think that state recommended faith healing is ok then?

We all know that the placebo effect is a real thing. If faith healing was offered as the main treatment for cancer and a small number of people said it worked for them would that be ok? Or do you think that faith groups belong on the fringe of treatment and genuine medicine at it's centre?

Tbh, as someone who tried AA and found it didn't suit me at all, I think referring to it as 'faith healing' is a huge stretch. The rather insipid and vague references I heard in AA to a higher power are light years away from what most people refer to as 'faith healing'. It's a bit like calling the people who produce the Angelus 'tele-evangelists'.

You might have more success attracting support for your campaign by dropping such rather hysterical abuse of language. Whether a secular State should promote programmes with overt religious references is a subject that merits serious discussion.

iguana

PDN wrote: »

You might have more success attracting support for your campaign by dropping such rather hysterical abuse of language. Whether a secular State should promote programmes with overt religious references is a subject that merits serious discussion.

7 of the 12 steps have to do with God, . The Big Book repeatedly states that AA doesn't cure alcoholism but instead teaches participants to walk a path which fills their spiritual deficiencies. Every meeting ends with the Serenity Prayer, most meetings in Ireland also finish with the Lord's Prayer (Our Father). In numerous American civil rights court cases AA meetings were found to be intensely religious. The AAWS are suing a German recovering alcoholic for a 7 figure sum because he removed the references to God. It is most certainly faith healing.

It may not involve the laying of hands but to deny that a programme which requires it's participants to have a spiritual awakening, humbly ask Him to remove their shortcomings, to turn the will and care of their lives over to him and to seek through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out is faith healing is ludicrous.

For too long people who know better have been in a denial about what 12 step programmes actually entail. The programme is extremely religious and while it helps some people and has it's place, the fact that it currently holds prime place is destructive.

stevoslice

the South Park season 9 episode "Bloody Mary" also gets it spot on!
worth tracking down as well, mad hatter get to work:)

Galvasean

iguana wrote: »

So you think that state recommended faith healing is ok then?

We all know that the placebo effect is a real thing. If faith healing was offered as the main treatment for cancer and a small number of people said it worked for them would that be ok? Or do you think that faith groups belong on the fringe of treatment and genuine medicine at it's centre?

You haven't had much hands on experience with AA have you?

strobe

Matt and Trey also addressed this is one of their better episodes.

http://www.xepisodes.com/southpark/episodes/914/Bloody-Mary.html

iguana

Galvasean wrote: »

You haven't had much hands on experience with AA have you?

I've had a huge amount of hands on experience with AA, al-anon and NA. I've spent years immersed in them, how they work and dealing personally with a number of people who have had horrific experiences with the groups.

Galvasean

iguana wrote: »

I've had a huge amount of hands on experience with AA, al-anon and NA. I've spent years immersed in them, how they work and dealing personally with a number of people who have had horrific experiences with the groups.

In that case your accusations of 'faith healing' are even more perplexing...

H1ppy

Galvasean wrote: »

You haven't had much hands on experience with AA have you?

Um, this is a great discussion so far, I'm finding it really interesting, but don't know enough to feel competent to add to it. Just wondering if ad-hom is the direction you want to take in this, is that constructive? I recommend talking about the subject, not the speakers.

iguana

Galvasean wrote: »

In that case your accusations of 'faith healing' are even more perplexing...

Ok, you're right. Just because you have never experienced something nobody else ever has, despite the fact that what I'm saying I've dealt with is in all of their literature*, and there are countless reports of people experiencing what I have, and a number of court cases which have drawn the same conclusion as I have.

* EG: “At the moment we are trying to put our lives in order. But this is not an end in itself. Our real purpose is to fit ourselves to be of maximum service to God…”
The Big Book, William G. Wilson, page 77.

Dave!

OP here's a relevant thread from the forum I mod...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055267192

hiorta

Surely any method that might return control of the individual's life to them, must be welcome?
Like most things, AA will evolve from its beginnings, particularly if it's programmes can be seen to be beneficial.

BTW. what is 'Faith Healing'?

Dave!

hiorta wrote: »

Surely any method that might return control of the individual's life to them, must be welcome?
Like most things, AA will evolve from its beginnings, particularly if it's programmes can be seen to be beneficial.

BTW. what is 'Faith Healing'?

Well the point is that it doesn't work, AA has terrible recovery rates, probably in no small part because of the methods it employs.

