A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?

gaynorvader

roosh wrote: »

It isn't a case of bringing a "god" into it, it's that if we look at some of the already existing, spiritual philosophies this is what they say that "god" is.

The ocean analogy is an interesting one, bcos it is one that I've heard quite often in spiritual philosophy, or at least a variation on it. The analogy likens us to waves in the ocean. While there might be many waves in the ocean they are all part of the ocean and not separate from it.

Our subconscious conditioning has us believe that we, the wave, are somehow separate from the ocean, and all the other waves. This can, perhaps, be seen in the analogy of a "cup" of seawater, bcos we can imagine a cup of sea water being separated from the ocean, but in reality we are not, nor can we be, separated from the ocean.



As mentioned, this, somewhat, depends on what your understanding of an "intelligent god" is, or how you would imagine the universe to be intelligent. Given that we are an inseparable part of the universe and we are intelligent then there is an intelligence in the universe- in the senes I presume you are talking about - that manifests through us. A rock doesn't manifest intelligence, but if we are, and I think it is the only logical position, inseparable parts of the universe - like waves in the ocean - then there is intelligence manifest in the universe, which is a part of it. This doesn't require inanimate objects to be intelligent, however, which is where the danger of misunderstanding lies if we talk about the universe being intelligent.

Again, however, there is no actual need for any intelligence bcos asking for shortcomings to be removed can be viewed in a purely symbolic sense, or it can be viewed as asking some "deeper" part of yourself, just as people try to motivate themselves when they are trying to push themselves to succeed - have you ever said to yourself (consciously or otherwise), when doing something strenuous, "come on, you can do it", "push harder", or something along those lines?

It can also be viewed, as mentioned, in the context of the practice of "Loving Kindness".


With regard to making a decision to turn our will and our loves over to god as he is understood by the individual, this again is just a decision to carry on working the steps with the "faith" that doing the practical things in the steps will help to break the attachment to the subconscious, habitual thinking which drives our behaviour and that future behaviour will be driven from a state of greater awareness.

It's all symbolic then :rolleyes:

roosh

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's all symbolic then :rolleyes:

How do you mean?

EDIT: Sorry, I thought you were quoting my most recent reply to Nozz.

It's not symbolic at all. The practice of meditation is one of the practical means of breaking the attachment to the subconscious perception we have of ourselves, which drives our behaviour.

gaynorvader

roosh wrote: »

How do you mean?

Anywhere the 12 steps don't line up perfectly with pantheism were only symbolic.

Feck 12 steps being religious, the more I read back over your posts, the more I feel like it may be a religion to some.

roosh

gaynorvader wrote: »

Anywhere the 12 steps don't line up perfectly with pantheism were only symbolic.

I said they could be taken as symbolic, they don't necessarily have to be. There are meditation practices where phrases such as "may I be happy..." are repeated. These are practical not symbolic.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Feck 12 steps being religious, the more I read back over your posts, the more I feel like it may be a religion to some.

Which, AA? Some people do indeed seem to treat it almost like a religion, or at least, it used to seem that way to me. Not everyone though. Again, it depends on the individual.

marienbad

roosh wrote: »

I said they could be taken as symbolic, they don't necessarily have to be. There are meditation practices where phrases such as "may I be happy..." are repeated. These are practical not symbolic.


Which, AA? Some people do indeed seem to treat it almost like a religion, or at least, it used to seem that way to me. Not everyone though. Again, it depends on the individual.

The vast majority see and welcome a religious element in the programme , most return to their original religion but usually with some modifications and a very small minority see no religion in it as per their understanding .

As you say it depends on the individual .

roosh

marienbad wrote: »

The vast majority see and welcome a religious element in the programme , most return to their original religion but usually with some modifications and a very small minority see no religion in it as per their understanding .

As you say it depends on the individual .

Absolutely, it is religious if you want it to be, not if you don't.

I think the reason those on here who argue that it has to be religious do so on the basis of their exposure to christianity and can't see it in any other light. A lack of exposure to the actual dynamics of 12-step meetings means that they don't understand that no one tries to push their religious beliefs on anyone else, even if some people do seem to "prattle on" about it in some meetings.


