Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?
Comments
-
Stop being so defensive and dare I say it paranoid
You can say what you like, it will not make it relevant or true. I was merely pointing out that you hit QUOTE on my post and then proceeded to ask a tangential question that in no way refereed to any single shred of the post you were quoting.As to why it is popular - you keeping repeating why you think it is so, but offer no evidence for that .
No evidence for what exactly? My claim is that AA is a social support group and an outlet. Which of those claims do you think requires substantiation or that you think could be false?You have absolutely nothing to offer to alcoholics/addicts that might offer a better solution , but again would I be correct in saying that is not your concern here ?
You would. This is a thread about AA. Not about other things we can offer (though I have mentioned other things on the thread, you appear to have ignored them too, which is becoming something of a modus operandi in your responses to me at this point).
My concern here is about evaluating the actual effects and efficacy of AA, and of answering the OPs question as to whether it is religious based or not.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You can say what you like, it will not make it relevant or true. I was merely pointing out that you hit QUOTE on my post and then proceeded to ask a tangential question that in no way refereed to any single shred of the post you were quoting.
No evidence for what exactly? My claim is that AA is a social support group and an outlet. Which of those claims do you think requires substantiation or that you think could be false?
You would. This is a thread about AA. Not about other things we can offer (though I have mentioned other things on the thread, you appear to have ignored them too, which is becoming something of a modus operandi in your responses to me at this point).
My concern here is about evaluating the actual effects and efficacy of AA, and of answering the OPs question as to whether it is religious based or not.
Well that is progress of a sort if you accept AA is a support group. And would you accept it is no more or no less effective than other such 12 step support groups.
As for evaluation - would you accept that the not a lot is as yet known about chronic addiction and how to arrest it ?0 -
Well that is progress of a sort if you accept AA is a support group. And would you accept it is no more or no less effective than other such 12 step support groups.
As for evaluation - would you accept that the not a lot is as yet known about chronic addiction and how to arrest it ?
Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly are the differences between AA and other 12 step support groups?0 -
gaynorvader wrote: »Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly are the differences between AA and other 12 step support groups?
Well you have narcotics anonymous ,gamblers anonymous, other programmes within social services/health frames work, Meetings for gay people, or women and you have ones specifically for atheists or agnostics in the USA but none as yet in Ireland a to my knowledge .0 -
Nozz - you are still refusing to answer the two simple questions that I have asked you. Given your refusal to answer them, I put it to you that your suggestions that AA is secretive, resemblant of a cult and non-cooperative with any medical enquiries, as being completely baseless, unfounded and INCORRECT claims. I would suggest that anyone reading your posts, takes these opinions as simply that - one person's personal impression and subjective personal opinion.0
-
Advertisement
-
gaynorvader wrote: »Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly are the differences between AA and other 12 step support groups?
There is now a 12 step programme for people who are addicted to 12step programmes lol0 -
-
I have a good friend who attented AA for a spell back in 2012, never took to it. He said the people were good people whose hearts were in the right place, but that it was SATURATED with hopelessness and woo and he couldn't seperate the useful from the pointlessly impractical.
Fast forward two years and he's in recovery, but it was not AA that helped him but CBT, which he found far more powerful and almost the polar opposite of AA teachings.
As he put it, CBT taught him he was in control of his actions. He was in control of his desires, he was in control of the voice in his head: he could listen to it, recognise it and disregard it. He was able to stop his life spinning out of control and refocus.
He has used what he learned in other aspects of his life too and he is a genuine inspiration to me.
I'm not here to diss AA, but it seems curious to me that telling people who are at a low ebb that they are powerless could be useful in anyway. Of course it does help some people, but the relapse rate is definitely something that I feel we should be able to discuss without everyone getting defensive. I asked my friend why he felt it had such a low success rate and he said that honestly, when you take personal responsibility away from people from the off you undermine their greatest tool, their own consciousness.
I thought it was an interesting perspective. I think CBT has given my friend a tool he can use time and time again, even if the going gets rougher than it is now, and that's why he and by extention- I- would question the methods employed by AA.0 -
That is precisely the point. You have done little more than refer to both texts, at times selectively and at times to paraphrase them. You don't seem to have referred to the other literature which is necessary for interpreting the texts of both.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »IF you re-read my posts (or read them in this case without the re-) you will find I refereed to and commented on both.
