A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?

sopretty

gaynorvader wrote: »

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.

My social life took a wee bit of a hit when I hit full-blown-alco status , so no, I was not heading out hitting the town hitting the orange.

I was running 10k, cleaning my house, baking buns, cakes, brown bread, stews, cleaning drawers out that I had forgotten existed, twice daily meetings etc. etc. lol.

I was never in contact with drinking people while sober. I avoided them like the plague. Wasn't hard, as I avoid people when drinking also!

gaynorvader

sopretty wrote: »

My social life took a wee bit of a hit when I hit full-blown-alco status , so no, I was not heading out hitting the town hitting the orange.

I was running 10k, cleaning my house, baking buns, cakes, brown bread, stews, cleaning drawers out that I had forgotten existed, twice daily meetings etc. etc. lol.

I was never in contact with drinking people while sober. I avoided them like the plague. Wasn't hard, as I avoid people when drinking also!

Did you hang out with non-drinkers though? Or even just hang out with friends you knew wouldn't try to pressure you to drink? Having a partner on a run is great. Everything you described is a solitary activity bar the AA meetings, possibly another group activity would help?

sopretty

gaynorvader wrote: »

Did you hang out with non-drinkers though? Or even just hang out with friends you knew wouldn't try to pressure you to drink? Having a partner on a run is great. Everything you described is a solitary activity bar the AA meetings, possibly another group activity would help?

Pretty much isolated alright. Apart from AA members.

gaynorvader

sopretty wrote: »

Pretty much isolated alright. Apart from AA members.

If you don't mind some unsolicited advice then, go find a group activity to do. It must be pretty wearisome when your only social outlet has alcohol as its main theme. Just make sure you don't get dragged into after drinks

sopretty

gaynorvader wrote: »

If you don't mind some unsolicited advice then, go find a group activity to do. It must be pretty wearisome when your only social outlet has alcohol as its main theme. Just make sure you don't get dragged into after drinks

I get excited when people are around lol. My natural instinct (call it a trigger) is to want to go for drinks! My younger alcoholic years were spent in the pub. The latter ones in isolation at home.

marienbad

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!

Virtually all groups I have attended have a fairly set routine , usually along the lines of a step meeting once a month , an open meeting at regular intervals also and depending on local requirements. And a huge emphasis on recovery .

On the sponsorship thing it is usually done by the new or newish member asking someone . Usually after they have listened for sometime and identified a person they identify with and probably at this stage have spoken to quite a bit .

The thing about the steps is you must commit to them yourself and do them yourself , sure listen at step meetings ,read the literature, chat discuss seek advice but ultimately only you can do the steps . If you have gone to even one meeting you already well into step 1.

I know it is very hard when you are at your most vulnerable but you also must find the strength to ask for help at meetings and the after meetings chats. People don't want to seem pushy so take a chance. If a person is wrong for you they will link you up with someone more suited - a women or a younger person , or someone with cross addiction etc.

When I first went I was told AA is like concentric circles and there was I on the outermost ring just hanging on and the objective is to get closer and closer to the centre , just like a little solar system . Or in basic terms - latch onto and stick with the winners, i.e. those with long term sobriety .

And to do whatever it takes to archive that.

nozzferrahhtoo

roosh wrote: »

Again, there is no need for editing

Then stop. Because that is what you are doing. Your rants here are akin to the scene in Monty Python where one person hears "Blessed are the cheesemakers" and decides that this applies to everyone working in Dairy. A dilution of the meaning that simply was not present in the original utterance.

You are essentially engaged in the same comedy. You are taking a clear description of an intentional interventionalist personal theistic god and attempting to linguistically dilute away the parts that do not gel with your desired meaning, ignoring those parts, and acting like this makes it compatible with whatever you want it to be.

roosh wrote: »

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

Then establish some if you need to. My point once again is that anyone commenting on the efficacy of AA specifically has the full onus of proof at their feet. They can establish exactly what measures they are using to assert this, and what substantiation they have to support the assertions.