Even if the 12-steps were, by necessity, religious, it would certainly be a unique religiosity in that it would be encompassing all religions, or at least, all of the major religions, including hinduism and, to a large extent, Buddhism. But of course, it isn't necessarily religious, bcos it depends on your own understanding.

gaynorvader

roosh wrote: »

Absolutely, it is religious if you want it to be, not if you don't.

I think the reason those on here who argue that it has to be religious do so on the basis of their exposure to christianity and can't see it in any other light. A lack of exposure to the actual dynamics of 12-step meetings means that they don't understand that no one tries to push their religious beliefs on anyone else, even if some people do seem to "prattle on" about it in some meetings.


Even if the 12-steps were, by necessity, religious, it would certainly be a unique religiosity in that it would be encompassing all religions, or at least, all of the major religions, including hinduism and, to a large extent, Buddhism. But of course, it isn't necessarily religious, bcos it depends on your own understanding.

To me it seems that it is religious, but some people ignore the religious aspects of it.

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

To me it seems that it is religious, but some people ignore the religious aspects of it.

'Too long a sacrifice
Can make a stone of the heart.'

I don't think the poet meant a stone but than is what the line says. Some takes things literally others don't . There is room for many interpretations within AA.

It is curious that those with the least experience of the programme have the most fixed views on it.

roosh

gaynorvader wrote: »

To me it seems that it is religious, but some people ignore the religious aspects of it.

I would suggest that that is bcos of your understanding of what the concept of "god" is. Even if it were just a case of people ignoring the religious aspects, that would mean that it is just religious in theory then, but not necessarily in practice.

Having attended 12-step groups and having worked the steps I can see how people assume it must be religious, but I can also see how it isn't religious. I would see it as spiritual, as opposed to religious and would interpret all of it through the lens of spiritual practices such as meditation, which I would see as affecting the human mind, like the other steps such as self-examination, making amends and working with others.


I suppose the reason I so strongly oppose the classification of it as religious is bcos I know the connotations such a word can have for people. I certainly am not religious but I can see, and have experienced, the benefits in the steps, namely self-examination, making amends, meditation, and helping others. Ultimately I found meditation to be the most effective of all, although the other practices certainly had a major transformative effect.

Like, are those practices religious? I don't really think they are, but they make up the core of the practical steps. Some people might attribute their effect to a magic man, personally, I don't see that as a major issue - although it does get under my skin to an extent. Others, might see it as how these practices affect the human mind naturally, which is how I would view it.

With regard to the concept of "god", I have spent a lot of the last few years discussing and debating it, looking at different conceptions of it, and developing a radically different understanding of what the concept means than that which I was familiar with from a christian upbringing. I have gravitated more towards Buddhism, bcos of its "availability", but I've looked at Hinduism, Sufism, Taoism, and other "mystical" traditions. To my mind, there seems to be a great deal of misconceptions which abound, and given the subject matter, it is easy to see how and why. I have developed my own understanding of what all of these say and would consider myself a member of none of them.

The concept of "god" is not straight forward, it's not something that can actually be conceptualised, which a lot of the mystical traditions try to highlight. But humans tend to attach to concepts, it's what we do. Then they can become distorted. Which is where I believe the idea of a "magic man" comes from

For me ultimately it comes down to, practice meditation bcos there are many benefits to it. The mystical traditions is where both meditation and the concept of "god" come from - or at least the concept of "god" exists in the "mystical" traditions. If you examine what those traditions say about "god" then you will see it is pantheistic. I think that religions came from the politicisation of those traditions. But, that is just my own personal understanding.

Again, the steps accommodate such an understanding.

gaynorvader

marienbad wrote: »

{...}

It is curious that those with the least experience of the programme have the most fixed views on it.

That's certainly not the impression I'm getting from this thread. Both sides are reasonably fixed in their views.

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

That's certainly not the impression I'm getting from this thread. Both sides are reasonably fixed in their views.

Not really though - one side are saying there can be only one interpretation as opposed to the side saying it is what you make of it.

gaynorvader

marienbad wrote: »

Not really though - one side are saying there can be only one interpretation as opposed to the side saying it is what you make of it.

I would say it is religious because of how it words things, the other side are saying it's not necessarily religious because you can interpret it as not religious. Both are fixed views.

I would say could you interpret Christianity as not religious? Would that make it not religious? What about a church service?

