A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?

gaynorvader

sopretty wrote: »

Ok, put it this way. I'm not sure what I am. I don't believe there is 'a God'. I believe there is a 'thing' or a 'force' or a 'power' or something, which is what we commonly refer to as 'God'. Not the man up in the sky with the beard. Just some sort of external force.

So, what definition does that put on me?

You believe in an external force, a god, just not an anthropomorphic version of god. I would say you are a theist. The definition of a god is pretty much an intelligent thing, force or power that influences natural events.

roosh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I mean there isn't a jot of evidence to suggest that anything specific to AA that distinguishes it from any other social support group that helps anyone.

Perhaps you could be clearer on which word or phrase there you actually need assistance with because it parses very well for me and I see no way of saying what I mean by it, other than restate it.

If you have specific questions, by all means ask. I am happy to answer.

Again, apologies for jumping in, but the issue lies in what you think AA is supposed to be.

What AA is, or indeed 12-step programs, in general, are, are partly the social support group partly, the set of practical steps aimed at bringing about a change in the addictive thinking and behaviour of the addict.

You seem to continually equate the 12-step approach to nothing more than a social support group while ignoring the practical action that is the core of the 12-steps; namely,

• a thorough self-examination of ones resentments and actions;
• examination of ones own part in those resentments and any harmful actions;
• admitting ones own shortcomings;
• making amends, where possible, for those harmful actions - something which can free the addict from the great burden of guilt that can often drive their addiction;
• continued self-examination and amends for any further harmful actions
• practicing meditation and prayer (as one understands prayer) to improve ones conscious contact with god as they understand god - the practice of meditation and prayer (depending on ones interpretation) can have the effect of increasing awareness of the subconscious thoughts and behaviours that can drive addiction; such conscious awareness can help the addict to become aware of what drives their addiction and avoid engaging in those behaviours.
• bringing the message to other alcoholics. The Dalai Lama has said - and one can verify this for themselves - that practising compassion and helping others is one of the most effective ways to develop true happiness, which is what true recovery is all about.

Are there any parts of those steps which you would say are not helpful in helping an addict recover? If so, which parts?




The steps and the social support function of the 12-step program don't have to be exclusive to AA, indeed, AA doesn't claim that they are. However, if they are successful in general then they are successful in the 12-step approach, because that is what the 12-step approach entails.

marienbad

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I mean there isn't a jot of evidence to suggest that anything specific to AA that distinguishes it from any other social support group that helps anyone.

Perhaps you could be clearer on which word or phrase there you actually need assistance with because it parses very well for me and I see no way of saying what I mean by it, other than restate it.

If you have specific questions, by all means ask. I am happy to answer.

What kind of support groups do you have in mind ?

roosh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There IS a void to be filled. Obviously. You take something out of a persons life that was a large part of it.... you leave a gap. Not seeing your issue with that fact. Do you think all that time and resources they put into that just goes away and life goes on otherwise as normal?

The issue is in your suggestion that such a void can be filled with taking up a trade, getting a hobby, etc. Your statement on this can clearly be seen and I outlined it in the previous post, which you again choose to ignore.

Many people are already engaged in the activities you suggest, while also being active addicts, so the suggestion that these things can simply fill the void is nonsensical; there is simply more to addiction than that. Indeed, for a great many addicts, a prolonged period of sobriety is required before taking up these activities because the danger is that their addiction could sabotage their attempts to do so.

The issue with addiction is the thinking and behaviour of the addict. Taking up a trade or finding a new hobby don't necessarily address this at the root core. A person who joins a football team and who comes home from a training or a match is still left with their addictive mind afterwards.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But that is NOT the same thing as the misrepresentation you made of it which claimed that I think that all one has to do to give up alcohol is get a hobby. I never said this, indicated this, or implied this. That was simply your crass and desperate attempt to misrpresent me to dodge my actual points.

I simply repeat my request: Dont do that. It is not Big. It is not Clever. It is not Honest. I will only defend the points I have made, not the ones you have invented on my behalf.

You outlined what you believed was "key" to giving up addiction, I simply highlighted what you had said and the progression of your discourse, as well as highlighting the fact that a great many addicts, possibly even most, are already engaged in those activities you suggested could fill the void. Indeed, it is the affect addiction has on those activities that often leads the addict to treatment in the first place. So not only is the solution not that simple, it isn't even "key". What is key, is affecting a change in the mindset and behaviours of the addict. Something the 12-steps aims to do, through certain practical means - not just offering a social support function.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nor have I claimed it does. You keep attacking positions I neither hold nor have espoused. I very clearly said that what makes them religious, is the text of the 12 steps themselves. The references not just to "god" but the very recognizable theistic attributes this "god" is given in that text.

As I said if you want to ignore those attributes and words to make it compatible with the non-religious.... go for it. I am not taking issue with it. I am taking issue only with pretending that ignoring it is not what you are doing. As I said.... if you act this way you could claim the bible is not a religious text either. You simply have to ignore the bits that are. Just do not try to breath with your head that far in the sand, it is not healthy.

In the point about the religiosity of the steps you singled out my statement that "the twelve steps were, as discussed, adapted from the steps of the oxford groups". To which you replied "my point exactly".

The rest of my point consisted of outlining that the compromised language of "higher power", "power greater than ourselves", and "as we understood him" were added because of the original atheist/agnostic members who did not like "the whole God business". It finished with a quote from one of the founding members stating that "as we understood him" is perhaps the most important expression in AA vocab. And I doubt very much that that was "exactly [your] point"

So, if you are so concerned about being misrepresented, you might want to be a little clearer, or more careful, in the points you are actually trying to make.


But to return to what you have "very clearly said": as has been mentioned, the text of the 12-steps was finalised in consultation with members who didn't believe in God, so the compromised language was included, so as to dilute it's religiosity, for those that were not overly religious, but also to allow for those who were not religious at all. Again, the steps are as religious as each individual member chooses.

One such example of a non-religious interpretation, which requires no burying of ones head in the sand, no trying to squeeze square pegs into round holes, is a pantheistic interpretation, which is, or can be, a non-religious philosophical position. To these people, pantheism is the view that the Universe and God are identical. In other words: that the Universe is what people and religions call "God" - or at least, that this was what the original meaning of "God" was, before the concept became misinterpreted and distorted.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

At least you have. And edited them to suit yourself. Or massively misrepsented them. The only floundering here is from you, as you flounder about trying to attack positions I do not hold in a desperate and fetid effort to look like you are having an argument and winning it.

When you seem to be accusing most people of misrepresenting you sometimes it's helpful to take a step back and ask what part, if any, you yourself play in the misinterpretation. Perhaps your floundering posts, and sometimes unclear replies lend themselves all to easily to misinterpretation.

Anyway, I have quoted your position without editing, in the most recent posts, and have outlined the progression of your arguments on those points you claim to have been misrepresented on. The reasoning hasn't changed.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again for example on this thread my main question has been "If you take the things that make AA what it is, that distinguish it from just being a simple social support group, is there a _single jot of evidence anywhere_ to show that these things are beneficial?" and all I see from you (and others) in response is a floundering and palpable desperation to dodge even attempting to answer such a question.

Although this point was, somewhat, addressed previously, a more detailed subsequent reply followed after your last response. I'll post it here, again, for posterity:

roosh wrote: »

Again, apologies for jumping in, but the issue lies in what you think AA is supposed to be.

What AA is, or indeed 12-step programs, in general, are, are partly the social support group partly, the set of practical steps aimed at bringing about a change in the addictive thinking and behaviour of the addict.

You seem to continually equate the 12-step approach to nothing more than a social support group while ignoring the practical action that is the core of the 12-steps; namely,

• a thorough self-examination of ones resentments and actions;
• examination of ones own part in those resentments and any harmful actions;
• admitting ones own shortcomings;
• making amends, where possible, for those harmful actions - something which can free the addict from the great burden of guilt that can often drive their addiction;
• continued self-examination and amends for any further harmful actions
• practicing meditation and prayer (as one understands prayer) to improve ones conscious contact with god as they understand god - the practice of meditation and prayer (depending on ones interpretation) can have the effect of increasing awareness of the subconscious thoughts and behaviours that can drive addiction; such conscious awareness can help the addict to become aware of what drives their addiction and avoid engaging in those behaviours.
• bringing the message to other alcoholics. The Dalai Lama has said - and one can verify this for themselves - that practising compassion and helping others is one of the most effective ways to develop true happiness, which is what true recovery is all about.