You appear to want me to do that work for you. Not happening. If you, or anyone else, on this thread wants to claim that AA is an effective treatment, or aid to treatment, for alcoholics then I am all ears to hear the basis for such a claim, including the standards of measurement used in that evaluation.

roosh wrote: »

You did mention some studies which suggested that AA was no more effective than those who didn't receive any treatment

Not me. AA themselves. Their own internal leaked figures claim this.

roosh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then stop. Because that is what you are doing. Your rants here are akin to the scene in Monty Python where one person hears "Blessed are the cheesemakers" and decides that this applies to everyone working in Dairy. A dilution of the meaning that simply was not present in the original utterance.

You are essentially engaged in the same comedy. You are taking a clear description of an intentional interventionalist personal theistic god and attempting to linguistically dilute away the parts that do not gel with your desired meaning, ignoring those parts, and acting like this makes it compatible with whatever you want it to be.

Hahahaha classic Life of Brian.

As has been repeatedly mentioned, there is no need for such dilution, the reason being that a pantheistic interpretation offers a different way of looking at "god" that addresses all of the issues you perceive to exist.

I dare say the reason you perceive these issues to exist is bcos of your familiarity with the christian conception of "god" and, from this perspective, it would certainly seem that it is only such a conception that could possibly be compatible with the 12-steps. Again, however, a pantheistic interpretation offers a different way of looking at "god" that doesn't require any changes in the 12-steps. Some would argue, myself included, that a pantheistic interpretation is what the concept of "god" originally was, before becoming "corrupted" over the millennia.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then establish some if you need to. My point once again is that anyone commenting on the efficacy of AA specifically has the full onus of proof at their feet. They can establish exactly what measures they are using to assert this, and what substantiation they have to support the assertions.

You appear to want me to do that work for you. Not happening. If you, or anyone else, on this thread wants to claim that AA is an effective treatment, or aid to treatment, for alcoholics then I am all ears to hear the basis for such a claim, including the standards of measurement used in that evaluation.

No one wants you to do any work for them. I've simply repeated the request for the current, agreed upon, best practices in addiction treatment, bcos I'm not familiar with them myself and I'm not even sure if such exist. If no such best practices exist, then it renders this line of discussion almost meaningless, for any approach to addiction treatment.

Of course, the absence of any such data doesn't render the claim to the efficacy of the 12-steps incorrect, it simply means that there is no data, as of yet - due to the limited research into the field - to support the claims. Now, this isn't of much use to the addict who has acknowledged that they have a problem and that feels they need some form of treatment. In such an instance, a discussion as to how the 12-steps actually work and the changes they can potentially bring about, while only being anecdotal in nature, might be quite helpful. It might also be helpful for anyone who has certain pre- and misconceptions about the 12-steps. But this doesn't seem to be a line of discussion you are prepared to follow.

In short, it seems as though no discussion can be had about treatment programs, given the lack of research into the area.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not me. AA themselves. Their own internal leaked figures claim this.

I think the reliability of research conducted by AA has already been seriously questioned, so I'm not sure how reliable those figures are. However, with regard to the figure of 5%, I think that was with regard to the retention rate in AA i.e. the number of people who attend meetings and stay.

Such a figure can be misleading when evaluating the efficacy of the 12-steps, however, bcos, in order to determine the efficacy of the 12-steps we should be evaluating those people who have reached step 12, at least, for the first time, not just those people who have attended a few meetings and decided that it wasn't for them.

nozzferrahhtoo

roosh wrote: »

As has been repeatedly mentioned, there is no need for such dilution

At as pointed out, repetition does not make something true. The facts are there to be read (or in your case ignored) that the text of the 12 steps very clearly describe an intentional, intelligent, personal interventionalist theistic god.

If you or any other person wants to dismiss those parts in order to make use of AA compatible with their world view then as I keep saying I have no issue with that. I am cool with it.

All I am doing is acknowledging that this has been done. I am ok with the ignoring. I am not ok with ignoring the ignoring.

roosh wrote: »

If no such best practices exist, then it renders this line of discussion almost meaningless, for any approach to addiction treatment.

roosh wrote: »

I think the reliability of research conducted by AA has already been seriously questioned

Then as I said you need to take this up not with me, but anyone on the thread past or future who makes claims as to the efficacy of AA. You will need to ask them what standards, and forms of measure, they are using to evaluate such an assertion... before then asking them for the substantiation they inserted into that framework to come to their conclusions.