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

I would say it is religious because of how it words things, the other side are saying it's not necessarily religious because you can interpret it as not religious. Both are fixed views.

I would say could you interpret Christianity as not religious? Would that make it not religious? What about a church service?

We are not comparing like with like , if you feel it is religious and can not see any other interpretation then so be it. But you are then going on to say that is the only interpretation and applies to everybody. That is a fixed view.

I am saying it is religious if you want it to be and it is not if you want it that way.

I am not saying my view is the only view- you are .

gaynorvader

marienbad wrote: »

We are not comparing like with like , if you feel it is religious and can not see any other interpretation then so be it. But you are then going on to say that is the only interpretation and applies to everybody. That is a fixed view.

I am saying it is religious if you want it to be and it is not if you want it that way.

I am not saying my view is the only view- you are .

I'm saying it's religious, but you can engage with the religious side if you want to. It can't be simultaneously religious and not religious.

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

I'm saying it's religious, but you can engage with the religious side if you want to. It can't be simultaneously religious and not religious.

Of course it can ! all it takes is two people , one a believer and one a non-believer.

gaynorvader

marienbad wrote: »

Of course it can ! all it takes is two people , one a believer and one a non-believer.

Neither of which would change its religiosity. If a non-believer goes to a church service, it neither makes them religious nor the church service non-religious.

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

Neither of which would change its religiosity. If a non-believer goes to a church service, it neither makes them religious nor the church service non-religious.

AA isn't a church or a religion , that is why I said you are not comparing like with like .

The language I grant you is infused with 1930's American do goody religious speak. No question about that, but in their wisdom they did provide an out and those of us who wish to do so can avail of that out.

It is all a question of personal belief and interpretation and if I speak of those thing at a meeting no one will disagree or dispute it.

gaynorvader

marienbad wrote: »

AA isn't a church or a religion , that is why I said you are not comparing like with like .

The language I grant you is infused with 1930's American do goody religious speak. No question about that, but in their wisdom they did provide an out and those of us who wish to do so can avail of that out.

It is all a question of personal belief and interpretation and if I speak of those thing at a meeting no one will disagree or dispute it.

You're missing the point. If a believer goes to court, it doesn't make the court religious or the believer not religious.

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

You're missing the point. If a believer goes to court, it doesn't make the court religious or the believer not religious.

Agreed , and if a non believer goes to court it doesn't make the court religious or non religious. It just makes it a court that caters for all beliefs .

In the same way AA caters for all beliefs and none.

It is the individual that beings religion or non belief to the group , not the other way round .

gaynorvader

marienbad wrote: »

Agreed , and if a non believer goes to court it doesn't make the court religious or non religious. It just makes it a court that caters for all beliefs .

In the same way AA caters for all beliefs and none.

It is the individual that beings religion or non belief to the group , not the other way round .

So a church service is neither religious nor non-religious, it's the congregation that make it religious?

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

So a church service is neither religious nor non-religious, it's the congregation that make it religious?

A church service is completely religious , But as I have said you are not comparing like with like. AA is not a church.

Brian Shanahan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Anyone on the thread, who may still be reading along, care to engage in this?

I say let him read the thread, and watch the Penn and Teller video in the first page. It's all there clear and bright as today was.

gaynorvader

marienbad wrote: »

A church service is completely religious , But as I have said you are not comparing like with like. AA is not a church.

I know AA is not a church, but it seems to be inherently religious is my point, with its constant allusions to higher powers and gods. It may be open to non religious people and they can get help from it, but it's full of religious connotations.

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

I know AA is not a church, but it seems to be inherently religious is my point, with its constant allusions to higher powers and gods. It may be open to non religious people and they can get help from it, but it's full of religious connotations.

Indeed it does seems so, even Christian beliefs . But there is a provision for people of other faiths and those of us with no faith at all.

The Life of Brian is full of religious metaphor also but is hardly religious

All I can say is that it is what one makes of it and thus differs from person to person . And with a lot of hard work ,dedication and commitment one can achieve a contented sobriety for the believer and non-believer.

roosh

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I say let him read the thread, and watch the Penn and Teller video in the first page. It's all there clear and bright as today was.

Cheers for reminding me, I had meant to watch that Penn & Teller video but didn't have time.