Are there any parts of those steps which you would say are not helpful in helping an addict recover? If so, which parts?




The steps and the social support function of the 12-step program don't have to be exclusive to AA, indeed, AA doesn't claim that they are. However, if they are successful in general then they are successful in the 12-step approach, because that is what the 12-step approach entails.

This was the original point, which preceded the reply to which I am now responding.

roosh wrote: »

This might come down to what you think AA is, or rather, is supposed to be. AA is, specifically, a support group for alcoholics with a set of steps that are supposed to bring about a transformation in the thinking and behaviour of the addict. It is more than just a social support group, because the steps work on self-investigation, making amends, meditation, prayer (depends on your understanding), and helping others. That is what the 12-step program is.

nozzferrahhtoo

sopretty wrote: »

The way I see AA is a bit like the old story about the sticks being broken individually quite easily, but when they were bunched together, they were impossible to break.

It is one thing to SEE it that way and assert it is that way. It is quite another thing to establish it actually IS that way.

But in essence you are repeating the point I keep making. AA is an example of a social support group... the sticks you speak of.... and I have not one time expressed the smallest doubt on this thread that THAT is beneficial. At all. Anywhere.

sopretty wrote: »

Are you suggesting that I am derailing the thread?

I am suggesting that the definition of atheist has nothing to do with this thread really.... and that asking for one has the _potential_ very much to derail the thread yes. It happens so often as to be near inevitable.

sopretty wrote: »

So, what definition does that put on me?

None at all. What you are saying is to vague that you are almost saying nothing at all. Of course there is "something". If there was not, then we would not be here. I believe there is "something" too. We exist, we are in a universe, and there is an explanation for that. We do not know what that explanation is, but that is the "something" whatever it may be.

What has this to do with AA?

nozzferrahhtoo

marienbad wrote: »

What kind of support groups do you have in mind ?

And and all other support groups that are out there. I am not limiting my discourse to any single one.

nozzferrahhtoo

roosh wrote: »

What AA is, or indeed 12-step programs, in general, are, are partly the social support group partly, the set of practical steps aimed at bringing about a change in the addictive thinking and behaviour of the addict.

Exactly! You are catching up at last. So the thread has divided into two topics in my view. The original and the new.

1) The original. Is AA religious? AA is a 12 step program. The 12 steps are expressely and blatantly religious. Therefore AA is religious. Thread question answered in my view. If X is an example of Y, and Z is an attribute of Y, then Z is an attribute of X.

2) Is AA effective is the tangential topic. We can split this, as you do above, into the fact it is a social support group, and it has a set of practical steps. We can evaluate the efficacy of both. I have no doubt myself that the form does help people. The questions I have been asking is whether the latter is effective at all. A question that not only has not been answered, but people like yourself have been desperately flapping about attempting to misrepresent me in order to dodge answering it.

roosh wrote: »

You seem to continually equate the 12-step approach to nothing more than a social support group while ignoring the practical action

Once again misrepsentation of me and my views as is your normal modus operandi. I have ignored no such thing. The questions I have been asking on this thread, over and over and over and over again have specifically focused on this element.

You would do well to ask yourself why you have this constant need to ignore what I write, or misrepresent or dodge it. You may find the answer personally revealing and might grow as a result.

Once again, in the hope that if I repeat it 1000 times it might eventually bypass your misrepresentation firewall you have installed on your necktop.....

If we separate out the fact it is a social support group and isolate the things that are specific to AA.... such as your "practical steps".... is there any evidence, argument, data or reasoning on offer to suggest those specific things are helpful?

Is this imagined helpfulness of AA, in other words, grounded in anything at all except the fact it is a social support group? Do the 12 steps help at all? Does anything else about AA help at all? That is my questions, and by asking those questions I am doing the very exact opposite of "ignoring" the things you are desperately trying to represent me as ignoring when I have done no such thing.

roosh wrote: »

The issue is in your suggestion that such a void can be filled with taking up a trade, getting a hobby, etc.

No the issue is that you falsely and dishonestly claimed that all one has to do to recover from this addiction is get a hobby. That is the issue I take, and it highlights blatant, wanton and contrived dishonesty on your part and is the single clearest example I currently have of this ongoing misrepresentation of my posts which you have consistently engaged in.

roosh wrote: »

Your statement on this can clearly be seen and I outlined it in the previous post, which you again choose to ignore.

The only one ignoring it is you, by pretending I said something I did not rather than addressing what I actually said which is a very valid point you have yet to even attempt to rebut.

roosh wrote: »

So, if you are so concerned about being misrepresented, you might want to be a little clearer

Your inability to understand my simple english posts does not equate to my need to be clearer. Just to your need to try harder. My points are very clear:

1) AA is a 12 step program, the 12 steps are explicitly religious and theistic, therefore AA is a religious theistic program.

2) The sudden removal of alcohol from the life of a person who consistently invests large amounts of time, resources and energy into its consumption will leave a massive hole in that persons life. And if that void is not addressed somehow then I feel the likelyhood of their successful abstience from alcohol is low.

It is entirely opaque to me which part of those two points is so difficult for you to understand, but I am as ever here for you to help.

roosh wrote: »

Perhaps your floundering posts

Once again the only person floundering here is you, in your desperate and fetid need to continue to pretend I said things I never did. I once again merely repeat my polite request for you to stop doing this, and engage with my actual points.

roosh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

1) The original. Is AA religious? AA is a 12 step program. The 12 steps are expressely and blatantly religious. Therefore AA is religious. Thread question answered in my view. If X is an example of Y, and Z is an attribute of Y, then Z is an attribute of X.

And the point which rebuts this is the point about pantheism, the "non-religious philosophical position. [where] pantheism is the view that the Universe and God are identical; in other words: that the Universe is what people and religions call 'God'" - or what was originally meant by the term "God".

There is no need for square pegs in round holes here, bcos such a pantheist philosophy doesn't require it.

The fact that the text of the 12-steps was devised, after consultation with people who didn't subscribe to the monotheistic idea of God (that you presume the 12-steps prescribes), to include the compromised language that allows for people without such a belief, further rebuts this. As does the quote form one of the founding members, who was, I believe, a subscriber to the monotheist conception, which states that "as we understood him" was "the most important statement in AA vocabulary".

I have no doubt that some people will probably look at this as a thin end of the wedge attempt at conversion, but the non-religious philosophical position of pantheism renders that point immaterial.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

2) Is AA effective is the tangential topic. We can split this, as you do above, into the fact it is a social support group, and it has a set of practical steps. We can evaluate the efficacy of both. I have no doubt myself that the form does help people. The questions I have been asking is whether the latter is effective at all. A question that not only has not been answered, but people like yourself have been desperately flapping about attempting to misrepresent me in order to dodge answering it.

I have outlined the practicality of the steps above and have asked you, on more than one occasion, to point out which ones you believe are not effective [in bringing about the required change in the thinking and behaviour of an addict].

I have also asked you to outline what the current "best practices" are for treating addiction and how the 12-steps deviate from them. Something you have continually ignored.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If we separate out the fact it is a social support group and isolate the things that are specific to AA.... such as your "practical steps".... is there any evidence, argument, data or reasoning on offer to suggest those specific things are helpful?

Firstly, the support group function is a part of the 12-step approach. So if it is effective and helpful, then it adds to the efficacy of the 12-step approach, rather than detracts from it.

There is a potential other issue that could be raised here, but insofar as you agree that support groups like AA are, in general, effective and helpful, then there is no need to go into it just yet. We can address it at a later point. The point, in general is voluntary support groups vs paid for support groups.

The second point is with regard to the specific steps in the 12-step approach. To answer that question we need only look at the data on addiction treatment in general. Again, this is where best practices come in. If we can see what the data shows are best practices then we can see how the specific steps compare to that.

In the absence of such data we can look at the practical steps and ask if such actions are beneficial to the addict or not, and if they could potentially bring about a change in the addicts thinking and behaviour, which drives their addiction.

One such step is the step which recommends meditation. I believe you have already agreed that that is beneficial. The other steps are as outlined above. You can highlight which ones you take issue with.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Exactly! You are catching up at last.

Once again misrepsentation of me and my views as is your normal modus operandi. I have ignored no such thing. The questions I have been asking on this thread, over and over and over and over again have specifically focused on this element.

You would do well to ask yourself why you have this constant need to ignore what I write, or misrepresent or dodge it. You may find the answer personally revealing and might grow as a result.