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

roosh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

At as pointed out, repetition does not make something true. The facts are there to be read (or in your case ignored) that the text of the 12 steps very clearly describe an intentional, intelligent, personal interventionalist theistic god.

If you or any other person wants to dismiss those parts in order to make use of AA compatible with their world view then as I keep saying I have no issue with that. I am cool with it.

All I am doing is acknowledging that this has been done. I am ok with the ignoring. I am not ok with ignoring the ignoring.

The only one guilty of repetition and ignoring what has been said is yourself. I have outlined in previous posts how a pantheistic interpretation requires no dilution or ignoring of any parts of the 12-steps, yet you have chosen to simply repeat the assertion that it does, without directly addressing any of the points raised.

You have also failed to consider some other key aspects of 12-step literature as well as the actual dynamics of 12-step groups, when arguing that the 12-step approach is religious; instead, you have stuck, dogmatically, to a narrow reading of the text of the 12-steps bcos of your own particular understanding of what the concept of "god" means. It has, repeatedly, been pointed out that such a narrow focus isn't sufficient to answer the question of religiosity, bcos there is more literature which helps to clarify the text of the 12-steps, that is, to give a better understanding of what is meant by it.

So even if, in theory, the 12-steps were religious,which they don't necessarily have to be, in practice 12-step groups are not necessarily religious. Again, they can be, but there are a vast array of beliefs about "god" which are not questioned, because "as we understood him" is "the most important phrase in [the 12-step] vernacular".

So, at worst, the 12-step approach is not, in practice, necessarily religious. But of, course, as has been pointed out, the 12-steps themselves don't necessarily have to be religious either, even in theory.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then as I said you need to take this up not with me, but anyone on the thread past or future who makes claims as to the efficacy of AA. You will need to ask them what standards, and forms of measure, they are using to evaluate such an assertion... before then asking them for the substantiation they inserted into that framework to come to their conclusions.

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

I will engage with anyone who makes claims with regard to figures concerning efficacy. I would engage with them to see what the figures suggest and to see if they know what the studies have investigated.

If someone makes the claim that the 12-step approach to addiction can be successful, then I would support their claim, even if it was only anecdotally. Just as I would support a similar claim about CBT, anecdotally, as they are the only two approaches with which I am, in any way, familiar with - the 12-step approach much more so.

If someone makes a claim, or champions it, with regard to the success of the 12-step approach being equal to no help at all, then I will also engage with them to see what the studies have investigated.


Unfortunately for the addict, waiting for the research to be conducted into the efficacy of different treatment programs might not be a satisfactory option. In which case I will gladly discuss the anecdotal evidence and outline why I believe the practical steps in the 12-steps bring about a change in the thinking of the addict, as they did in me.

gaynorvader

roosh wrote: »

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

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

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



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

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

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


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

It's all symbolic then :rolleyes:

roosh

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's all symbolic then :rolleyes:

How do you mean?

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

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

gaynorvader

roosh wrote: »

How do you mean?

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

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

roosh

gaynorvader wrote: »

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

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

gaynorvader wrote: »

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

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

marienbad

roosh wrote: »

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


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

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

As you say it depends on the individual .

roosh

marienbad wrote: »

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

As you say it depends on the individual .

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

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


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

gaynorvader

roosh wrote: »

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

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


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

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

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

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

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

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

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

roosh

gaynorvader wrote: »

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Again, the steps accommodate such an understanding.

gaynorvader

marienbad wrote: »

{...}

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

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

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

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

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

gaynorvader

marienbad wrote: »

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

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

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

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

gaynorvader

marienbad wrote: »

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

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

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

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

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

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

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

gaynorvader

marienbad wrote: »

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

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

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

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

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

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

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

gaynorvader

marienbad wrote: »

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

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

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

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

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

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

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

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

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

gaynorvader

marienbad wrote: »

