A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You can say what you like, it will not make it relevant or true. I was merely pointing out that you hit QUOTE on my post and then proceeded to ask a tangential question that in no way refereed to any single shred of the post you were quoting.



No evidence for what exactly? My claim is that AA is a social support group and an outlet. Which of those claims do you think requires substantiation or that you think could be false?



You would. This is a thread about AA. Not about other things we can offer (though I have mentioned other things on the thread, you appear to have ignored them too, which is becoming something of a modus operandi in your responses to me at this point).

My concern here is about evaluating the actual effects and efficacy of AA, and of answering the OPs question as to whether it is religious based or not.

Well that is progress of a sort if you accept AA is a support group. And would you accept it is no more or no less effective than other such 12 step support groups.

As for evaluation - would you accept that the not a lot is as yet known about chronic addiction and how to arrest it ?

gaynorvader wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly are the differences between AA and other 12 step support groups?

Well you have narcotics anonymous ,gamblers anonymous, other programmes within social services/health frames work, Meetings for gay people, or women and you have ones specifically for atheists or agnostics in the USA but none as yet in Ireland a to my knowledge .

gaynorvader wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly are the differences between AA and other 12 step support groups?

There is now a 12 step programme for people who are addicted to 12step programmes lol

gaynorvader wrote: »

From the OED

Originally Posted by oed.com
Religion
3. Action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for a god, gods, or similar superhuman power

5. Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement.

I don't see how the AA's 12 steps doesn't fall under this definition. The fact that they claim not to be a religion is meaningless.

Would you consider the following belief a religious belief:

Through the process of evolution, the human brain has developed in such a way that self-examination, making amends, and helping others can have a positive effect on recovery from addiction. Also, that the human brain has evolved in such a way that the various practices of meditation affect the neural pathways of the brain in such a way that can be beneficial to a recovering addict.

Further, that an individual does not consciously control the process of evolution and certainly could not have controlled the process up until the point their birth; that the process of evolution, although being a process which occurs within them also occurs external to them.

Also, that an addict can come to believe that, as a result of evolution, if they carry out the certain, aforementioned, steps that they can abstain from addictive substances.

roosh wrote: »

That is precisely the point. You have done little more than refer to both texts

Shock horror. While evaluating the efficacy and claims of AA.... that I should refer to the texts and tenets of AA. Should I perhaps be reading Lord Of The Rings instead before I comment. Please.

Again the thread is about whether AA is religious. And my point is that the 12 steps that is the core of it (it is called.... wait for this.... a 12 step program.... after all) are expressly religious, not only mentioning "god" but attributing to "god" many of the attributes that are instantly recognizable to anyone with even a passing knowledge of monotheism and the Christianity from which AA emerged.

There is nothing superficial in that. All you are doing is attempting to dilute it away so you can wash your hands of it. I am not buying it.

Nope, I think that by repeatedly pointing out how you are referring to little more than a simplistic reading of the text of the 12-steps and 12-traditions, while ignoring the main bodies of literature associated with the 12-step program, and necessary for interpreting the aforementioned texts, that the point of "superficial understanding" will be plain to see.

roosh wrote: »

Fun Fact: a meeting which makes no mention of the 12-steps or which "throws together" steps as they see fit isn't a 12-step meeting - by definition.

Fun Fact 2: if a group throws together steps as they see fit, then they aren't following the 12-step program.

Fun Fact 3: That was my points exactly.

You are pretty much making my points for you now.

I invite you to search my username over on the City Data Forum where I was forced to make that very point myself. There was a proponent of AA there who was trying to say that the meetings he attends were "AA", but they did not use the 12 steps much, or even mention them, except maybe in introduction.

The simple point I was making is that anecdotally I am, when having conversations about AA with supporters of AA, often meeting people who tell me that they call their meetings "AA" but they do nothing that would in any way recognizably make it "AA".

In those cases, such as the example I give you from City Data, I simply ask them "If you throw out all the texts and tenets of AA, then please tell me how your meeting is AA in any way except the name you stick on the door?".

An answer to which I simply have not been given by such people. Anywhere. Ever.

roosh wrote: »

Throwing out words like "unregulated" and "ad hoc" might [again, here's that word again] superficially sound like a valid point but it just demonstrates a lack of understanding of the genesis of the 12-step program and how it works.

