A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So you admit then that the AA is essentially lawless. Why then do you defend it?

AA is 'lawless'to the same extent as any counsellor or psychotherapist practicing in this country is 'lawless'. Unregulated does not mean the same as lawless.In the absence of statutory regulation what is any group, individual or agency to do? They can attempt to self-regulate or they can cease to practice.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So you admit then that the AA is essentially lawless. Why then do you defend it?

And as to why I defend it ? has anyone yet offered an alternative in the fight against alcoholism here in Ireland ?

To those on here defending I suspect it is not an academic question .

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again: the question of this thread is whether AA is religion and in answering that question I do not apologize for referring directly to the 12 steps that make up the very core of those meetings.

No one is asking you to apologise for referring to the 12 steps, what is being asked of you is that you do your due diligence and refer to more than simply just the 12 steps.

To answer the question of whether or not AA, or the 12-step program, is religious, referring to just the 12-steps is not enough, because there are more facets to the 12-step approach than merely the text of the 12-steps. As has been mentioned, there is additional literature which serves to illuminate the text of the 12-steps. There is also the actual dynamics of 12-step meetings, as opposed to how you are choosing to imagine it.

To re-iterate, basing your understanding on nothing more than the 12-steps is superficial. Just in case you raise the point again, that I am simply repeating the claim hoping that it will suffice as a point, I will point out that the claim, that you have a superficial understanding, is based on the point that you are referencing nothing more than the 12-steps and other anecdotal evidence - which when examined only serves to highlight the superficiality of your understanding.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again: Not only was the program invented by nut job christians, but the 12 steps also mention god. And not only that but they lend attributes to that god that are IMMEDIATELY recognizable to anyone even passingly familiar with monotheistic thought.

The program was adapted from the original steps of "nut job christians". They were changed to make them more relevant to alcoholics. But I'm sure that you will acknowledge the fact that however "nutty" these christians were, that is just and ad hom argument (or the equivalent of one applied to a group - not sure if the latin term changes). While those christians may have been nutty it doesn't mean that the steps they worked don't have any intrinsic value or that the adapted steps don't positively affect those looking to recover from addiction.

Indeed, you are correct, the text of the steps are compatible with anyone who subscribes to a monotheistic philosophy, but, as has been outlined, they are also compatible with anyone who subscribes to a pantheistic philosophy where evolution and the natural laws of the universe determined through the scientific method.

So, to once again return to the question of whether the 12-step program is religious, the answer is, it is as religious as any individual member determines it to be; it is also as religious as Darwin's theory of evolution if that is how a member understands "God". In a nutshell, it can be, but it is not necessarily.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The fetid desperation with which you want to distance yourself from that merely belies the truth of my claims. It certainly has not rebutted them in any way. But do keep floundering.

I'm not sure how acknowledging the roots of the 12-step program and the fact that it can be religious - as religous as any individual member chooses - counts as a fetid desperation to distance myself from those points. Perhaps you are confusing the manner in which I have highlighted how the steps are compatible with more than one philosophy as "fetid desperation".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not to me it has not. Not on this thread. And most certainly not by you. The only way to make these things compatible is to simply outright ignore half of what these things say. If YOU want to make "god" mean something else in the 12 steps then more power to you. But you do this through nothing more than the application of a mix of your imagination and the insertion of your head into some sand.

Again if this works for you.... GREAT. Go for it. No one wants to stop you. But I will not be cajoled into ignoring the pretense that is involved in the attempt.

It was explained here:Post on Pantheism, Buddhism and the 12-steps

The 12-steps are perfectly compatible with pahteism and Buddhism, all you need for the former is to not get too hung up on the use of the male personal pronoun; for the latter you just need a more pantheistic interpretation of the term "God" (although that isn't the only way).

There is no need for cajoling, just a rational approach. Even in this manner a superficial understanding won't impede you because the text of the 12-steps are perfectly compatible with both pantheism and buddhism.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is, as I have said, simply false. The 12 steps do more than use the word "god". They discuss and give attributes to this god that EXACTLY match what we are familiar with from monotheism. Denying this is just desperation and a falsehood. Neither of which I am about to fall for thanks.