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

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

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

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

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

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

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

Brian Shanahan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

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

gaynorvader

marienbad wrote: »

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

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

marienbad

gaynorvader wrote: »

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

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

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

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

roosh

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

roosh

gaynorvader wrote: »

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

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

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


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

nozzferrahhtoo

roosh wrote: »

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

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

roosh wrote: »

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

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

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

roosh wrote: »

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

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

roosh wrote: »

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

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

marienbad

This is my 2nd time posting these links

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

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

Brian Shanahan

marienbad wrote: »

This is my 2nd time posting these links

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

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

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

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

marienbad

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

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

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

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

Brian Shanahan

marienbad wrote: »

comments on that article and can in their turn be disputed ?

Peer review is essentially "comments on the article" to use your wording, and peer review is the base method of correction in modern science.

Oh and it would be very hard to dispute comments that take the methodology of a survey and show how that methodology is heavily biased towards giving a positive spin to AA, which in science is a highly unethical thing to do.

Oh and regarding the ncbi article I'll quote the Cochrane meta review of all available, scientific, studies, which the article authors seem mad to denigrate:

No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems. One large study focused on the prognostic factors associated with interventions that were assumed to be successful rather than on the effectiveness of interventions themselves, so more efficacy studies are needed. - See more at: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD005032/alcoholics-anonymous-aa-is-self-help-group-organised-through-an-international-organization-of-recovering-alcoholics-that-offers-emotional-support-and-a-model-of-abstinence-for-people-recovering-from-alcohol-dependence-using-a-12-step-approach.#sthash.kwtnGoF2.dpuf

The link is to the abstract of the review, here is the full article. As you can see, they state clearly that there is no evidence either for or against any possible effectiveness of AA, mainly because there is no proper research being done in the area. To put it in perspective, if AA were an anti-cancer drug no relevant authority in the world would clear it for use on patients on the grounds that because there has been no research done they don't know what will actually happen.

roosh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

Indeed, you are continually just repeating the same point which has been addressed.

The issue is that you are looking at the 12-steps through the lens of your understanding of christianity; when you do this, it is inevitable that you will come to the conclusion that it can only be the christian interpretation of god which can possibly fit with the 12-steps.

However, if you look at the steps through the lens of pantheism you can see that such a conception of god fits equally well, and all of the issues you perceive to exist are not issues at all - this has repeatedly been outlined. If there are any points which were not clear, please state them and I can outline them again.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

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

No, but you have, yourself, made a statement with regard to the efficacy of 12-step treatment - the figure of 5% - I have sought to engage with you on this issue, to see what it was that was actually measured, bcos it seems that the retention rate of people who attend AA meetings is being conflated with the efficacy rate of the whole 12-steps.

In the absence of such data that line of conversation, according to your criteria, appears to be meaningless, not just for 12-step programs but for research based programs also. As I have said, in the absence of such data we can discuss the practical steps and how they work so that we can attempt to arrive at a rational decision as to whether or not they could be beneficial, or, at the very least, if they could be harmful. You seem unwilling to engage in such a discussion.

You have mentioned before that you believe that meditation is beneficial, or at least that a friend of yours (I think you said friend) offered meditation to people and the addicts seemed to benefit from it. In a similar vein, the research into the effects of meditation is still in it's infancy (or perhaps just beyond that) and the current research seems to back up some of the anecdotal claims that were made prior to the research being conducted. Now, meditation didn't suddenly start having positive effects just bcos research concluded that it does, the research was conducted bcos of the anecdotal claims. We can therefore have a meaningful conversation about the practical steps and how they could be beneficial, or are you worried that there might be a little less "cayenne pepper" in the steps than you think? As I have said, we can leave the most controversial parts til the end.

As for the "AA zealots", I'm not sure if you are counting me among those - I presume you are - but I no longer attend AA and haven't for a few years now. The most beneficial thing I found in sobriety was the practice of mediation - step 11, incidentally - and didn't really like going to meetings, partly bcos of the people there; but I can still recognise the benefit that is to be gained through the steps. Also, as an "AA zealot", I have spoken in favour of the the efficacy of the CBT approach.