Once again, in the hope that if I repeat it 1000 times it might eventually bypass your misrepresentation firewall you have installed on your necktop.....

Is this imagined helpfulness of AA, in other words, grounded in anything at all except the fact it is a social support group? Do the 12 steps help at all? Does anything else about AA help at all? That is my questions, and by asking those questions I am doing the very exact opposite of "ignoring" the things you are desperately trying to represent me as ignoring when I have done no such thing.



No the issue is that you falsely and dishonestly claimed that all one has to do to recover from this addiction is get a hobby. That is the issue I take, and it highlights blatant, wanton and contrived dishonesty on your part and is the single clearest example I currently have of this ongoing misrepresentation of my posts which you have consistently engaged in.



The only one ignoring it is you, by pretending I said something I did not rather than addressing what I actually said which is a very valid point you have yet to even attempt to rebut.



Your inability to understand my simple english posts does not equate to my need to be clearer. Just to your need to try harder. My points are very clear:

1) AA is a 12 step program, the 12 steps are explicitly religious and theistic, therefore AA is a religious theistic program.

2) The sudden removal of alcohol from the life of a person who consistently invests large amounts of time, resources and energy into its consumption will leave a massive hole in that persons life. And if that void is not addressed somehow then I feel the likelyhood of their successful abstience from alcohol is low.

It is entirely opaque to me which part of those two points is so difficult for you to understand, but I am as ever here for you to help.



Once again the only person floundering here is you, in your desperate and fetid need to continue to pretend I said things I never did. I once again merely repeat my polite request for you to stop doing this, and engage with my actual points.

I have no problem conceding these points if it allows us to refocus on the two main points, as you have outlined above.

gaynorvader

roosh wrote: »

And the point which rebuts this is the point about pantheism, the "non-religious philosophical position. [where] pantheism is the view that the Universe and God are identical; in other words: that the Universe is what people and religions call 'God'" - or what was originally meant by the term "God".
{...}

God requires intelligence. A volcano is not a god, unless it is being worshipped as a god, and if it is, it is generally believed that it can be influenced, requiring intelligence. If you are claiming the universe is a god that is unintelligent, you are simply using the label "god" on the entity "universe", it's meaningless.

roosh

gaynorvader wrote: »

God requires intelligence. A volcano is not a god, unless it is being worshipped as a god, and if it is, it is generally believed that it can be influenced, requiring intelligence. If you are claiming the universe is a god that is unintelligent, you are simply using the label "god" on the entity "universe", it's meaningless.

Again, that depends on your understanding of what God is and your understanding of what it means for such a god to require intelligence.

gaynorvader

roosh wrote: »

Again, that depends on your understanding of what God is and your understanding of what it means for such a god to require intelligence.

I don't think that it does.

roosh

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't think that it does.

The concept of god in pantheism doesn't require intelligence. The concept of god is simply the idea that everything in the universe, ourselves included, are part of one overall whole. This is often termed monism.

Pantheistic philosophies are old, as is their concept of "god", but that is what their concept of "god" was/is, everything in the universe existing as a whole. That isn't an argument from age, bcos I'm not saying that the pantheistic conception of god is the correct one, I'm simply saying that such a concept exists.

Meditation is the practice associated with those philosophies, and the means through which "god" is experienced. It is experienced by breaking our subconscious attachment to concepts which affect our perception of the universe.


This is where I distinguish between religion and spirituality. The former appears to be based on ritual and dogma, while the latter, to my experience, is based on practice and insight. Personally, I believe that religion was born out of a misinterpretation of spirituality. You probably had guys practicing meditation for hours and years on end who then tried to communicate to those who hadn't been doing the same thing. This, inevitably, would lead to misinterpretations of what was being said; people interpreting what was being said through the lens of their pre-existing concepts. Much the same way that people misinterpret scientific theories because they haven't studied them to the same extent that scientists have. But that is neither here nor there.


The basic point is that the concept of god in pantheism, or at least my understanding of it, doesn't require the intelligence you suggest, insofar as I am interpreting what you mean.

gaynorvader

roosh wrote: »

The concept of god in pantheism doesn't require intelligence. The concept of god is simply the idea that everything in the universe, ourselves included, are part of one overall whole. This is often termed monism.

Pantheistic philosophies are old, as is their concept of "god", but that is what their concept of "god" was/is, everything in the universe existing as a whole. That isn't an argument from age, bcos I'm not saying that the pantheistic conception of god is the correct one, I'm simply saying that such a concept exists.

Meditation is the practice associated with those philosophies, and the means through which "god" is experienced. It is experienced by breaking our subconscious attachment to concepts which affect our perception of the universe.


This is where I distinguish between religion and spirituality. The former appears to be based on ritual and dogma, while the latter, to my experience, is based on practice and insight. Personally, I believe that religion was born out of a misinterpretation of spirituality. You probably had guys practicing meditation for hours and years on end who then tried to communicate to those who hadn't been doing the same thing. This, inevitably, would lead to misinterpretations of what was being said; people interpreting what was being said through the lens of their pre-existing concepts. Much the same way that people misinterpret scientific theories because they haven't studied them to the same extent that scientists have. But that is neither here nor there.


The basic point is that the concept of god in pantheism, or at least my understanding of it, doesn't require the intelligence you suggest, insofar as I am interpreting what you mean.

Without applying intelligence to a god, you're simply using the label incorrectly and redefining whatever you want. You claim pantheism is the belief that the universe is the "body" of any and all gods that have ever been imagined (already I think there are a few issues with this). That the universe is God, but not necessarily intelligent. God being the creator and the one directing our lives. How can God/the universe/whatever direct anything without intelligence? You might as well claim the universe is actually everyone's idea of a unicorn, it makes as much sense.

sopretty

gaynorvader wrote: »

Without applying intelligence to a god, you're simply using the label incorrectly and redefining whatever you want. You claim pantheism is the belief that the universe is the "body" of any and all gods that have ever been imagined (already I think there are a few issues with this). That the universe is God, but not necessarily intelligent. God being the creator and the one directing our lives. How can God/the universe/whatever direct anything without intelligence? You might as well claim the universe is actually everyone's idea of a unicorn, it makes as much sense.

I don't believe that the 'God' I believe in is an intelligent 'thing'. I believe it is reactive. Does that make any sense? I do however believe that you can tap in to 'God'.... Sometimes, fleetingly, I have felt a sense of peace, of being protected almost.

gaynorvader

sopretty wrote: »

I don't believe that the 'God' I believe in is an intelligent 'thing'. I believe it is reactive. Does that make any sense? I do however believe that you can tap in to 'God'.... Sometimes, fleetingly, I have felt a sense of peace, of being protected almost.

Sounds more like air currents or an electrical field than a god then. Maybe even neural pathways releasing chemicals in your own brain

sopretty

gaynorvader wrote: »

Sounds more like air currents or an electrical field than a god then. Maybe even neural pathways releasing chemicals in your own brain

Maybe I am a Roman Catholic atheist after all!

roosh

gaynorvader wrote: »

Without applying intelligence to a god, you're simply using the label incorrectly and redefining whatever you want.

I'm simply saying that there is a philosophical idea that dates back a very, very long time from which, it could be argued, the concept of "god" originated.

gaynorvader wrote: »

You claim pantheism is the belief that the universe is the "body" of any and all gods that have ever been imagined

I'm not sure where you got that from.

gaynorvader wrote: »

That the universe is God, but not necessarily intelligent. God being the creator and the one directing our lives. How can God/the universe/whatever direct anything without intelligence? You might as well claim the universe is actually everyone's idea of a unicorn, it makes as much sense.

That depends on what you mean by "the one directing our lives". Our subconscious thinking drives, probably, most of our actions. The forces external to "us" affect our decisions and actions.

The idea of "god's will for us", in the steps is, or rather can be, interpreted on the basis of the juxtaposition of our actions being directed by our conditioned, subconscious thinking and the direction of our behaviour as the attachment to our subconscious thoughts is loosened through practices such as meditation, self-reflection, helping others, making amends, etc.

gaynorvader

roosh wrote: »

I'm simply saying that there is a philosophical idea that dates back a very, very long time from which, it could be argued, the concept of "god" originated.

I think all river/sun/mountain gods, etc had intelligence, otherwise why worship them?

roosh wrote: »

I'm not sure where you got that from.