Or more to the point how YOU think it SHOULD work. But if people are just throwing meeting together and they are all being run totally differently then unregulated, ad hoc, and inconsistent are not a lack of understanding on my part but a factual description of these meetings as a whole.

And this position is supported by the words of AA attendees themselves. They tell you often that if one meeting does not appeal to you then try others until you find one that does. Why? Because they are all different.

roosh wrote: »

Due to a lack of alternative treatments for addiction a couple of alcoholics devised a program that worked for them

That they THINK worked for them. They do not know it did. Likely what worked for them is the mutual support they gave each other. Or their focus on their new hobby together. Social support... and an outlet.... the two things I have mentioned numerous times on this thread.

Their "program" does not appear to have anything to do with it. Especially given the efficacy of their program (5%) is exactly the same efficacy as no program/treatment at all. Statistically SOME people are going to fall into that 5% and therefore THOSE people are going to attribute their success to whatever it was they were engaged in at the time. The question we have to ask therefore is WAS it anything to do with what they were doing at the time, or are they just in the 5%? A question that I do not see a single proponent of AA on this thread, or a single person working with AA, wanting to engage in answering. And THEREIN lies my concern.

marienbad wrote: »

Well that is progress of a sort if you accept AA is a support group.

How is that progress when it is what I have been saying pretty much from the start? The progress appears to be in your understanding what I write, rather than any change in what I have written.

marienbad wrote: »

And would you accept it is no more or no less effective than other such 12 step support groups.

No, their success will be on a continuum. As such they would have to be more successful than some, and less than others. The questions I and others have brought up is HOW we should evaluate this and WHAT we should do with that data when we get it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Shock horror. While evaluating the efficacy and claims of AA.... that I should refer to the texts and tenets of AA. Should I perhaps be reading Lord Of The Rings instead before I comment. Please.

Nope, you should be referring to more than just the text of the 12-steps and, on occasion, the 12 principles. "The big book" perhaps, or the book entitled 12-steps and 12-traditions, both of which serve to illuminate both texts further and give a deeper understanding of both texts. Attending some meetings might also prove beneficial, even if it is only to better understand the actual dynamics of meetings.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again the thread is about whether AA is religious. And my point is that the 12 steps that is the core of it (it is called.... wait for this.... a 12 step program.... after all) are expressly religious, not only mentioning "god" but attributing to "god" many of the attributes that are instantly recognizable to anyone with even a passing knowledge of monotheism and the Christianity from which AA emerged.

There is nothing superficial in that. All you are doing is attempting to dilute it away so you can wash your hands of it. I am not buying it.

The 12-steps are compatible with religions that are not monotheistic, with pantheism, where evolution can be the "higher power", buddhism - a non-theistic religion - and most other forms of non-theistic, naturalistic philosophies you can think of. This has been demonstrated.

The only thing about the steps which might make them religious is the use of the word "God", that is, if one clings to a dictionary definition. But then, to do so would be just a superficial position without any real understanding of the concept of god "as we understood him". Again, a person can believe that through evolution the human mind is affected by self-examination, making amends, helping people, prayer (depending on your understanding of that term) and meditation. If this is religious then so too is any naturalist philosophy of the universe.

If it is religious then it is a unique religion which welcomes all religions and naturalistic philosophies i.e. non-religions.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope, I think that by repeatedly pointing out how you are referring to little more than a simplistic reading of the text of the 12-steps and 12-traditions, while ignoring the main bodies of literature associated with the 12-step program, and necessary for interpreting the aforementioned texts, that the point of "superficial understanding" will be plain to see.

There might be a technical problem on your end, or you might be messing up the quote tags.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Fun Fact 3: That was my points exactly.


You are pretty much making my points for you now.

I invite you to search my username over on the City Data Forum where I was forced to make that very point myself. There was a proponent of AA there who was trying to say that the meetings he attends were "AA", but they did not use the 12 steps much, or even mention them, except maybe in introduction.

Ah, so is this the source of the idea that groups get together and just pick and choose which steps to follow, or that some groups don't bother with them at all?

What you say here is markedly different. The emboldened again just highlights a superficial understanding of the 12-step approach and the dynamics of meetings.