Also, I don't think any of the "AA zealots" here have gotten "uppity" at the suggestion that we should conduct more research into addiction, including the 12-steps. In fact, I think everyone agreed with that point.

As for it not being as effective as they (we?), personally, want, it seems that there is an absence of data to be able to generalise the statement that it is effective, but that doesn't mean that it isn't effective; it simply means that there is a dearth of research into the area. Again, the question of the 5% here might be raised, but so too will the question of whether that conflates the retention rate with the efficacy of people who have worked through the 12-steps.

As has been mentioned, in such a case, we are left with only anecdotal evidence and for those with experience of the 12-steps it would seem that many would agree that working the 12-steps is successful - not to be confused with simply attending meetings (the social support function). Now, while it is only anecdotal, it might represent a good jumping off point for those professionals who work in the field of addiction research.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

Yup, no one has disagreed with you on this point (as far as I can remember). But, I'm sure you would agree, the research is probably best conducted by those professionals who are employed in that field.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

You may have misunderstood the latter part of that point, "they don't necessarily have to be." What was meant was, they could be taken symbolically but they don't have to be, they can be taken practically, as with certain meditation practices where phrases are repeated, such as, "May I be happy.." etc. Here it seems as a request is being made for happiness, but to who or what? It's just something which has a practical psychological effect. In this context and the context of pantheism, asking for defects of character to be removed can be seen in the exact same way, as can asking for knowledge of "god's" will.

Also, in fear of labouring the point, you weren't so much acknowledging that such things could be taken symbolically, you were suggesting that doing so was diluting the steps i.e. that they have to be taken literally.

But of course, a pantheistic interpretation offers a different way of interpreting the concept of "god" and no such issues arise bcos of the various practices which mean that it isn't an issue.

roosh

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The devil as always is in the detail. Here are two responses showing the deeply flawed data used to draw the conclusion of that article:





You see the numbers are actually only a tiny, and highly skewed*, sample of what AA should be studying, and the selected sample massively massages the numbers in a way which flatters the AA. The study cited in the article is bad science, plain and simple.

*By selecting members who've attended over half of the meetings in a year there are two immediate and glaring flaws:
1) The sample is not a random subsection of AA users.
2) The sample has been selected on the basis of those with the strongest will to get off the drink, i.e. those who are most likely to get off the drink.
There are others, but I'm not in the mood for thinking them through. The two above are big enough to junk the study as is.

Those studies seem to conflate the retention rate of AA with the efficacy of the 12-step program as a whole. Those who attend one meeting and then drop out, will not have worked through the 12-steps. Those who stay in AA longer are more likely to have worked, or be in the process of working through, the 12-steps.

To test the efficacy of the 12-step program the sample should be selected from among those who have worked through the 12-steps, at least once.


Reading the "Treatment Overview" section of this article, it seems as though patients are not brought through any of the steps, in TSF programs.

marienbad

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Peer review is essentially "comments on the article" to use your wording, and peer review is the base method of correction in modern science.

Oh and it would be very hard to dispute comments that take the methodology of a survey and show how that methodology is heavily biased towards giving a positive spin to AA, which in science is a highly unethical thing to do.

Oh and regarding the ncbi article I'll quote the Cochrane meta review of all available, scientific, studies, which the article authors seem mad to denigrate:



The link is to the abstract of the review, here is the full article. As you can see, they state clearly that there is no evidence either for or against any possible effectiveness of AA, mainly because there is no proper research being done in the area. To put it in perspective, if AA were an anti-cancer drug no relevant authority in the world would clear it for use on patients on the grounds that because there has been no research done they don't know what will actually happen.

I simply do not have the competence to understand these papers one way or the other. All they are saying to me is that due to lack of conclusive controlled studies the jury is out , would that be fair comment ?

If and when such studies are done they should be carried out on those persons who have completed a reasonable amount of time in any such programme , excluding those sent there involuntary or those leaving after just a few months . After all if one does not complete a course of antibiotics no one is surprised the disease remains.