Obviously a misunderstanding on my part so, apologies.

roosh wrote: »

That depends on what you mean by "the one directing our lives". Our subconscious thinking drives, probably, most of our actions. The forces external to "us" affect our decisions and actions.

The idea of "god's will for us", in the steps is, or rather can be, interpreted on the basis of the juxtaposition of our actions being directed by our conditioned, subconscious thinking and the direction of our behaviour as the attachment to our subconscious thoughts is loosened through practices such as meditation, self-reflection, helping others, making amends, etc.

Are you claiming god is our subconscious? Or external environment influences us therefore god? I'm really not following your line of reasoning, I'll try again Monday when I'm not so tired.

sopretty

You see, the worshipping of God is the thing that pisses me off.

It is ingrained in me by the Catholic Church.

If you pray and give thanks etc., then God will be good to you.

I find that God cannot be bought by praise. I do however 'feel' that behaving in a 'godly' manner, generally gets you in less trouble.

I think I stopped believing in God, when I was in a traumatic situation for years and prayed and prayed and prayed for God to help me. He didn't. So now I don't believe in him.

I believe in a different 'God' concept however.

roosh

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think all river/sun/mountain gods, etc had intelligence, otherwise why worship them?

Indeed, people probably did believe that they did, but the philosophy of pantheism isn't the same.

The idea is that what was meant by "God", originally, came from people who engaged in spiritual practices, such as meditation. It wasn't the idea of worshipping things like the sun, mountains, rivers etc. The experiences that these people had, they labelled "God" but when trying to explain their insights to others, who were not engaging in the same practices those people misinterpreted what was being said and idea like a magic man in the sky developed.

If we look at the philosophies that accompany spiritual practices like mediation, and what is said about them, then we can see that they are aimed at breaking the subconscious attachment to conceptual ideas. There are also certain insights that form part of the philosophy, which are supposed to help us break the attachment to concepts. One such example is the idea of "the self", an entity which is separate and distinct from everything else in the universe. Investigating this concept leads to the conclusion that there is no "self" that everything exists as a single overall entity, which in the pantheist philosophy is "God".

gaynorvader wrote: »

Obviously a misunderstanding on my part so, apologies.

No worries. The topic of conversation is wrought with such misunderstanding.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Are you claiming god is our subconscious? Or external environment influences us therefore god? I'm really not following your line of reasoning, I'll try again Monday when I'm not so tired.

No, it's more that we have a subconscious attachment to certain concepts and ideas, which drive our behaviour. One such concept is the idea of a separate and distinct "self". Breaking the attachment to the idea of a separate and distinct "self" leads to the idea of the universe as a single entity, which is what is termed "God", in this philosophy.

Breaking this attachment, through practices such as meditation, also gives rise to certain experiences, which some people have labelled "experiencing God". Misunderstandings of what was meant by "God" have lead to various different ideas such as a magic man in the sky, among other reasons.

nozzferrahhtoo

roosh wrote: »

And the point which rebuts this is the point about pantheism

Again the relevance is questionable. The 12 steps are very clear on what kind of theistic god we are talking about. It is given a personal pronoun, sex, intention, abilities, that are all consistent with theism. The 12 steps are theistic. You can ignore sections of them to make them compatible with non theism if you like, no one is saying otherwise, but I am not pretending that is not what is being done. You can have the pretense, I merely acknowledge the pretense.

roosh wrote: »

I have outlined the practicality of the steps above and have asked you, on more than one occasion, to point out which ones you believe are not effective

If you think they are effective then the onus of proof lies on you to demonstrate this, not on me to demonstrate they are not. I can not rebut blank assertion. If they are effective, demonstrate this. I am all ears.

roosh wrote: »

Firstly, the support group function is a part of the 12-step approach.

And it is a function of groups that do not use the 12 steps too. If you get them together in a group to support each other... then they will. Nothing to do with the 12 steps whatsoever. AA is not the sole social support group for addicts in the world. The question I am asking, but you dodge here, is whether AA has any attributes unique to AA that have any effects at all (beneficial or otherwise) and how this has been measured.

roosh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again the relevance is questionable. The 12 steps are very clear on what kind of theistic god we are talking about. It is given a personal pronoun, sex, intention, abilities, that are all consistent with theism. The 12 steps are theistic. You can ignore sections of them to make them compatible with non theism if you like, no one is saying otherwise, but I am not pretending that is not what is being done. You can have the pretense, I merely acknowledge the pretense.

The 12-steps are as much pantheistic as they are theistic.

The point about intention has been addressed. It can be viewed in the context of the idea of "the self" and the subconscious attachment we have to the idea of a "self", as well as other concepts. Our own will, or the will of "the self" is driven by our subconscious attachment to beliefs. As these subconscious attachments are loosened, or even broken, then the will is no longer driven by those attachments. When the subconscious attachment to beliefs about who/what we are, and when we realise our true nature, in pantheistic philosophies, this true nature is said to be one and the same as the nature of "God" - what pantheistic philosophy labels "god". When our actions are driven from this more consciously aware state of mind, and not the subconscious habitual mind, this is what is meant by "the will of god", at least in a pantheistic interpretation.

With regard to abilities i.e. the ability to remove defects of character, the steps don't suggest that they are magically removed by some magic man, rather that they are removed by working through the other steps i.e. self-examination, making amends, meditation, etc. It is through these practical steps that "defects of character" are removed. If someone believes that it is a magic man that does this or if they believe that it happens bcos of how the human mind has evolved, it doesn't make a difference, because the practical steps, which are responsible, are the same. But again, a person can choose to believe either, depending on their own interpretation of what "God" means.

As has been mentioned, there is no need to get hung up on the male personal pronoun, bcos it can be viewed just as much as a matter of convention as it can an indication of the sex of "God". As the previous quote indicates, "as we understood him" is the most important part of the 12-step vernacular bcos it allows people to understand God however they choose.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you think they are effective then the onus of proof lies on you to demonstrate this, not on me to demonstrate they are not. I can not rebut blank assertion. If they are effective, demonstrate this. I am all ears.

As mentioned, we can look at it another way. We can ask what the current "best practices" for the treatment of addiction are and see how the 12-steps deviate from that. I am not familiar with any such best practices, given the difficult nature in treating addiction. If you are familiar with them, please, by all means outline what they are.

Otherwise we are in the position where we have to accept that the best practices are not known and the only other option open to us is a discussion of why certain steps may or may not be effective in the treatment of addiction.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And it is a function of groups that do not use the 12 steps too. If you get them together in a group to support each other... then they will. Nothing to do with the 12 steps whatsoever. AA is not the sole social support group for addicts in the world. The question I am asking, but you dodge here, is whether AA has any attributes unique to AA that have any effects at all (beneficial or otherwise) and how this has been measured.

No one has claimed that AA is the sole social support group for addicts, least of all AA - although at the time it appeared as though it may have been.

The point is that if social support groups are beneficial then that is one tick in the column of the 12-step approach, because that is an integral part of the 12-step approach. The question is whether the other parts are beneficial, or harmful. To answer that we can look at what the best practices for addiction treatment are and how the 12-steps deviate from that. In the absence of best practices the only other option, to my mind, is discuss whether the other steps are beneficial or not.

If we can narrow down which steps it is you believe are effective and which ones you question, then we can proceed from there. Now, you have already stated that you believe meditation is a positive. I would be fully in agreement with that. That would represent another tick in the "effective" column for the 12-steps.

We can leave the "God" steps til the end bcos we already know that they represent a bone of contention. Which of the following do you question, and what is the basis for questioning those. Bear in mind, in the absence of you providing best practices we are only left with a discussion of each step, as far as I can see.

• Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves
• Admitted to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
• Were entirely ready to have our defects of character removed - we can discuss the god par separately
• Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
• Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
• Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
• Practiced meditation - again we can discuss the god part separately
• tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs - we can discuss spiritual awakening afterwards.

Firstly, are there any of those steps which you would consider to be harmful to people in general, or ill advised? Bear in mind, I am aware of the difference between being good advice in general and being an effective treatment for addiction, but I wish to first determine whether you would consider the harmful and why?


Secondly, do you think they would be effective in the treatment of addiction, if not, why not?

gaynorvader

roosh wrote: »

The 12-steps are as much pantheistic as they are theistic.

{...}

I don't think this is true. In fact, I don't think that pantheism is compatible at all with the 12 steps (but thank you for bringing it to my attention, I'd never read into it before).

alcoholicsanonymous.ie wrote:

The Twelve Steps

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 practice these principles in all our affairs.