In meetings the 12-steps and traditions are read out at the start or "maybe in introduction". The meetings themselves are not about working through the steps. There are specific types of meetings where people discuss a specific step and their experience with it. The other meetings are the "support group function" of the 12-step approach - but I've already explained this to you.

These "support group meetings" are part of the 12-step program. Working the steps happens when someone finds a sponsor and their sponsor brings them through the program. Again, you are just demonstrating a superficial understanding by not knowing this, even after it has been explained.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The simple point I was making is that anecdotally I am, when having conversations about AA with supporters of AA, often meeting people who tell me that they call their meetings "AA" but they do nothing that would in any way recognizably make it "AA".

In those cases, such as the example I give you from City Data, I simply ask them "If you throw out all the texts and tenets of AA, then please tell me how your meeting is AA in any way except the name you stick on the door?".

An answer to which I simply have not been given by such people. Anywhere. Ever.

I've separated this part of the post just for the sake of reiteration, because it has been explained a few times now, but hopefully it will be clear after this.

What you describe as "throwing out all the texts and tenets of AA" does not follow from someone saying that they are read out at the start of meeting, as an introduction, and not mentioned again. This is bcos the meetings are not about the steps, they are, as you quite rightly describe, a support group function. But this support group function is a key part of the 12-step approach. The steps are worked through outside of meetings with a sponsor who, themselves, has worked through the steps. Not knowing this basic fact about 12-step meetings just further highlights a distinct lack of understanding.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Or more to the point how YOU think it SHOULD work. But if people are just throwing meeting together and they are all being run totally differently then unregulated, ad hoc, and inconsistent are not a lack of understanding on my part but a factual description of these meetings as a whole.

And this position is supported by the words of AA attendees themselves. They tell you often that if one meeting does not appeal to you then try others until you find one that does. Why? Because they are all different.

Again, the reason why people are told to seek out meetings until they find one that appeals has been explained to you, but you seem to be ignoring that as well. Yes, the meetings are all different bcos different people go to different meetings just as different people go to different support groups and have different stories to tell. Addicts from the inner city will tell different stories to a farmer who has lived on his own for years. In the beginning the farmer might not be able to relate to those from the inner city, so (s)he might not feel comfortable sharing in that meeting; however, if that person finds a meeting where there are other famers who have been in a similar situation they might find it easier to relate - that is the answer to your "Why?".....again!


Also, the notion that people just throw meetings together is a fallacy. There are guidelines on how to start meetings and meetings are often started by people who already attend meetings but wish to start one that is more convenient for themselves or if they believe it might be helpful for others; for example, a meeting closer to their homeotwn or at a time that is more convenient. Usually a member who has been attending meetings will talk to others to see if they would be interested in this new meeting and they also seek the support of other members to help get the meeting established. So there not quite as ad hoc as you would try to make out.

Also, meetings are regulated by the person who chairs the meeting (not the person who shares their story btw, bcos the terminology might confuse that). If a person shows up drunk to the meeting the chair person will usually inform them that they are not supposed to share. They are the ones who get people to read the relevant texts, or they will do it themselves if no one volunteers. In that sense, groups are self-regulating.

Remember now, we are talking about the support group function here, where people talk about their experiences in addiction. There isn't a stringent structure that needs to be followed and regulated - apart from the introduction which should, and from my experience is, always adhered to.

Now, if some rogue addict decides to set up a meeting on their own and try to abuse the 12-step approach there is not much stopping them, apart from the fact that they will have to convince people to attend and convince someone to rent them a room to host the meetings. They will also have to contend with other genuine members showing up and seeing what they are doing and not telling others what the score is. They will also have to get the meeting established before it is listed as an official meeting by AA central office - so again, there is some regulation there.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That they THINK worked for them. They do not know it did. Likely what worked for them is the mutual support they gave each other. Or their focus on their new hobby together. Social support... and an outlet.... the two things I have mentioned numerous times on this thread.

Bear in mind that the support group function is an integral part of the 12-step approach. Also, one of the steps is to help other alcoholics or the "new hobby", as you would term it. There are of course other steps involved which don't mention the word "god". There is self-examination, making amends, prayer (depending on your understanding of it) and meditation. No doubt you will probably say that, OK, these steps helped too. The crux of the issue is that all of those things ARE the 12-step program, to say they work but the 12-step program doesn't is to commit a category error.