On your cancer analogy in the absence of any research into addiction what is one to do? And AA is simply not a research organisation . Outside of helping to achieve sobriety for some they have little else to offer.

Might I ask a personal question and if it is out of line my apologies and leave it unanswered . If you knew a chronic alcoholic in search of help would you tell them of AA ?

nozzferrahhtoo

roosh wrote: »

Indeed, you are continually just repeating the same point which has been addressed.

As are you, repeating points that have been addressed. Once again the OP is asking if AA is religious. The 12 steps are clearly describing a personal interventionalist theistic god. So yes I find AA to be religious.

If you have found a way to ignore those religious aspects to make the steps compatible with your own world view... that is fine with me. But that does not make the things you are ignoring magically not be there any more.

I am not looking at the 12 steps through a lens of Christianity. I am looking through it through a lens of being able to read, understand, and parse simply English.

However, if you look at the steps through the lens of pantheism you can see that such a conception of god fits equally well, and all of the issues you perceive to exist are not issues at all - this has repeatedly been outlined. If there are any points which were not clear, please state them and I can outline them again.

roosh wrote: »

No, but you have, yourself, made a statement with regard to the efficacy of 12-step treatment - the figure of 5%

The only statement I make on that is that this is one of the few figures we have, it comes from AA themselves, and that this figure is the same as the commonly accepted figure we expect from doing _nothing at all_.

And this should be fuel to people to understand that the call for more evaluation of the efficacy of AA is warranted. Do you disagree? If so, why, because it is not clear to me why people here get so haughty and uppity at the notion we should evaluate this efficacy rather than simply accept it on faith.

nozzferrahhtoo

marienbad wrote: »

If and when such studies are done they should be carried out on those persons who have completed a reasonable amount of time in any such programme , excluding those sent there involuntary or those leaving after just a few months . After all if one does not complete a course of antibiotics no one is surprised the disease remains.

It would have to be more complex with that to avoid simple correlation-causation errors. If we find that people in long term attendance of AA were exhibiting an 80% success rate for example.... we can not simply assume AA had anything to do with this. At all.

For example it might merely be a correlation. People who are dedicated enough to over come their addiction might also be dedicated enough to keep attending AA. AA might not have helped them one iota. But the common factor in their attendance, and recovery, is them themselves.

We have this issue in such evaluations all the time. People do X and get result Y and automatically assume X therefore brought about Y. When often it was some other common factor Z that led to X and Y.

The most common example of this is fad diet programes. People think, for example, that going on this "Cayenne Pepper" diet brought them all kinds of benefits. They know they went on a diet heavily steeped in the Pepper, and they know they feel great. They wholesale ignore however the vast number of other changes that they also implemented in their life at the same time. Drinking more water, exercising more, and cooking with Cayenne Pepper led them to cook more fresh foods and avoiding pre prepared processed foods.

The evidence that Cayenne Pepper did anything for them, despite their anecdotal testimony to the efficacy and power of it, is precisely Zero.

Evaluation of something like AA therefore is not easy and has many pitfalls.... but my knowledge and study of Epidemiology in no way leads me to think it is too difficult to be done. It just has to be done right. We know the pitfalls and we know many methodologies to avoid them.

roosh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As are you, repeating points that have been addressed. Once again the OP is asking if AA is religious. The 12 steps are clearly describing a personal interventionalist theistic god. So yes I find AA to be religious.

If you have found a way to ignore those religious aspects to make the steps compatible with your own world view... that is fine with me. But that does not make the things you are ignoring magically not be there any more.

I am not looking at the 12 steps through a lens of Christianity. I am looking through it through a lens of being able to read, understand, and parse simply English.

As I have said, I have addressed the issues you have raised, outlining how such issues are, in fact, non-issues when we consider the steps from the perspective of pantheism. You have not responded to any of those points specifically, choosing instead to repeat the assertion that parts of the steps have to be ignored or diluted. As you have said, mere repetition of an assertion does not a point make. I have offered to explain again any of the issues which may have been misunderstood, so there are two options available: either re-read my posts where I have addressed the issues and if there are subsequent issues raise them, or re-state the original objections and I can explain them again.