1-Fine, nothing to do with any gods yet.
2-This is compatible with Pantheism.
3-This is where the 12 steps first deviate from Pantheism, how can an unintelligent being possibly take charge of our will and lives? This is incompatible with Pantheism as I understand it.
4-Fine
5-Again, doesn't really gel with Pantheistic beliefs, how can you admit something to the cosmos?
6-Really doesn't fit with Pantheism again, the 12 steps are quite clearly referring to a personal God here. Pantheism doesn't seem to allow for a God that changes our lives on a personal level.
7-Same as 6
8-Fine
9-Fine
10-Fine
11-Mostly fits with Pantheism, apart from when it talks about God's will. A Pantheistic God has no will.
12-Fine, nothing to do with gods, only spirituality.

roosh

gaynorvader wrote: »

3-This is where the 12 steps first deviate from Pantheism, how can an unintelligent being possibly take charge of our will and lives? This is incompatible with Pantheism as I understand it.

Make a decision to turn our will and our lives over to god as we understand him.

Again, the point about what "our" will is. We can look at this in terms of the subconscious conditioning of the human mind, which drives our behaviour. Handing "our" will over to God is simply making a decision to work through the steps and attempt to break that subconscious conditioning.

gaynorvader wrote: »

5-Again, doesn't really gel with Pantheistic beliefs, how can you admit something to the cosmos?

It might be worth highlighting that admitting to oneself and to another person are just as important, possibly even moreso, depending on your belief. It can be viewed as a purely symbolic act. Bear in mind that the steps were written in consultation with both christian theists and non-theists and compromises were made to accommodate both - probably more to accommodate the non-theists than the theists. Again, this is where "as we understood him" is "the most important" part of the 12-step vernacular.

It could also be see as admitting it to a "deeper part" of yourself. In pantheism "god" is seen as being the same as our true nature, where "our true nature" is realised by breaking the subconscious attachment we have to the beliefs and concepts about ourselves and others.

gaynorvader wrote: »

6-Really doesn't fit with Pantheism again, the 12 steps are quite clearly referring to a personal God here. Pantheism doesn't seem to allow for a God that changes our lives on a personal level.

The idea of a personal god, as in having a personality, should be distinguished from the idea of a persons life being changed on a personal level. Any changes that occur, in the thinking and behaviour of an addict, do so on a personal level for the addict i.e. it is their own personal thinking and behaviour that is changed.

Being ready to have the defects of character removed is simply being ready to move on with the steps, because it is the practical work done in the steps which leads to the, alleged, change in thinking and behaviour. Whether this is ascribed to a magic man in the sky or whether it is seen as being a result of how the human mind has evolved is dependent on the personal understanding of each member.

gaynorvader wrote: »

7-Same as 6

Again, this could be seen as a purely symbolic step, depending on the personal understanding each member has of God. It could also be seen in terms of the meditation practice known as "Loving Kindness".

In the practice of "Loving Kindness" a symbol of love is imagined dissolving into light and entering the body. A person then directs this love to different individuals, themselves, a person they love, someone they feel neutral towards, someone they feel somewhat negative towards and someone they can't really stand. The love is then directed outwards to the world and every sentient being in the universe. This is accompanied by the phrases "may I be happy, may I be well, may I be safe" (or some variation of that). It then progresses with "may [insert persons name] be happy...." etc. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that an intelligent agent is being asked to make everyone happy, the practice is aimed at transforming the mind of the individual that does the practice. It can indeed transform a persons relationship with, say, that person they can't really stand.

Asking god to remove defects of character can be seen in the same light, "may I be happy, may I be well, may my defects of character be removed". A person is encouraged to really imagine what this would mean.

gaynorvader wrote: »

11-Mostly fits with Pantheism, apart from when it talks about God's will. A Pantheistic God has no will.

Again, "the will of God" can be juxtaposed with the idea of "the will of 'the self'", where "the self" is seen as the subconscious, conditioned beliefs we have about ourselves, which isn't necessarily our "true selves". These subconscious beliefs drive our actions and behaviour every day and is a major part of what drives the addictive behaviour. When the subconscious attachment is loosened, or even broken, the driving force behind our actions is no longer "the self" (or the ego, as it is often termed), but rather our actions are driven by our "true nature", the unconditioned mind, which is what, in pantheistic philosophy is said to be the same as "god".


Again, the steps were written in consultation with both theists and non-theists, so there is a compromise in the language. While the theists may have had one idea of what it meant to pray for knowledge of gods will, the theists would have had another, and not necessarily a pantheistic idea either. This would just be my own personal interpretation of what "god" is. It is again why "as we understood him" is the most important part of the 12-step vernacular.

gaynorvader

roosh wrote: »

Make a decision to turn our will and our lives over to god as we understand him.

Again, the point about what "our" will is. We can look at this in terms of the subconscious conditioning of the human mind, which drives our behaviour. Handing "our" will over to God is simply making a decision to work through the steps and attempt to break that subconscious conditioning.



It might be worth highlighting that admitting to oneself and to another person are just as important, possibly even moreso, depending on your belief. It can be viewed as a purely symbolic act. Bear in mind that the steps were written in consultation with both christian theists and non-theists and compromises were made to accommodate both - probably more to accommodate the non-theists than the theists. Again, this is where "as we understood him" is "the most important" part of the 12-step vernacular.

It could also be see as admitting it to a "deeper part" of yourself. In pantheism "god" is seen as being the same as our true nature, where "our true nature" is realised by breaking the subconscious attachment we have to the beliefs and concepts about ourselves and others.



The idea of a personal god, as in having a personality, should be distinguished from the idea of a persons life being changed on a personal level. Any changes that occur, in the thinking and behaviour of an addict, do so on a personal level for the addict i.e. it is their own personal thinking and behaviour that is changed.

Being ready to have the defects of character removed is simply being ready to move on with the steps, because it is the practical work done in the steps which leads to the, alleged, change in thinking and behaviour. Whether this is ascribed to a magic man in the sky or whether it is seen as being a result of how the human mind has evolved is dependent on the personal understanding of each member.



Again, this could be seen as a purely symbolic step, depending on the personal understanding each member has of God. It could also be seen in terms of the meditation practice known as "Loving Kindness".

In the practice of "Loving Kindness" a symbol of love is imagined dissolving into light and entering the body. A person then directs this love to different individuals, themselves, a person they love, someone they feel neutral towards, someone they feel somewhat negative towards and someone they can't really stand. The love is then directed outwards to the world and every sentient being in the universe. This is accompanied by the phrases "may I be happy, may I be well, may I be safe" (or some variation of that). It then progresses with "may [insert persons name] be happy...." etc. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that an intelligent agent is being asked to make everyone happy, the practice is aimed at transforming the mind of the individual that does the practice. It can indeed transform a persons relationship with, say, that person they can't really stand.

Asking god to remove defects of character can be seen in the same light, "may I be happy, may I be well, may my defects of character be removed". A person is encouraged to really imagine what this would mean.


Again, "the will of God" can be juxtaposed with the idea of "the will of 'the self'", where "the self" is seen as the subconscious, conditioned beliefs we have about ourselves, which isn't necessarily our "true selves". These subconscious beliefs drive our actions and behaviour every day and is a major part of what drives the addictive behaviour. When the subconscious attachment is loosened, or even broken, the driving force behind our actions is no longer "the self" (or the ego, as it is often termed), but rather our actions are driven by our "true nature", the unconditioned mind, which is what, in pantheistic philosophy is said to be the same as "god".


Again, the steps were written in consultation with both theists and non-theists, so there is a compromise in the language. While the theists may have had one idea of what it meant to pray for knowledge of gods will, the theists would have had another, and not necessarily a pantheistic idea either. This would just be my own personal interpretation of what "god" is. It is again why "as we understood him" is the most important part of the 12-step vernacular.

Your entire post seems to hinge on the idea that pantheism is the belief that God is our subconscious. I can't find any literature anywhere supporting such a view. Do you have a link?

roosh

gaynorvader wrote: »

Your entire post seems to hinge on the idea that pantheism is the belief that God is our subconscious. I can't find any literature anywhere supporting such a view. Do you have a link?

We know that the Universe - which is made up of all things - is present to all things. We know that humans are an inseparable part of this whole and of nature on this planet. The Universe is omnipresent, and we are inseparably part of it.