But the other point is that not everybody is religious, so if a court mandates that someone must go to AA (as opposed to some secular treatment facility), then it is discriminating against the non-religious.

AA has been around for over 50 years, so while I'm sure the religious content has been watered down since then, it's still present, so it needs to keep evolving if it is to be okay for a court to order someone to attend.

Don't act naive -- faith healing is the stuff that you and others perform on credulous religious people. If you're still confused, take a look at http://lmgtfy.com/?q=faith+healing

Dades

H1ppy wrote: »

Um, this is a great discussion so far, I'm finding it really interesting, but don't know enough to feel competent to add to it. Just wondering if ad-hom is the direction you want to take in this, is that constructive? I recommend talking about the subject, not the speakers.

And I recommend leaving the modding to the mods.

Iguana, obviously you are very close to this subject. That doesn't mean you can jump down the throat of someone who isn't in full agreement with every point you make.

A less defensive approach might garner you more support. Just sayin'.
Interesting thread, btw.

fatmammycat

I don't have any first has experience with AA, but surely entrusting your healing to a 'higher power' is a poor way to take responsibility for your actions? Or am I completely wrong in what AA asks of its followers?

hiorta

Dave! wrote: »

Don't act naive -- faith healing is the stuff that you and others perform on credulous religious people. If you're still confused, take a look at http://lmgtfy.com/?q=faith+healing

Dave, I know nothing of 'Faith Healing' - perhaps you are confusing it with Spiritual Healing?

I'd rather not go off topic, though.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

Iguana, obviously you are very close to this subject. That doesn't mean you can jump down the throat of someone who isn't in full agreement with every point you make.

A less defensive approach might garner you more support. Just sayin'.
Interesting thread, btw.

That's every bit as much my fault for coming in so dismissive in the first place.
Myself and Iguana have been talking via PM. As it turns out we're in not so different situations, just on the recieving end of very different outcomes.

Zombrex

thebhoy wrote: »

the South Park season 9 episode "Bloody Mary" also gets it spot on!
worth tracking down as well, mad hatter get to work:)

was thinking the same thing



I don't know much about AA, but as someone who has struggled with weight I don't like this idea that addiction is something beyond your control and you have to give yourself up to something else. Number 6 and 7 of the pledge are particularly troublesome

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

I'm overweight because I eat too much sugary foods. Sure I get blood sugar cravings, sure these are difficult and distracting. Sure I get a high from food, and not having this is difficult. But at the end of the day no one is forcing me to eat, I have to give into my cravings and the only way I lose weight is by not.

I think a far more productive realization is that yes actually it is all down to you and only you are going to get over it. Promoting the idea that addiction is something that happens to you I feel is unhelpful. It is something you do to yourself, and it is never going to get better until you are prepared to combat that.

iguana

fatmammycat wrote: »

I don't have any first has experience with AA, but surely entrusting your healing to a 'higher power' is a poor way to take responsibility for your actions? Or am I completely wrong in what AA asks of its followers?

You've got it almost right but it's not just your healing that the Steps require you to turn over to a higher power but your will and your life. The most basic idea behind the programme is that you must have a spiritual awakening which will shape your whole life in order to stop drinking. (Steps 2, 3, 6, 7, 11 and partly 12.)

Members are told that alcoholism is progressive which it very often is, an addict usually requires more and more of their drug of choice to achieve the same feeling and this has a more and more destructive influence on their life. But they are told that even after they stop drinking that the "disease" actually gets stronger and stronger so that if they step off the spiritual path their disease is ready and waiting and worse than it ever was. There is a slogan in AA which is often written on posters and hung up during meetings; "My diseases is outside doing push-ups in the car park." Which is to remind people of how their disease is progressing while they are sober and how much danger lies in leaving.

fatmammycat

I see, thank you for that. I had no idea.

Mark Hamill

Isn't one of scientologies main tactics to get followers to find out if people have personal issues (through those personality tests?) and then present scientology as the (only) way to deal with them? Pretty sure I read that somewhere. If true, it seems like they robbed the idea from Alcoholics Anonymous.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Isn't one of scientologies main tactics to get followers to find out if people have personal issues (through those personality tests?) and then present scientology as the (only) way to deal with them? Pretty sure I read that somewhere. If true, it seems like they robbed the idea from Alcoholics Anonymous.