Again, I am not denying anything, I have acknowledged that point, and said it is true. You might be falling into the trap of ignoring key points again.

Yes the 12-steps are compatible with monotheistic philosophy, but they are also compatible with pantheistic and buddhist philosophy. It's the latter point which you seem to willfully ignore.

So, again, no denial, the truth of the point has been acknowledged, however, it has also been stated - and previously explained - how the steps are compatible with more than the preconceived philosophy you think it is limited to.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All I am doing here is passing on what others have told me. When I enter forums and complain about the content of the 12 steps I am told quite often by people using AA that they do not really bother with the 12 steps at all. Some are told of their existence on day 1 and never see them again. Some have them stuck on the wall but no one even mentions them. While OTHER meetings stick to them religiously.

So I am anecdotally getting massively conflicting feedback as to how these meetings are run. They appear to me to be entirely ad hoc, unregulated and down to the whim of whoever is organizing them. You say "In meetings the 12-steps and traditions are read out at the start or "maybe in introduction".". Maybe in YOUR meeting(s) they are. But I get just as many anecdotes saying the exact opposite. Who am I to believe?

I would be interested to see the exact quotes of these people to see precisely what it is they have said. Are they from people on this forum and, if so, would you be able to provide some information or links so that I could view these posts. If they are on other sites, what is the name of the forum and could you do the same for those.

You mentioned the proponent on the City Data forum:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Are there others besides this one proponent? The reason I ask is because, as has been clarified,

roosh wrote: »

In meetings the 12-steps and traditions are read out at the start. 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

So you have the support group meetings, where the steps are read out at the start, but people don't necessarily talk about the steps beyond that, in those meetings. There are other meetings where the meeting is dedicated to one single step and people share their experiences with that. Working through the actual steps is done outside of meetings with a sponsor.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And my question to those people, which has gone TOTALLY unanswered by those people, is if you divest an AA meeting of the tenets and texts of AA. Then how exactly is it still AA except for the name on the door? How is a 12 step program a 12 step program is no one uses the 12 steps? It makes no sense to me. Nor, from reading your floundering posts, to you either.

The simple answer is that it isn't. If someone doesn't follow the 12-steps then they, by definition, are not following the 12-steps. I have stated this already. Of course, that is entirely their prerogative, but the literature of 12-step programs says that those who follow the steps tend to get sober; it's through neglecting the steps that people relapse.

The 12-step program is like a recipe for recovery. The recipe is made available to people who wish to try to recover from addiction. If they choose not to follow it, then that is their choice.

It would be like someone coming up with the first recipe for chocolate cake and then making it freely available to whoever wished to make chocolate cake. What is there to stop someone else from not following the recipe and still claiming it is chocolate cake? Is the onus on the person, who makes the recipe freely available, to regulate those who falsely claim to make chocolate cake? Of course not, that would be nonsensical.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You appear to think that repetition of the word "superficial" makes a point for you in place of you actually making one, or failing to make one. Repeating that word over and over again is not going to make it true. It just makes you feel good about yourself as if you scored a point somehow in a competition that you appear to be the only competitor in.

To re-iterate:
the initial claim: superficiality

is based on

the point: only quoting the text of the 12-steps, when there is more literature that illuminates the 12 steps as well as the actual dynamics of meetings.

This further claim of superficuality is based on the point of the statement of your City Data AA proponent, where the 12-steps and traditions are read out at the start of the meeting, but not mentioned again. This is precisely how certain AA meetings work; there are other step meetings, which have a different dynamic. Working through the steps is not done inside the meetings.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The thread is about whether AA is religious and the 12 steps in the text are very clearly expressly religious.