Pantheism.net - God and the cosmos: the real divine attributes

You would express Pantheism through seasonal rituals which would link you to the earth and universe of which you are part, and through meditation techniques which allow a direct mystical experience of nature and matter.

Pantheism.net - FAQs

We can also establish connection with Being independently of ritual, through pantheistic meditation. The mystical experience has common features across all religions. At its core is the experience of passing beyond the self and of uniting with the divine. But the experience is often said to be difficult to achieve and to maintain.


Mystical union is more accessible through pantheism. The process does not depend on imagination or mood. It is simple to understand, open to all, and repeatable.


Mystical union with Reality consists in total abandonment of consciousness to the sensory experience of nature or material reality. The self becomes simply the vehicle for the self-awareness of reality. The self is transcended, and re-united with the whole of which it is part.

Pantheism.net - Scientific pantheism: basic principles




I wouldn't necessarily subscribe to everything which the author(s) on that website say, mainly bcos I haven't read it all. I have developed my own understanding of the idea from reading about the philosophies of a number of religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and from what I have come across with regard to the mystical tradictions of the 3 main monotheistic religions. I wouldn't consider myself an adherent to any of those religions, however. I personally believe that at the core of all those religions is actually a pantheistic philosophy which has always held that God and the universe are one, just that the philosophy has become misunderstood and concepts like the magic man in the sky have developed.


All of those religion point to the idea of transcending "the self" or "ego" and connecting to the "divine" within us; where this "divinity" is just our innate goodness and capacity for love. These "spiritual" experiences are, in these traditions, synonymous with experiencing "God" and it is done through the practice of meditation.

Brian Shanahan

gaynorvader wrote: »

7-Same as 6

You could have expanded this, because step seven as written by AA basically admits that not alone are they a theistic system, but that they lot to a specific deity, viz the Abrahamic faiths' YHWH/god/Allah. Seriously there is no other possible conclusion.

And given the origins of AA, its place of birth, its parents (Dr. Bob and the other guy) and everything that surrounded that birth we can confidently and conclusively assert tha AA refers specifically and exclusively to the christian god, and excludes all others.

gaynorvader

roosh wrote: »

Pantheism.net - God and the cosmos: the real divine attributes


Pantheism.net - FAQs


Pantheism.net - Scientific pantheism: basic principles




I wouldn't necessarily subscribe to everything which the author(s) on that website say, mainly bcos I haven't read it all. I have developed my own understanding of the idea from reading about the philosophies of a number of religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and from what I have come across with regard to the mystical tradictions of the 3 main monotheistic religions. I wouldn't consider myself an adherent to any of those religions, however. I personally believe that at the core of all those religions is actually a pantheistic philosophy which has always held that God and the universe are one, just that the philosophy has become misunderstood and concepts like the magic man in the sky have developed.


All of those religion point to the idea of transcending "the self" or "ego" and connecting to the "divine" within us; where this "divinity" is just our innate goodness and capacity for love. These "spiritual" experiences are, in these traditions, synonymous with experiencing "God" and it is done through the practice of meditation.

All pointing to the individual subconscious being a very small part of the Pantheistic God. It's like claiming you can control the flow of the ocean by flinging a cup of seawater.

marienbad

roosh wrote: »

Pantheism.net - God and the cosmos: the real divine attributes

Pantheism.net - FAQs


Pantheism.net - Scientific pantheism: basic principles[/quote]




I wouldn't necessarily subscribe to everything which the author(s) on that website say, mainly bcos I haven't read it all. I have developed my own understanding of the idea from reading about the philosophies of a number of religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and from what I have come across with regard to the mystical tradictions of the 3 main monotheistic religions. I wouldn't consider myself an adherent to any of those religions, however. I personally believe that at the core of all those religions is actually a pantheistic philosophy which has always held that God and the universe are one, just that the philosophy has become misunderstood and concepts like the magic man in the sky have developed.


All of those religion point to the idea of transcending "the self" or "ego" and connecting to the "divine" within us; where this "divinity" is just our innate goodness and capacity for love. These "spiritual" experiences are, in these traditions, synonymous with experiencing "God" and it is done through the practice of meditation.[/QUOTE]




And in an AA context it doesn't matter what others believe ,it is only what you believe that counts .

We swear on the bible for hundreds of years now but does anyone contend that the oath of the non believer is any less valid.

On the surface the whole world of addiction is irrational. Why would anyone choose heroin or alcohol as a higher power ,but they end up doing so.

gaynorvader

marienbad wrote: »

{...}

We swear on the bible for hundreds of years now but does anyone contend that the oath of the non believer is any less valid.

{...}

Yes. Me swearing on a bible would be a lie. Luckily there are alternatives.

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

Yes. Me swearing on a bible would be a lie. Luckily there are alternatives.

Indeed and until affirmation came about it was a problem. But you do accept I am sure that the testimony of any atheist was just as likely to be true as that of a believer . It is the intention that counts.

But like Dev it was what was in your heart that counts

gaynorvader

marienbad wrote: »

Indeed and until affirmation came about it was a problem. But you do accept I am sure that the testimony of any atheist was just as likely to be true as that of a believer . It is the intention that counts.

But like Dev it was what was in your heart that counts

If I swear to tell the whole truth, then I will. If I swear to tell the truth on the bible, I've already lied in my mind. All the swearing aside however, I do agree that every group is probably equally as honest.

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

If I swear to tell the whole truth, then I will. If I swear to tell the truth on the bible, I've already lied in my mind. All the swearing aside however, I do agree that every group is probably equally as honest.

Is that not a modern interpretation though ? Swearing originally meant an oath under God. Many atheists took took such an oath , were they lying ?

gaynorvader

marienbad wrote: »

Is that not a modern interpretation though ? Swearing originally meant an oath under God. Many atheists took took such an oath , were they lying ?

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure you could swear an oath to anything; your king, country, honour, wife, blood, life, etc. If you swear an oath on something you don't believe in then you are being duplicitous and deceiving at the very least.

roosh

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You could have expanded this, because step seven as written by AA basically admits that not alone are they a theistic system, but that they lot to a specific deity, viz the Abrahamic faiths' YHWH/god/Allah. Seriously there is no other possible conclusion.

And given the origins of AA, its place of birth, its parents (Dr. Bob and the other guy) and everything that surrounded that birth we can confidently and conclusively assert tha AA refers specifically and exclusively to the christian god, and excludes all others.

From the book Alcoholics Anonymous - Bill's Story

Despite the living example of my friend there remained in me the vestiges of my old prejudice. The word God still aroused a certain antipathy. When the thought was expressed that there might be a God personal to me this feeling was intensified. I didn't like the idea. I could go for such conceptions as Creative Intelligence, Universal Mind or Spirit of Nature but I resisted the thought of a Czar of the Heavens, however loving His sway might be. I have since talked with scores of men who felt the same way.


My friend suggested what then seemed a novel idea. He said, "Why don't you choose your own conception of God?"

That statement hit me hard. It melted the icy intellectual mountain in whose shadow I had lived and shivered many years. I stood in the sunlight at last.

It was only a matter of being willing to believe in a Power greater than myself. Nothing more was required of me to make my beginning.

That is from one of the "parents" of AA. I'm sure you will agree that the concepts of "Creative Intelligence, Universal Mind or Spirit of Nature" are closer akin to the pantheistic idea than the monotheistic, christian idea.


One of the "parents" also says, as per the earlier quote, "as we understood him" is the most important part of the AA vernacular. Even the Oxford groups, regardless of how Christian they were, spoke of a personal understanding of "God".




As has been mentioned, the book AA and the 12-steps were written after discussions between the earliest members, some of whom did not like the idea of "god", so the compromised language was used.


The idea that "as we understood him" is the most important part of the AA vernacular can be observed in the dynamics of the meetings, where, from my experience (and that of others) there is no pressure put on anyone to conform to any conception of "god", be it monotheistic, polytheistic, or panthesitic.


Some people might indeed subscribe to the christian conception, but there are those who do not and they are just as accommodated in the 12-step program as anyone else.

roosh

gaynorvader wrote: »

All pointing to the individual subconscious being a very small part of the Pantheistic God. It's like claiming you can control the flow of the ocean by flinging a cup of seawater.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. In what way does it point to it being a very small part?

A persons true nature is seen as being one with "god", that is a persons true nature is one and the same with the nature of "god". This is said to be realised by breaking through the emotional and psychological attachment to concepts and beliefs we have about our nature. When this is done we experience our own innate goodness and love, and our actions are directed from this, as opposed to being directed from our subconscious, habituated mind, often referred to as "the ego".