They robbed the idea from pretty much every religion since Christianity

Step 1
There is something wrong with you (sin, alien souls, etc)

Step 2
You can't do anything about this on your own

Step 3
We have access to truth about how to do something about this

Step 4
You must submit to our religion, it cannot be fixed for you without doing this.

Step 5
You will feel a greater sense of purpose and positivity.

Most religions follow this basic template, probably because it works so darn well.

TwoShedsJackson

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I didn't know any of that - thanks for the info. Damn, reality is depressing sometimes.

Indeed. I hadn't heard of 13th stepping before, and the idea that people are using this service to prey on someone who is emotionally vulnerable is revolting.

Dades

iguana wrote: »

There is a slogan in AA which is often written on posters and hung up during meetings; "My diseases is outside doing push-ups in the car park." Which is to remind people of how their disease is progressing while they are sober and how much danger lies in leaving.

That is one clever piece of imagery.

nozzferrahhtoo

It is very difficult to be entirely dismissive of a group like this because of the results it sometimes gets. There are people, as we have seen example of with Galvasean, that have success stories to tell about groups like AA.

The problem is that there are many good reasons for this that might have little or nothing to do with the AA but because the person in question went to the AA the results are incorrectly allocated to AA. After that the people that the AA helped likely could have been helped just as effectively without the religion.

Incorrect Allocation of Success

There is returning to the mean for example. Alcoholism is often not the problem but a symptom of another problem. People sometimes turn to alcohol during times of stress, pain etc. and sometimes these problems go away, and therefore so does the dependence on alcohol. If that person happens to be in the AA at the time, we could allocate the success story to them.

Another example is the fact that fixing a problem like addiction often is impossible unless you first admit you HAVE a problem to fix and often this is one of the hardest steps. We can safely assume however that someone going to an AA meeting has already taken this giant first step and is already on the road to recovery themselves. Again, the fact they are in the AA means we can easily allocate them the success story.

There are more examples of how a person can get “fixed” while being in the AA but which have nothing to do with the AA.

Why use religion?

However even when you remove all of those people from the statistics, it would still be a miracle if AA did not have some genuine success stories. That however does not mean their approach is a good one.

I could, for example, attack 10,000 alcoholics with a baseball bat and leave a note on their unconscious body saying “I will be watching you, if I see you drinking again the next time I come will be even worse”.

Clearly out of 10,000 people I am going to have some success stories. I am going to stop SOME people from drinking with this approach. Can I therefore claim that my approach is a good one, merely because I can show it gives results? Obviously not and I think few people would condone by efforts. Similarly if the AA get results this does not justify their approach of targeting people who are in need and vulnerable and using it as an opportunity to preach to them about gods and religions.

From what little I know about the AA however I am not sure their use of religion is justifiable in any way. I would love to see some studies into why they get the results they do, if and when they do. I would be entirely unsurprised to find that the religion part of it has nothing to do with the results.

The same things without religion

Rather I think simply getting a lot of people suffering from the same problem into a room together to discuss together their issues, how each of them is dealing with it, and being mutually supportive and understanding to each other is everything to do with the successes.

However if that is so then those same successes could be achieved without pushing any religion on the vulnerable while you achieve it. Simply having somewhere to go is often enough, sharing your issues with people who really know what you are suffering is often also enough, and having a group of people who will notice when you are absent from the meetings and will go around to check up on you later can rarely do anything but help.

Stercus Accidit

I also find it disturbing the way that addiction is de-personalised and attributed to some outside forces, and that submission to those forces (god, spirits) is the only answer.

In my own experience of addiction (cigarettes ) it was an absolute blaming of myself that made me quit, I chose to smoke, I got addicted physically and mentally, and I blamed myself and hard slogged it out of them and that was a real and sturdy foundation for me to quit, acknowledging all the realitys about the situation, not seeking excuses or an easy fix (please god do the quitting for me I'm so weak).

I would imagine that building a resistance to addiction based on something as flimsy as faith while removing blame from the individual will result in a recurrance of addiction in many cases, I know my own example is pretty weak in comparison to alcoholism but that is what I think.

Until this thread I had no idea that AA was conducted as such, and was a faith oriented program, it worries me that people would be directed to it as an answer to their problems, rather than a modern scientific alternative. This thread is an eye opener.

nozzferrahhtoo

This is what worries me and was sort of what I was trying to get at in my bigger post above.

What tends to happen is that success is allocated to god when in fact the congratulations goes to the person who beat the addiction.