This is why your understanding of the religiosity of the 12-step program is superficial.
Nope, I think that by repeatedly pointing out how you are referring to little more than a simplistic reading of the text of the 12-steps and 12-traditions, while ignoring the main bodies of literature associated with the 12-step program, and necessary for interpreting the aforementioned texts, that the point of "superficial understanding" will be plain to see.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You appear to have the notion that if you repeat the word "superficial" often enough you will magically move from mere repetition to having actually made a point. Repetition does not a point make however. I am not commenting on the religiosity of any one particular meeting or meetings..... given the unregulated nature of the system the religiosity is likely going to depend more on the person running it..... but I AM commenting on the text(s). And the texts are blatantly, clearly, and in your face theistic. They not just use the word "god" but go on to assign attributes to that god that are instantly recognizable to anyone even passingly familiar with Christianity or similar religion structures. A patriarchal personal pronoun who listens to prays, has a will, has an intention and design for us, can intervene, experiences love for us and so forth.
If you want to attend those meetings pretending "god" means something else to you then by all means do so. I just want to be sure we acknowledge that pretense is what it is.
Your comments on religiosity have extended to the 12-step program, which is more than just the text of the steps and traditions; it includes the meetings, the other literature, the sponsorship approach, and a persons personal understanding of what god is. Again, your clinging to a simplistic and superficial reading of the text of the steps means that your arguments are only ever going to be superficial.
Particularly when it has been pointed out how the steps are compatible not only with religions that would be considered to have different gods, but is also compatible with religions such as buddhism, which has no god and a pantheistic interpretation which says that the universe is god, where all the natural scientific laws apply.
So ya, this idea that a particular God, or kind of God is being prescribed is pretty much just a superficial understanding.
and the meetings I have attended in different locations, towns, and countries, or the ones attested to by others.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And you have been to "every" meeting to verify that factoid then have you? Some how I doubt it, so please do not pretend to speak for anything but your own meeting here.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You are an anecdote of 1 and I have several other anecdotes to the contrary. Some people are telling me that they are made aware of the existence of the 12 steps at some meetings when they first join and then they are never mentioned, shown, referred to or used again. Which anecdotes am I to believe exactly here?
Fun Fact: a meeting which makes no mention of the 12-steps or which "throws together" steps as they see fit isn't a 12-step meeting - by definition.
Fun Fact 2: if a group throws together steps as they see fit, then they aren't following the 12-step program.
Throwing out words like "unregulated" and "ad hoc" might [again, here's that word again] superficially sound like a valid point but it just demonstrates a lack of understanding of the genesis of the 12-step program and how it works.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But such is the effect of having a decentralized, unregulated, ad hoc group of programmes that share little in common except the plaque name they put on the door.
Due to a lack of alternative treatments for addiction a couple of alcoholics devised a program that worked for them, they made it freely available to anyone who wanted to try it. Other people then took this approach and showed it to others, who showed it to others. Now, how you propose such an approach be regulated or centralised, I'm not entirely sure. Like I say, it sounds good because you use words that could be construed as negative, "unregulated" and "ad hoc", but using words with negative connotations "does not a point make".0 -
gaynorvader wrote: »From the OEDOriginally Posted by oed.com
Religion
3. Action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for a god, gods, or similar superhuman power
5. Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement.
I don't see how the AA's 12 steps doesn't fall under this definition. The fact that they claim not to be a religion is meaningless.
Would you consider the following belief a religious belief:
Through the process of evolution, the human brain has developed in such a way that self-examination, making amends, and helping others can have a positive effect on recovery from addiction. Also, that the human brain has evolved in such a way that the various practices of meditation affect the neural pathways of the brain in such a way that can be beneficial to a recovering addict.
Further, that an individual does not consciously control the process of evolution and certainly could not have controlled the process up until the point their birth; that the process of evolution, although being a process which occurs within them also occurs external to them.