It isn't the individual subconscious which is part of "god", rather the more we cultivate awareness of our subconscious habits and thoughts we break the attachment to them and become more aware of our "true nature", which is said to be an innate goodness and love.

roosh

marienbad wrote: »

And in an AA context it doesn't matter what others believe ,it is only what you believe that counts.

Indeed, as per the quote from Bill Wilson in AAs Grapevine - it is "the most important" thing.

gaynorvader

roosh wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by this. In what way does it point to it being a very small part?

If God is the whole universe then an individual's subconscious is necessarily going to be a tiny, tiny part of it.

roosh wrote:

A persons true nature is seen as being one with "god", that is a persons true nature is one and the same with the nature of "god". This is said to be realised by breaking through the emotional and psychological attachment to concepts and beliefs we have about our nature. When this is done we experience our own innate goodness and love, and our actions are directed from this, as opposed to being directed from our subconscious, habituated mind, often referred to as "the ego".

It isn't the individual subconscious which is part of "god", rather the more we cultivate awareness of our subconscious habits and thoughts we break the attachment to them and become more aware of our "true nature", which is said to be an innate goodness and love.

Ok, so our "true nature" is what is part of God? This is honestly feeling more and more makey-uppy as we go into it.
So we turn our will, etc over to our "true nature" and hope it will take charge? Ask it/Him to remove our shortcomings? I'm not sure it all gels. How do you ask a force of nature for help?

sopretty

gaynorvader wrote: »

If God is the whole universe then an individual's subconscious is necessarily going to be a tiny, tiny part of it.



Ok, so our "true nature" is what is part of God? This is honestly feeling more and more makey-uppy as we go into it.
So we turn our will, etc over to our "true nature" and hope it will take charge? Ask it/Him to remove our shortcomings? I'm not sure it all gels. How do you ask a force of nature for help?

My interpretation of it would be that our 'pure nature' rather than our 'true nature' is aligned with 'God' or 'Godliness'. We allow our conscious minds or egos to take over, but if we can get back to, or tap into our pure nature, then we will be better human beings. Tough task though!

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure you could swear an oath to anything; your king, country, honour, wife, blood, life, etc. If you swear an oath on something you don't believe in then you are being duplicitous and deceiving at the very least.

I think you are incorrect here , swearing oath is invoking God . Including your life , your wife etc is just a surety


I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

roosh

gaynorvader wrote: »

If God is the whole universe then an individual's subconscious is necessarily going to be a tiny, tiny part of it.

I'm not sure what the point is. Essentially, the universe exists as a single entity, according to pantheist philosophy, at least. Everyone and everything is part of that single entity. I'm not sure why the relative size of any of the parts is pertinent.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Ok, so our "true nature" is what is part of God? This is honestly feeling more and more makey-uppy as we go into it.
So we turn our will, etc over to our "true nature" and hope it will take charge? Ask it/Him to remove our shortcomings? I'm not sure it all gels. How do you ask a force of nature for help?

We can look at it from two angles: firstly, the idea that the universe is a single entity, of which we are a part. This single entity is what is referred to as "god".

We can also look at it from the perspective of the practicalities of it, namely the practice of meditation. The practice of meditation serves to help cultivate awareness of our subconscious thought processes and habits. Through awareness we can loosen and, possibly, even break our subconscious attachment to the conditioned beliefs that we have about ourselves. The more we loosen these subconscious attachments the closer we come to our innate nature, which is said to be truly compassionate, loving, and possess innate, true happiness. This is something which can be investigated.

As we loosen this subconscious attachment our thinking and actions are driven more and more from this innate nature, rather than the subconscious, habitual thinking that we are conditioned with. This innate nature is said to be one and the same with "god", because it is the realisation of our unity with everything else that helps to break the conditioned beliefs we have about ourselves and others - where we generally see ourselves as separate and distinct from everything else.


So, we can make a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of "God" as we understand him. This decision is simply a decision to carry on working the steps with the faith - a dirty word for some, I know - that working through the steps will help to change the subconscious, habitual thinking that has driven the addictive behaviour. It's a decision to try and break that subconscious conditioning.

When we talk about "faith" here it is, or at least can be, nothing more than faith that the steps will work. It isn't blind faith in an anthropomorphic god. In a similar way that we might have faith in a builder to do a good job building our house, bcos we have seen the job he did for someone else, people might have faith in the steps bcos they see other people who have worked through them and achieved sobriety.



Again, the idea of "asking" for shortcomings to be removed could be seen in the context of the practice of "Loving Kindness", where phrases like "May such and such a person be happy..." etc. We could say "May our shortcomings be removed...". It isn't necessarily asking an intelligent agent to magically remove our defects of character, it's more representative of something we want to achieve. Indeed, it could be seen as a purely symbolic gesture.

roosh

sopretty wrote: »

My interpretation of it would be that our 'pure nature' rather than our 'true nature' is aligned with 'God' or 'Godliness'. We allow our conscious minds or egos to take over, but if we can get back to, or tap into our pure nature, then we will be better human beings. Tough task though!

"pure nature" may be a better term for it.

gaynorvader

roosh wrote: »

I'm not sure what the point is. Essentially, the universe exists as a single entity, according to pantheist philosophy, at least. Everyone and everything is part of that single entity. I'm not sure why the relative size of any of the parts is pertinent.

We can look at it from two angles: firstly, the idea that the universe is a single entity, of which we are a part. This single entity is what is referred to as "god".

We can also look at it from the perspective of the practicalities of it, namely the practice of meditation. The practice of meditation serves to help cultivate awareness of our subconscious thought processes and habits. Through awareness we can loosen and, possibly, even break our subconscious attachment to the conditioned beliefs that we have about ourselves. The more we loosen these subconscious attachments the closer we come to our innate nature, which is said to be truly compassionate, loving, and possess innate, true happiness. This is something which can be investigated.

As we loosen this subconscious attachment our thinking and actions are driven more and more from this innate nature, rather than the subconscious, habitual thinking that we are conditioned with. This innate nature is said to be one and the same with "god", because it is the realisation of our unity with everything else that helps to break the conditioned beliefs we have about ourselves and others - where we generally see ourselves as separate and distinct from everything else.

So, we can make a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of "God" as we understand him. This decision is simply a decision to carry on working the steps with the faith - a dirty word for some, I know - that working through the steps will help to change the subconscious, habitual thinking that has driven the addictive behaviour. It's a decision to try and break that subconscious conditioning.

When we talk about "faith" here it is, or at least can be, nothing more than faith that the steps will work. It isn't blind faith in an anthropomorphic god. In a similar way that we might have faith in a builder to do a good job building our house, bcos we have seen the job he did for someone else, people might have faith in the steps bcos they see other people who have worked through them and achieved sobriety.

Again, the idea of "asking" for shortcomings to be removed could be seen in the context of the practice of "Loving Kindness", where phrases like "May such and such a person be happy..." etc. We could say "May our shortcomings be removed...".

Why bring a god into it at all? Every time you break it down you talk about an individual's 'true/good/pure nature' and meditation. Then link it to being part of the greater universe and call it God, which is like calling a cup of seawater the ocean. I'm sure that meditation is beneficial, it doesn't infer any god though.
Again, it comes back to intelligence, if your understanding of God is unintelligent, how can you ask it/Him to remove your shortcomings? How can you turn your will over to it/Him? I understand what you're saying about having faith in a system working (many people have such a faith in doctors, medicine, etc), but the 12 steps would ask you to elevate the 12 steps to God status if you were to take that approach with them.

It isn't necessarily asking an intelligent agent to magically remove our defects of character, it's more representative of something we want to achieve. Indeed, it could be seen as a purely symbolic gesture.

It is literally what step 7 says, minus the "magically" part:

12 Steps wrote:

7. Humbly asked Him[God] to remove our shortcomings.

It doesn't say ask Him to help remove our shortcomings, it says ask Him to remove them.

roosh

gaynorvader wrote: »

Why bring a god into it at all? Every time you break it down you talk about an individual's 'true/good/pure nature' and meditation. Then link it to being part of the greater universe and call it God, which is like calling a cup of seawater the ocean. I'm sure that meditation is beneficial, it doesn't infer any god though.