Yes we can help people get over addiction by supporting them, bringing them together with other people sharing the same issues, and more.

Doing this alongside preaching however, and telling the person who through a massive amount of work and inner strength beat the addiction that they could not have done it without “god” is for me very worrying.

Those that beat addiction deserve a lot of respect, credit and congratulations, but here we see people stealing that from them and allocating it to an entity that there is no reasons on offer to even think exists. In fact they use those experiences to convince the “mark” that the entity does exist.

goingpostal

H1ppy wrote: »

Um, this is a great discussion so far, I'm finding it really interesting, but don't know enough to feel competent to add to it. Just wondering if ad-hom is the direction you want to take in this, is that constructive? I recommend talking about the subject, not the speakers.

Good point, H1ppy. But this is one of only two tactics AA boosters have. They either attack the critic personally and tell him he is endangering alcoholics lives by criticising their program or they spout Bill Wilsons insane religious dogma. Its not like they have any stats or evidence to prove that AA is more effective THAN NO TREATMENT WHATSOEVER.

goingpostal

Surely any method that might return control of the individual's life to them, must be welcome?

AA doesn't work and it doesn't return control to the individuals life, it advocates learned helplessness, saying you have no control over your drinking (Step 1) and turning your will and your life over to the skyfairy to save you from booze (Steps 2 and 3)

Like most things, AA will evolve from its beginnings, particularly if it's programmes can be seen to be beneficial.

AA has never evolved from its beginnings. Bill Wilsons insane religious ravings, AKA the big book, has never changed one word of its first 164 pages since it was published in 1939, and can never be changed, unless 75% of AA groups worldwide agree to change it, in other words, never. Remind you of any other book?

BTW. what is 'Faith Healing'?

Faith healing is curing diseases by believing in god, which is a pretty good definition of the treatment offered by AA for alcohol dependency.

goingpostal

Galvasean wrote: »

A close family member of mine goes to AA. He's not religious in the slightest. According to him a 'higher power' is simply someone who can help you. It could be anyone.
But hey, I wouldn't knock it anyhow. It has helped him (and by extension me) to no end.

Their is a huge difference between saying "I quit drinking while attending AA meetings" and saying "I quit drinking because of AA meetings". Correlation doesn't prove causation. It is just as easy to reverse the clauses and say "I went to AA meetings because I quit drinking". Two stats from within AA itself: a 1989 triennial survey of AA membership found that 95% of newcomers stopped attending AA within the first year without stopping drinking. And Professor George Vaillant of Harvard Medical School and a trustee of AA World Services inadvertently proved that AA is no more successful than no treatment at all, and that the AA group within his test, which tried a number of different treatments for alcohol dependency, had the highest rate of binge drinking and death. Teaching alcoholics that they cannot control their destructive behaviour and that only a particular version of god can save them, does real damage to lots of alcoholics. I don't dispute that some people stop drinking while attending AA meetings and then give all the credit for their achievement to the AA program. But AA engages in cherry picking/observational bias. Anyone that achieves long term abstinence must give all the credit to the AA program. Anyone that goes back drinking is blamed entirely for their relapse, no inference to the efficacy of the AA program is made or allowed. Alternative medicine engages in the same casuistry. The following is read out at every AA meeting:
"Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are those who cannot or will not give themselves to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates. The are not at fault, they seem to have been born that way. They are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty. Their chances are less than average. There are those too who have grave emotional and mental disorders, but many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be honest."
Bill Wilson, AA's founder and demi-god, derived his "spiritual" program of "recovery" from the teachings of Hitler-admiring Frank N.D. Buchman, the leader of The Oxford Groups, which was a crazy Protestant-revivalist cult from the 1930s. The twelve steps of AA are a codified version of Buchmans five C's, confidence, confession, conviction, conversion, and conservation. Anyone who disagrees with his simple program is accused of being constitutionally dishonest, unfortunate, being dishonest since birth, being incapable of being honest with themselves, and of suffering from mental and emotional disorders". At every single meeting.
One last thing. Bill Wilson, who placed such a high premium on honesty, pretended to be his own wife. He wrote Chapter 9 of his big book, which is called To Wives. It purports to be a chapter written by a woman, giving advice to women on how to deal with their alcoholic husbands. He didn't trust his own wife, Lois, to write it properly. If you read it in the knowledge that it was written by a man, this simple fact turns it into a pathetic, misogynistic attack on women.

goingpostal

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Isn't one of scientologies main tactics to get followers to find out if people have personal issues (through those personality tests?) and then present scientology as the (only) way to deal with them? Pretty sure I read that somewhere. If true, it seems like they robbed the idea from Alcoholics Anonymous.