Again, pantheism and evolution, both perfectly compatible with the text.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Where the conversation has turned to the efficacy of the program however the fact is that how the meetings are run and implemented are so diverse that it is impossible to claim any efficacy at all,

Again, this is where your lack of understanding comes in. The meetings are not where people work through the 12-steps. They are diverse because people are diverse. The meetings, of which I'm guessing your imagining, are the support group function. What you have essentially said is that the support groups are diverse - don't think you'll be in for a nobel prize with that revelation!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

AAs own documents suggest an efficacy % that is no better than inaction, and there simply is not a shred of a jot of evidence to suggest that the "12 steps" help anyone.

AA is not a research organisation, and I have read that the statistical analysis produced by AA is not very sound, so I wouldn't be too quick to rely on that. I'm sure if you've researched the efficacy rates of AA you'll find many contradicting reports, probably bcos of the difficulty of testing such an area.

Reading some of the studies it seems that many of them focus on attendance of AA meetings, with little or not mention of working through the steps. Perhaps that might be a better study to conduct, with the added benefit of being easier to conduct sampling. People who have worked through the steps, and continue to do so, versus those who have not.

It is also worth highlighting, again, your own self-contradiction here. On the one hand you say that all that is needed for recovery is a support group and a hobby, and that AA is little more than a support group and a hobby. On the other you say that AA doesn't help anyone. You have stated your belief that such things as meditation are helpful in addiction yet willfully ignore that meditation is part of the 12-steps.

As has been mentioned, you are making a category error. On the one hand you say that X, Y, and Z are helpful or necessary for recovery and on the other you say that the 12-step approach is ineffective, but you miss the point that X, Y, and Z are the 12-step approach.

The problem is that, referencing your cayenne pepper analogy, is that you say that the 12-step approach is X, Y, Z, and G, and that G is the superfluous part of the equation, but that X, Y, and Z are what actually work. So, if X, Y, and Z work, then they work as part of the 12-step approach as well.

The problem you have is with G, but it has been outlined how this is based on a superficial understanding and a preconceived idea of the 12-step program - the reasoning behind why your understanding is superificical has been outlined.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All we have at the end of the day is a social support group and an outlet. Both of which are great things, do not get me wrong!

So AA is a social support group and an outlet, and social support groups and outlets are great things, therefore AA is great.

You see, this is where you are contradicting yourself and making a category error. You are saying that X, Y, and Z are great and necessary for recovery (said in previous posts) but that AA doesn't aid recovery. Your category error lies in the fact that the 12-step approach is X, Y, and Z.

Again, your issue lies in the "cayenne pepper", the G, the term "God". However, you ignore the critical part "as we understood him" and the explanation of how the steps are compatible with pantheism and evolution, meaning the 12-step program can be religious or it can be as non religious as Darwin's theory of evolution.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But the thread is not about social support or having an outlet. The thread is specifically about AA and no one.... very much less so you yourself.... has offered a single shred of data to suggest AA is anything more than just that: Another social support outlet.

Something which you yourself has said is necessary for recovery. Again, category error.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So you can throw around words like "superficial" and "ignore" and "lack of understanding" all you like to make it sound like other people are suffering from these things when in fact you are the only one who is. But not one point I have made has been rebutted. And not one concern I have raised has been addressed.

You have rebutted your own points, as has been pointed out above, because you are contradicting yourself and making an obvious category error.

It is quite clear what your "concern" is, as can be seen from your cayenne pepper analogy. Your "concern" centres around God and the "nonsense" built up around the core of effective things in the 12-step approach.

Your "concern" should be allayed by my having pointed out that the steps are compatible with a naturalistic interpretation, but I don't doubt you will continue to choose to ignore that.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which is one of the concerns I have raised by having an unregulated nonsense program that just anyone can start. Can you imagine if some pervert could just set up a gynecology at will without regulation or license? Or someone setting up a psychiatry practice on a whim in order to get access to needy and vulnerable people?

What is to stop someone setting up a gynecology practice? It's the laws of the land. Someone could indeed set up such a practice and go unnoticed. It is only if someone reports them to the authorities that they would be closed down. AA is subject to the laws of the land, it's just that there is no law against setting up a fraudulent AA meeting.