To facilitate the discussion, I will re-iterate that a pantheistic interpretation, based on meditative practices addresses the issue of an "interventionalist" god bcos there is no external, anthropomorphic god that magically removes defects of character, just by asking. The removal of "defects of character" - and this is true even in the christian interpretation - is a natural consequence of carrying out the practical steps of self-examination, making amends, meditation, and helping others.

The idea of an "intentional" god is addressed on the basis of the concept of "self", where "god's" will is distinct from the will of "the self"; where "the self" is subconscious attachment we have to a belief about who/what we are, and which drives our thoughts and behaviour. In pantheistic thought, our "true" nature, which is what is left when we break the subconscious attachment to those thoughts, is seen as one in the same thing as "god" i.e. it is the nature of "god". So, when the subconscious attachment is broken to our subconscious misconception of ourselves, our will is no longer driven by our "self", or "the self", but rather by our "godly" nature. Our actions and behaviour can become more compassionate, more loving, and more altruistic - that is the ideal of course.

So, the issues that you perceive to be there are not actually issues at all, when viewed from the perspective of pantheism, which has a different conceptualisation of god than does christianity - or at least, the stereotype ascribed to christianity.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The only statement I make on that is that this is one of the few figures we have, it comes from AA themselves, and that this figure is the same as the commonly accepted figure we expect from doing _nothing at all_.

And this should be fuel to people to understand that the call for more evaluation of the efficacy of AA is warranted. Do you disagree? If so, why, because it is not clear to me why people here get so haughty and uppity at the notion we should evaluate this efficacy rather than simply accept it on faith.

Again, the figure you are referencing is the retention rate, not the efficacy of the 12-step approach. If we were to compare the success rate of the 12-step model to other treatment approaches, or indeed to doing nothing at all, we need to be comparing people who have gone through the 12-steps once with those other groups. The figure you are referencing includes the 90% of people who attend one AA meeting and never return. Those 90% will not have completed the 12-steps.


But, to re-iterate, bcos you seem to be ignoring this again, no-one here - and that includes us "AA zealots" - has disagreed that there is need for greater research into the efficacy of treatment programs, the 12-step model included. In fact, I do believe we have all said that, yes, there is a need for greater research. We have, however, highlighted one of the issues that seems to be overlooked in the research conducted to date, namely sample groups of peolpe who may not necessarily have gone through the 12-steps. Instead, what seems to have been tested is those people who have availed of the social support group function of the 12-step model and not the rest of the program. Do you agree that, in order to test the efficacy of the 12-step approach, that the sample should include people who have worked through the 12-steps?

ryan101

Is there any evidence for these claims that the AA is ineffective ?

roosh

ryan101 wrote: »

Is there any evidence for these claims that the AA is ineffective ?

The point that is being made is that, the burden of proof is on those who claim that AA is effective to provide evidence that it is. There are some studies which suggest that the 12-step model has a very low efficacy rate, but it appears that those studies don't actually measure people who have worked through the 12-steps, rather just people who have attended meetings.

Brian Shanahan

ryan101 wrote: »

Is there any evidence for these claims that the AA is ineffective ?

Yes, the most recent half way decent data released by the AA themselves only showed a 5% effectiveness (which is the same figure for those who go cold turkey without any outside help). Seeing as they haven't published any data since then, apart from nebulous and unverified "joining rates", one is forced to admit (unless one is trying to perpetuate a lie) that this situation hasn't significantly changed.

Below are three articles which lay out some of the massive problems with the AA, which they naturally don't want you to see (the snake oil salesman never wants to show the figures of effectiveness):
http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/1587/1/Estimates-of-AAs-Effectiveness/Page1.html
http://www.cbtrecovery.org/AAefficacyrates.htm
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html
(please note I posted the last article on the first page of this thread. None of the AA-shippers have actually gone to the effort of trying to refute that one).

Oh and one more thing to really put the boot in to the AA as an organisation, there have recently been revelations of sexual abuse by the "counselors" against vulnerable people, and these revelations are taking a similar path to those against the rcc in the early nineties, and those against orthodox jewish rabbis now.