There are a few things I would agree with in it, but much of the arguments put forward are very much the same as have been discussed in this thread.

It's interesting how they focus, pretty much, solely on the "god" aspect of the steps, without looking at the practical steps which can bring about a transformation in the thinking of an addict - or indeed any person: the self-examination, making amends, meditation, and helping others.


They also seem to make the same mistake with regard to the figure of 5%. They take the retention rate of AA as being the success rate of the 12-steps, instead of looking for a figure for people who have completed the 12-steps (or worked through them once).


I would agree with the points about the "disease" of addiction. I personally don't think it is a "disease", I think it is almost entirely a psychological affliction. The practical steps of the 12, however, are focused on affecting a psychological change in the addict.

P&T also play up this idea of the 12-steps forcing the addict into a position of helplessness, but that is just a complete misconception. What 12-step literature says is that, basically, the addict cannot use substances bcos when they do, they lose control i.e. they are powerless over their addiction. Judging by their lack of focus on the practical steps taken, they seem to believe that the 12-step approach is solely based on praying to a magic man for recovery.

roosh

gaynorvader wrote: »

I know AA is not a church, but it seems to be inherently religious is my point, with its constant allusions to higher powers and gods. It may be open to non religious people and they can get help from it, but it's full of religious connotations.

That is bcos it was written, largely, by christians. There was, however, input from those who did not share their beliefs. Perhaps the ratio of both is reflected in the wording of the steps, but it is no less pertinent that the provision was made for "as we understood him" and "higher power". The steps were written in compromise with both groups, so it is only natural that they reflect the christian beliefs of members as well as the non-christian beliefs. This is why it shouldn't be interpreted in a dogmatically rigid fashion, and indeed, from my experience, isn't, by a huge proportion of members.

As marien has said, it only seems to be those who are less familiar with the program who believe that it can only be interpreted rigidly, when in practice, this isn't necessarily the case - of course, there may be those who do, but in general that doesn't seem to be the case. This is where knowledge of the literature (not just "the big book") and first hand experience of the dynamics of meetings allows for a better understanding of how the steps are put into practice, instead of a rigid theoretical interpretation.


Even all that aside, there is a possible non-religious interpretation of the concept of "god", which could be argued is what the original concept of "god" was.

nozzferrahhtoo

roosh wrote: »

The only one guilty of repetition and ignoring what has been said is yourself.

Nope. It is you. As I keep pointing out the text of the 12 steps very clearly describe a personal interventionality intentional deity. If you wish to ignore that... thats fine. All I am doing is acknowledging that pretense. Build a bridge and deal with it.

roosh wrote: »

I will engage with anyone who makes claims with regard to figures concerning efficacy.

Great. Me too. Alas no one here is doing any such thing, much less yourself. Rather all I see is AA zealots getting uppity at the mere suggestion we should be evaluating such things, or at the mere suggestion AA might not be as effective as they personally want it to be.

I can not "engage with" data people simply are not giving me, can I?

roosh wrote: »

Unfortunately for the addict, waiting for the research to be conducted into the efficacy of different treatment programs might not be a satisfactory option.

Nor is waiting for a break through in cancer research a satisfying option for people suffering from cancer. But that is not my concern is it? It does not negate the effect that, regardless of the impatience of others, we should be performing such research.

roosh wrote: »

I said they could be taken as symbolic, they don't necessarily have to be.

My point exactly. So can the entire Bible for example. And as I keep saying I have no issue whatsoever with people doing that. All I am doing is acknowledging that that in fact is what is being done. And you appear to get quite uppity at my acknowledgement of the fact.

marienbad

This is my 2nd time posting these links

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746426/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-alcoholics-anonymous-work/?page=2

Brian Shanahan

marienbad wrote: »

This is my 2nd time posting these links

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746426/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-alcoholics-anonymous-work/?page=2

Why post these? I already refuted them, and my refutation wasn't the most comprehensive.

There is no point reposting something which has already been shown to be bad science.

marienbad

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Why post these? I already refuted them, and my refutation wasn't the most comprehensive.

There is no point reposting something which has already been shown to be bad science.

Correct me if I am wrong but those refutations refer to just one article and are comments on that article and can in their turn be disputed ?