So, it would seem that you "concerns" are, at best, misguided. It is the law of the land you should be questioning and why it isn't illegal to set up a fraudulent AA meeting.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We have regulations, best practice guidelines, licensing and more for a reason. If we genuinely want to help people we subscribe to these things and we not only evaluate the efficacy of our practices but we update those practices by iteration in the face of the results of those evaluations. We ensure that the people offering such assistance and medical practices and help are licensed and regulated and answer to a code of practice and conduct and a regulatory body.

We do indeed, and something that you have yet to answer is, what are the current, specific best practices for treating addiction and how does AA deviate from those.

Also, those bodies you talk of are made up of professionals and are professional research organisations. AA is not a research organisation. Again, to return to the chocolate cake analogy. If someone makes the recipe freely available and others try the cake, find it works for them and then share the recipe with others, freely, the onus isn't on them to conduct research to make sure that their method of making chocolate cake is the best. If it works for them and they share and others find it also works for them and they share it, then they are simply making a recipe, which was previously nowhere to be found freely available. If someone chooses to claim that they have the recipe but they don't follow it, the onus isn't on the original distributors to police them. The recipe is there to be used by whoever chooses to use it, it is freely available.

It would be like saying the onus is on the person who discovered penicillin to police everyone claiming to produce penicillin - it isn't.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All I am suggesting is that if we are going to help the needy and vulnerable people in our society suffering from addiction then this too might be the best way to go about it. Even the most well meaning and well intentioned individual can cause more harm than good by blindly implementing a set of practices that they may not even understand, or may not be effective at all. Questions do have to be asked about the efficacy and effects of things like AA and I am concerned myself that with AA...... it simply it not being done.

No one is questioning the idea that there needs to be more research into addiction, and the various approaches, but the idea that a non-professional, non-research-based organisation, that makes an addiction treatment program freely available is responsible for doing so, or is even in the best position to do so, is misguided.

Just in case it was a TLDR:

Nozz, you contradicted yourself.

Your "concern" was made obvious by your "cayenne pepper" analogy - apologies it wasn't picked up on earlier; we could've saved ourselves a lot of time.

You do actually raise some valid points, when it's not masked behind some faux concern for people with addiction.


Is there a forum, on boards, where we could start a thread where we work through the ins and outs of conducting a survey amongst AA members, or 12-step program members? I'm gonna start one in the Philosophy forum; genuinely, your contribution would be welcome. As would Brian Shanahan's, Mazcon's, sopretty's and whoever else contributed - I never read the name of the poster, only what they post....


EDIT: actually gonna start the thread in the pop science forum bcos I feel it would benefit from the input of scientifically minded people

mazcon wrote: »

steps 1-3 involve identifying the areas of one's life that one has no control over and to recognising how holding on to an illusion of control is contributing to the chaos being experienced.

That is one of the things people do take exception to with regards AA. The idea that the alcoholic has no control over alcohol or the choice not to drink. This simply is not true. Yes they require assistance, understanding, support and more. But at the end of the day, short of us tying them to a chair, the only person that DOES have the control IS the alcoholic. No one else.

mazcon wrote: »

I find it frustrating that personal experience is disregarded entirely when it is relevant.

There is good reason to do so, regardless of your frustrations.

Geomy wrote: »

People go to those meetings because of its anonymity and lack of rules and regulations.

Your opinion, but I do doubt it. I think "people go to those meetings" because they have identified a need for change and are under the impression AA is something that will help them attain it.

Choice always exist. Even when someone begins drinking. It might hamper their ability to make the correct choice but the choice is always there, and the power to make that choice is theirs and theirs alone. They are not powerless and I see no utility in telling them they are.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Choice always exist. Even when someone begins drinking. It might hamper their ability to make the correct choice but the choice is always there, and the power to make that choice is theirs and theirs alone. They are not powerless and I see no utility in telling them they are.

Would you rule out naltrexone, Antabuse etc then ?

I just don't think you really understand the nature of addiction.

marienbad wrote: »

Would you rule out naltrexone, Antabuse etc then ?

I just don't think you really understand the nature of addiction.

Could you clarify what you mean here? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.