Except, as I'm sure your fingers are twitching to point out, we are left with a few other steps which you question. Indeed, we get down to the crux of the issue - which isn't surprising in an atheist and agnostic forum - the use of the word "God". But, again, we return to the critical phrase "as we understood him". It has been pointed out that a completely naturalist interpretation, based on evolution, is entirely compatible with the 12-steps, so long as that is how someone understands the whole process. Of course, someone might not be well versed in evolution and neuroscience (I certainly amn't) and they might attribute their recovery to an unknown "higher power" or even a magic man in the sky, bcos they don't fully understand the process. The things is, this understanding is also compatible with the 12-step approach.

Oh, there is also the point of telling people they are powerless, but again, this has been addressed - it's powerlessness over addiction.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Their "program" does not appear to have anything to do with it. Especially given the efficacy of their program (5%) is exactly the same efficacy as no program/treatment at all. Statistically SOME people are going to fall into that 5% and therefore THOSE people are going to attribute their success to whatever it was they were engaged in at the time. The question we have to ask therefore is WAS it anything to do with what they were doing at the time, or are they just in the 5%? A question that I do not see a single proponent of AA on this thread, or a single person working with AA, wanting to engage in answering. And THEREIN lies my concern.

On the one hand you say that support groups and helping other alcoholics ("new hobby") are probably what helped some addicts recover - remember, both key components of the 12-step approach - on the other you point to the efficacy rate and say that no treatment at all is just as effective. So, are you saying that support groups and new hobbies are just as effective as no treatment at all?

Just to clarify the point, on the one hand you say that support groups and a "new hobby" are potentially all that an addict needs to recover, on the other you say that the efficacy of the 12-step approach is the same as no treatment at all, forgetting that support groups and helping other addicts ("new hobby") are integral components of the 12-step approach.


The issue, once we strip away the contradiction, is something you have mentioned before, the stuff that is built up around it. So let's look at the stuff that is built up around it - I have a feeling it probably boils down to one key point that is to be expected on this section of boards:

• Searching and fearless moral inventory = Self-examination
• Making amends and admitting when one is wrong
• Prayer - how you understand it is not necessarily how it is to be understood
• Meditation - something I think you have agred is beneficial
• Powerlessness (over addiction)
• God

I'm guessing that you won't disagree with self-examination, making amends, or meditation. So that would leave the issue of powerless and God.



To reiterate, it is powerless over addiction, not over oneself in general. The idea that when an addict uses a substance they lose the run of themselves and control over themselves - this is a physiological fact of substances, they affect our motor skills. This is why abstinence is prescribed by the 12-step program. I'm not sure if the same is true for CBT - my family member told me that at the beginning of treatment they ask you if you want to reduce or eliminate, but I couldn't swear.





That leaves us with "God". Again, it should be pointed out that it is "God as we understood him", and it has already been outlined how a naturalistic interpretation, based on the evolution of the human brain, as well as various pantheistic, non-theistic (Buddhism), and indeed monotheistic interpretations are all compatible with the 12-step approach.




So, are support groups and "new hobbies" - both key components of the 12-step approach - all that an addict needs to recover do you think? Bcos if so, the 12-step approach has both. It also has other beneficial steps, such as self-examination, making amends, and meditation, but I'm guessing the only real issue was ever the use of the word "God" - hopefully that has been adequately addressed?

roosh wrote: »

Well such an interpretation is compatible with the 12-steps.

What is the higher power in your interpretation?

roosh wrote: »

whatever power or natural forces that have driven evolution up until this point, and that continue to drive change in the universe. It wasn't an individuals own will power that made them evolve the way they have done, it was something more powerful than themselves, something they can't control, over which they are, esentially, powerless. It is these external forces which mean that if the steps are followed - self-examination, making amends, meditation, etc. - recovery is possible and the "shortcomings" will be removed.

And you don't think that's religious? Even supposing you put your trust in "nature" or evolution, you are anthropomorphising it by believing it will help you overcome an addiction. The term "higher power" generally doesn't just mean more powerful, it means more authoritative, a better being all round, etc.