An excellent comparison.

iguana

goingpostal wrote: »

He didn't trust his own wife, Lois, to write it properly.

I think it's worth pointing out that Lois did ask to write that chapter and I believe she would have been better qualified to write it, not only as she actually was the wife of an alcoholic (who's perspective the To Wives chapter is written from) but she was an experienced psychiatric nurse.

mikhail

iguana wrote: »

So you think that state recommended faith healing is ok then?

We all know that the placebo effect is a real thing. If faith healing was offered as the main treatment for cancer and a small number of people said it worked for them would that be ok? Or do you think that faith groups belong on the fringe of treatment and genuine medicine at it's centre?

The placebo effect only works in what are called self-limiting conditions. So, if I have a cold, the placebo effect can help me get better faster, but if I have cancer, it doesn't affect recovery rates. Furthermore, we do have effective (well, to some varying degree) treatments for cancers.

goingpostal

iguana wrote: »

I think it's worth pointing out that Lois did ask to write that chapter and I believe she would have been better qualified to write it, not only as she actually was the wife of an alcoholic (who's perspective the To Wives chapter is written from) but she was an experienced psychiatric nurse.

Very true. She was very eager to write that chapter, she had every right to write it, and was deeply hurt that she wasn't allowed to write it. Bill Wilson mumbled some crap about her not being able to write it in the same style as the rest of the book. This is important because many AA members treat AA's basic text, the so called big book, as divinely revealed wisdom, and believe that Bill Wilson was acting under divine guidance when AA was founded.
If you were to stand up in an AA meeting and denounce Bill Wilson as a liar, a philanderer, certifiably insane and a thief, which is what he was, you would be greeted with a very frosty reception indeed.

Originally Posted by Roger Ebert
The God word. The critics never quote the words "as we understood God." Nobody in A.A. cares how you understand him, and would never tell you how you should understand him. I went to a few meetings of "4A" ("Alcoholics and Agnostics in A.A."), but they spent too much time talking about God. The important thing is not how you define a Higher Power. The important thing is that you don't consider yourself to be your own Higher Power, because your own best thinking found your bottom for you. One sweet lady said her higher power was a radiator in the Mustard Seed [where the meetings were held], "because when I see it, I know I'm sober."

This quote is an excellent example of the intellectual dishonesty and the anti intellectualism that is rampant in AA. It is also a brilliant example of the bait and switch con trick that is pulled on newcomers who object to the overt, intense, blatantly obvious religiosity of the AA program.

The critics never quote the words "as we understood God."

No one ever quotes the words "as we understand God" because AA doesn't use them. Step two talks about a generic "Power greater than ourselves" which will restore us to sanity. Steps 3, 5, 6,7,11 refer to "God as we understand Him", "God" and "Him". Anyone who objects to god, is told that their higher power can be anything they want it to be, a leg of a table, a rock, a bus, anything, as if steps 3 through 12 didn't exist, and as if a rock could restore you to sanity, take over your will and your life, listen to a detailed confession of the exact nature of your wrongs, remove your defects of character and shortcomings, and as if you could establish conscious contact with a leg of a table to find out what the stick wants you to do and to receive the power to carry those tasks out. The dishonesty of this is breathtaking.

The important thing is that you don't consider yourself to be your own Higher Power, because your own best thinking found your bottom for you.

This is a routine AA ploy. Chapter 3 of the big book of AA is called "We agnostics". Bill Wilson spent this chapter attacking atheists and agnostics, and anyone who didn't agree with his bizarre religious beliefs. Anyone who didn't believe in god as Bill wanted them to, was accused of being an egomaniac who thought he was god.
Instead of regarding ourselves as intelligent agents, spearheads of God's ever advancing creation, we agnostics and atheists chose to believe that our human intelligence was the last word, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end of all. Rather vain of us wasn't it. Page 49, AA big book. The second part of Ebert's sentence is a great example of how AA teaches people not to trust their own ability to think critically, and to surrender to groupthink. Other examples of this are the slogans "your own best thinking got you here", "keep it simple, stupid" and "don't trust your stinking thinking".