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.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Again, it comes back to intelligence, if your understanding of God is unintelligent, how can you ask it/Him to remove your shortcomings? How can you turn your will over to it/Him?
...
It is literally what step 7 says, minus the "magically" part:
...
It doesn't say ask Him to help remove our shortcomings, it says ask Him to remove them.

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.

nozzferrahhtoo

roosh wrote: »

The 12-steps are as much pantheistic as they are theistic.

Only because you are willing to edit them / ignore bits of them, as you see fit when you see fit. If you freely edit them then they are as much a recipie for dip as they are theistic too. The "god" in the 12 steps is blatantly theistic, replete with personal pronoun and more.

Again: I have no issue with anyone editing it to make it suit themselves. Go for it. I am just not going to concede to those who wish to lie / pretend that this is not what they are doing.

roosh wrote: »

As mentioned, we can look at it another way.

Off you go if you want to. I am looking at it my way. And my way is that if someone claims that X is effective in the treatment of alcohol then I want to see substantiation for that claim. Rather than offer any however, you are faffing about.

Can you substantiate the idea that any aspect of AA, other than it being a social outlet and support group, is in any way beneficial or useful to alcoholics as a whole? How do you measure and evaluate this efficacy outside faff and assertion?

roosh wrote: »

The point is that if social support groups are beneficial then that is one tick in the column of the 12-step approach

Except no it is not. If you find Y is beneficial and you simply tack X onto the end of Y. Then Y is not a "tick in the column of X". But this is what you are trying to pull. You are attempting to allow 12 steps to benefit by proxy by simply tacking it on to something useful.

roosh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Only because you are willing to edit them / ignore bits of them, as you see fit when you see fit. If you freely edit them then they are as much a recipie for dip as they are theistic too. The "god" in the 12 steps is blatantly theistic, replete with personal pronoun and more.

Again: I have no issue with anyone editing it to make it suit themselves. Go for it. I am just not going to concede to those who wish to lie / pretend that this is not what they are doing.

Again, there is no need for editing; as has been explained, a pantheistic interpretation of "god" doesn't require the steps to be edited. Also, when we consider the quote, from one of the founding members, where he says that "as we understood him" is the most important expression in the 12-step vernacular, it furthers this point.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Off you go if you want to. I am looking at it my way. And my way is that if someone claims that X is effective in the treatment of alcohol then I want to see substantiation for that claim. Rather than offer any however, you are faffing about.

Can you substantiate the idea that any aspect of AA, other than it being a social outlet and support group, is in any way beneficial or useful to alcoholics as a whole? How do you measure and evaluate this efficacy outside faff and assertion?

In the absence of any, agreed upon, best practices we are left with a situation where we can't say anything is effective in treating addiction, not even social outlets or support groups. We also can't say that anything is harmful, without the relevant research. So, can you provide any best practices in the treatment of addiction?

In the absence of such research we are left with the situation where an addict, who feels they need some form of treatment, must evaluate the various treatment programs for themselves. All that we have left is anecdotal evidence. That doesn't mean to say that it is correct, but that until such evidence is uncovered and formulated, then we have no other choice, indeed, the addict has no other choice. Consequently, it also doesn't mean that it isn't effective.

In the 12-step literature, the "pre-amble" (which is read out at meetings) states, "if you want what we have...", saying that, if an addict sees something among 12-step groups that they would like for themselves i.e. people who have been abstinent and who seem to have happier lives, "...then you are ready to take certain steps". The anecdotal evidence which, in the absence of any other evidence, is all we have, would suggest that people achieve sobriety, and general improvement in their disposition, by following those steps and going to meetings, not just going to meetings.

So, again, can you provide an outline of, agreed upon, best practices in the treatment of addiction, bcos if you can't all we have to go on is anecdotal evidence.


You did mention some studies which suggested that AA was no more effective than those who didn't receive any treatment, but there seems to be some dispute over the various studies, bcos the efficacy rates seem to vary, quite wildly, between studies; with those studies showing a high efficacy rate being accused of questionable methodology.

With regard to those studies showing low efficacy rates, do you know whether they measured those who had completed the steps, or just people who, in general, attended meetings, without necessarily completing the steps?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except no it is not. If you find Y is beneficial and you simply tack X onto the end of Y. Then Y is not a "tick in the column of X". But this is what you are trying to pull. You are attempting to allow 12 steps to benefit by proxy by simply tacking it on to something useful.

The issue is that the twelve step program is X, Y and, Z. So where X and Y are shown to be beneficial, then it it is certainly a tick in the column of the twelve step program.

marienbad

roosh wrote: »

Again, there is no need for editing; as has been explained, a pantheistic interpretation of "god" doesn't require the steps to be edited. Also, when we consider the quote, from one of the founding members, where he says that "as we understood him" is the most important expression in the 12-step vernacular, it furthers this point.




In the absence of any, agreed upon, best practices we are left with a situation where we can't say anything is effective in treating addiction, not even social outlets or support groups. We also can't say that anything is harmful, without the relevant research. So, can you provide any best practices in the treatment of addiction?

In the absence of such research we are left with the situation where an addict, who feels they need some form of treatment, must evaluate the various treatment programs for themselves. All that we have left is anecdotal evidence. That doesn't mean to say that it is correct, but that until such evidence is uncovered and formulated, then we have no other choice, indeed, the addict has no other choice. Consequently, it also doesn't mean that it isn't effective.

In the 12-step literature, the "pre-amble" (which is read out at meetings) states, "if you want what we have...", saying that, if an addict sees something among 12-step groups that they would like for themselves i.e. people who have been abstinent and who seem to have happier lives, "...then you are ready to take certain steps". The anecdotal evidence which, in the absence of any other evidence, is all we have, would suggest that people achieve sobriety, and general improvement in their disposition, by following those steps and going to meetings, not just going to meetings.

So, again, can you provide an outline of, agreed upon, best practices in the treatment of addiction, bcos if you can't all we have to go on is anecdotal evidence.


You did mention some studies which suggested that AA was no more effective than those who didn't receive any treatment, but there seems to be some dispute over the various studies, bcos the efficacy rates seem to vary, quite wildly, between studies; with those studies showing a high efficacy rate being accused of questionable methodology.

With regard to those studies showing low efficacy rates, do you know whether they measured those who had completed the steps, or just people who, in general, attended meetings, without necessarily completing the steps?




The issue is that the twelve step program is X, Y and, Z. So where X and Y are shown to be beneficial, then it it is certainly a tick in the column of the twelve step program.

One never completes the steps , they become a way of life .

roosh

marienbad wrote: »

One never completes the steps , they become a way of life .

True, but for the purposes of a study it might be worth looking at people who have worked through all 12 at some point; that is, people who have moved on to step 12, even earlier steps must be repeated, as opposed to people who have yet to reach step 12, for the first time.

sopretty

Slightly off topic, but in general, in the AA poster's home groups, is there a concerted emphasis generally on recovery and the steps, or is it more of a muddle along, don't mention the steps, sure you've your whole life to do them feeling going on?
My nearest group would be the latter (with the exception of a couple of members), but the next nearest group (with a younger demographic), would be very much the former.
I really wish we had the American way of being assigned a sponsor on day 1!!!! The amount of times I've gotten sober for a couple of months, squawked at meetings about wanting to get started on the steps, and ended up going back on the demon drink then as a result of no progression in recovery, drives me bonkers.
At this point, I'm almost entirely disillusioned with AA.
I feel that if I had been brought through the steps the first or second times I was sober, I'd have stood some chance.
There's only so long you can white-knuckle it, no matter how many meetings and 'group support' you have!

gaynorvader

sopretty wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but in general, in the AA poster's home groups, is there a concerted emphasis generally on recovery and the steps, or is it more of a muddle along, don't mention the steps, sure you've your whole life to do them feeling going on?
My nearest group would be the latter (with the exception of a couple of members), but the next nearest group (with a younger demographic), would be very much the former.
I really wish we had the American way of being assigned a sponsor on day 1!!!! The amount of times I've gotten sober for a couple of months, squawked at meetings about wanting to get started on the steps, and ended up going back on the demon drink then as a result of no progression in recovery, drives me bonkers.
At this point, I'm almost entirely disillusioned with AA.
I feel that if I had been brought through the steps the first or second times I was sober, I'd have stood some chance.
There's only so long you can white-knuckle it, no matter how many meetings and 'group support' you have!

The topic had a good run.

Do you have any teetotaller friends? The hardest thing about giving up anything is having people around you partaking, it'll make you feel like you're missing out or tempt you back in.