Honestly, I think the steps by themselves, without the allusions to a higher power, would probably help some people by themselves. Self-examination, making amends, meditation, etc are not bad things and are beneficial to anyone, be they an addict or not.

marienbad wrote: »

For the vast majority that higher power is a religious one and usually the God of their of their childhood or a variation of that.

For a very, very small minority it is not and there is provision within the literature and the group for that.

Loads on anecdotal evidence has been presented here of knowing such and such a person who saw this that or the other at an AA meeting or this was said or that was said.

Yet the experience of people who have been to meetings first hand is not accepted ? Why is that.

I have neither dismissed nor entertained anecdotal evidence. I have merely said that belief in a higher power is religious and as AA literature requires you to believe in a higher power, it must be religious. So far all I've gotten back in argument has been "no it's not, because I'm not religious and I attend AA" or "It's not religious because the higher power is science". Neither of which are good arguments.
I'm not trying to conflate AA with any religion, nor am I condemning it for being religious, but I think it is religious at its core. Hell, if you attend and don't subscribe to the higher power part, or if your particular group ignores that part of the steps and you get help from it more power to you, I'm delighted for you.

marienbad wrote: »

I am sorry if I am mistaken but did you not refer to individuals who had attended AA meeting and found them unsatisfactory ?

That was less for what they were saying, more for how they were saying it.

marienbad wrote: »

There is a specific chapter in the literature titled We Agnostics , I don't know how much clearer it can be that that.

Again, just because an organisation or person claims something, doesn't make it true. If you are telling me that belief in a higher power is not longer one of the central tenets of the 12 steps method, then I'd be interested to hear what this schism is called, are there 2 groups?

marienbad wrote: »

It makes no difference what they said or how they said it- it is still anecdotal . Now I don't have a problem with that per se ,but if you use that argument then you must accept the same from the other side. By the way may I ask have you spoken to anyone that has used AA successfully ?

Yes, but I only took issue with how the anecdotal evidence was presented. I do accept it from anyone so long as they're willing to have a discussion and not try to bludgeon me with their anecdotal evidence.

marienbad wrote: »

On the schism idea - not at all- there is specific provision in the literature and in the meetings for agnostics . The concept of a higher power for the vast majority is indeed a religious one or God but the key is it is a higher power of one's own understanding .

The notion of a higher power is the idea of a power outside oneself - no more than that. To most it is God , to some it is the collective knowledge or as the old joke has it 'the 32 bus on the Kilburn High Street at that can pass every pub whereas we can't'

I can't really persuade you anymore than that - it is in the literature and there are agnostics in the groups . Would I wish there were more ? The answer is I just don't care ,it is irrelevant to me ,it is all about identification and not comparison.

You keep saying that there's provision in the literature, which is fine. But belief in a higher power is a religious belief. If you were to believe in a drug curing you for example, that would be fine, unless you believed the drug could control aspects of your life or understand your problems, then you are straying into the religious side of things. Belief in a power outside of yourself does not make it a higher power. A friend for instance, that helps you quit is not a higher power, although they might be a great help to you.

marienbad wrote: »

Might I ask what would you do if faced with helping a chronic alcoholic ? Would you recommend or dissuade them from going to AA ? And I suppose that is what it all boils down to.

I would neither recommend nor dissuade someone from going to AA. I'd probably try to get them to seek counselling first and if they decided AA was the best recourse for them, that'd be grand in my book. For the record I have already been through this with my dad and he found AA was no help to him, but did go to a support group without the 12 steps. Part of that was making amends, but there was no mention of a higher power for him. AA is not for everyone, but it does help some, and that's enough. I do think there needs to be more research into treating and diagnosing alcoholism.

marienbad wrote: »

Well if you believe a belief in a higher power is exclusively a religious concept then we will just have to agree to disagree . There is no more I can say.

As for more research , I couldn't agree more , it is the single biggest health problem in our society, and the least studied and understood .

Might I ask -if it is not too intrusive- how is your Dad doing now ?

He's doing very well, thanks. Still on his mind more or less daily, but he's holding out well.

gaynorvader wrote: »

He's doing very well, thanks. Still on his mind more or less daily, but he's holding out well.

It can be unbelievably tough , but the very best to you and to him.