Finally for now, Auntie Bill didn't believe that there really was such a thing as an atheist, people only 'thought' they were atheists, they were prejudiced against spiritual matters and were ignoring the evidence for god within:
I was not an atheist. Few people really are, for that means blind faith in the strange proposition that this universe originated in a cipher and aimlessly rushes nowherep19, BB. No, Bill, atheism means lack of belief in theistic claims. End. Of. Story. Note also how this quote contradicts the quote from p49, where Billy claims to be counted amongst the atheists. Now we have him lying about being a woman AND an atheist.
Actually we were fooling ourselves, for deep down in every man, woman and child , is the fundamental idea of Godp55, BB.
My fundamental idea of god resides 2.5 inches upstream from my fundament.

strobe

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is what worries me and was sort of what I was trying to get at in my bigger post above.

What tends to happen is that success is allocated to god when in fact the congratulations goes to the person who beat the addiction.

Yes we can help people get over addiction by supporting them, bringing them together with other people sharing the same issues, and more.

Doing this alongside preaching however, and telling the person who through a massive amount of work and inner strength beat the addiction that they could not have done it without “god” is for me very worrying.

Those that beat addiction deserve a lot of respect, credit and congratulations, but here we see people stealing that from them and allocating it to an entity that there is no reasons on offer to even think exists. In fact they use those experiences to convince the “mark” that the entity does exist.

My biggest objection wouldn't even be that they are using addicts recoveries for the purposes of conversion. It's that it can actively threaten any recovery. The sense of strength an accomplishment and redemption an addict can draw from the fact that they themselves (with help or without) were the ones that stopped using is a massive massive factor in preventing them from relapsing or from making sure a once off blip doesn't become full blown problem addiction again. This fact is recognised and utilized extensively by most people working with addicts outside of 12 step groups.

The pushing of the basic tenants of 12 step programmes in that addicts are powerless over their addiction and that any recovery they make is something that has been done for or to them rather than something they have done for themselves, coupled with an abdication from personal responsibility is nothing short of dangerous in many cases.

MrPudding

strobe wrote: »

My biggest objection wouldn't even be that they are using addicts recoveries for the purposes of conversion. It's that it can actively threaten any recovery. The sense of strength an accomplishment and redemption an addict can draw from the fact that they themselves (with help or without) were the ones that stopped using is a massive massive factor in preventing them from relapsing or from making sure a once off blip doesn't become full blown problem addiction again. This fact is recognised and utilized extensively by most people working with addicts outside of 12 step groups.

The pushing of the basic tenants of 12 step programmes in that addicts are powerless over their addiction and that any recovery they make is something that has been done for or to them rather than something they have done for themselves, coupled with an abdication from personal responsibility is nothing short of dangerous in many cases.

This is something that saddens me greatly, as I have mentioned before. I hate it when a person has taken their life, which is a mess, and turned it around and then feel the need to ascribe their success to a agent that had nothing to do with it. People should take responsibility for their own acts, both good and bad. You do not have to look too far to find people that have turned their lives around, but were only able to do it with the help of Jesus, why? Why are they so convinced they can’t do it themselves.

MrP

JimiTime

strobe wrote: »

The pushing of the basic tenants of 12 step programmes in that addicts are powerless over their addiction and that any recovery they make is something that has been done for or to them rather than something they have done for themselves, coupled with an abdication from personal responsibility is nothing short of dangerous in many cases.

I agree with this. I think its a real failing in society as a whole that we do this about lots of things. Drugs, Alcohol etc. Its always someone elses fault. The addict is the victim. While I see societies failings in terms of social imbalance etc as compounding certain issues relating to addiction, it certainly DOES NOT remove personal accountability and responsibility.

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

I hate it when a person has taken their life, which is a mess, and turned it around and then feel the need to ascribe their success to a agent that had nothing to do with it.
People should take responsibility for their own acts, both good and bad.

From this Christians perspective, many of the better things I have done or do are directly as a result of Christianity. I have many negative traits, and that is nothing to do with anything but ME. Christ however, is part of my motivation to change. Sometimes I can have a natural instinct to think of myself, yet as a direct result of Christ, I pause for thought and act against that instinct and put the other person first. I certainly have a role to play in doing that, but Christ also has a big role to play. I would be alot more self absorbed, if it weren't for my Christianity. So its easy to see how ones bad acts can be ascribed to the self, and ones good acts can be ascribed to another motivating factor. This is not exclusive to Christians neither, so I don't necessarily think its a supernatural thing.