Also, that an addict can come to believe that, as a result of evolution, if they carry out the certain, aforementioned, steps that they can abstain from addictive substances.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hey FMC, I had a family member who had a similar experience. They never took to the 12 step program largely bcos they couldn't stand what they were hearing in meetings. I was the same myself in the beginning, until I went to a few different meetings and found a group that I could identify with more. My family member also went through a CBT treatment program and is currently in recovery - they have also told me about others who were in treatment with them who have relapsed a number of times. While this family member is in recovery, that is, stopped the addictive behaviour, other aspects of their life have not really progressed.fatmammycat wrote: »I have a good friend who attented AA for a spell back in 2012, never took to it. He said the people were good people whose hearts were in the right place, but that it was SATURATED with hopelessness and woo and he couldn't seperate the useful from the pointlessly impractical.
Fast forward two years and he's in recovery, but it was not AA that helped him but CBT, which he found far more powerful and almost the polar opposite of AA teachings.
As he put it, CBT taught him he was in control of his actions. He was in control of his desires, he was in control of the voice in his head: he could listen to it, recognise it and disregard it. He was able to stop his life spinning out of control and refocus.
He has used what he learned in other aspects of his life too and he is a genuine inspiration to me.
I'm not here to diss AA, but it seems curious to me that telling people who are at a low ebb that they are powerless could be useful in anyway. Of course it does help some people, but the relapse rate is definitely something that I feel we should be able to discuss without everyone getting defensive. I asked my friend why he felt it had such a low success rate and he said that honestly, when you take personal responsibility away from people from the off you undermine their greatest tool, their own consciousness.
I thought it was an interesting perspective. I think CBT has given my friend a tool he can use time and time again, even if the going gets rougher than it is now, and that's why he and by extention- I- would question the methods employed by AA.
I have two family members who have various qualifications in addiction treatment and both speak very highly of CBT, and it is something I believe sounds like a potentially effective treatment - I am unsure of efficacy rates, for the various approaches, however.
Just on a couple of points that you raised, bcos I think there can be a lot of preconceptions on both sides here; the idea that 12 step programs teach people that they are powerless is somewhat of a misunderstanding - and I don't doubt that there are people in 12 step programs who misunderstand it. The 12 step program teaches that people are powerless over their addiction, that when they take a substance, or engage in a certain type of behaviour, they tend to lose the run of themselves, they lose control. What your friend learned through CBT is precisely what the 12-step program aims to develop, namely the ability to listen to the voice in the head, recognise it and disregard it, to stop ones life spinning out of control and refocus - this is what the 12-step program teaches will happen if the steps are followed.
It might be worth pointing out that it is easy to get caught up in the idea that "god" will magically do this for you, but it is actually the process of self-examination, making amends, helping others and meditation which have the major transformative effect; and this is what the 12 step literature actually says.
On a lesser, side-note, I think the idea that your friend can control the voice in his head, or that any of us can, for that matter, is somewhat inaccurate. If this was the case then your friend should be able to go a whole day without having the voice inside his head say anything. I don't doubt it is an impossible task. Even 30 seconds, I dare say, will be an impossibility. The listening to, and disregarding of the voice is a different matter. That is the idea of lessening attachment to that voice and not necessarily acting on it unconsciously. That is the purpose, and effect, of basic meditation practice.
The tools your friend has acquired through CBT are much the same as what people acquire through 12 step programs, the ability to cope when things get tougher; the ability to deal with things in life without the need to resort to addictive behaviour, something that can be brought into every aspect of ones life.
I would agree that we should be able to talk about relapse rates and efficacy of treatment programs without getting defensive, however, I think the perceived defensiveness here is more to do with some of the preconceptions that are perpetuated about 12 step programs.
While I'm not sure about other treatment programs, one thing that could contribute to the low rates of success of AA - if they are indeed as low as claimed - is the lack of barriers to entry, which means that the sheer numbers of people coming through AA can be enormous, when compared with other treatment programs. AA is open to anyone and everyone, so somebody can, in a bout of despair, come into AA in the hope that they can turn things around, but not like what they hear in a meeting and assume that that is true for all of AA and then return to addiction.
Other treatment programs, I would imagine, have certain barriers to entry, such as available places, cost of the program, or other things. In certain treatment programs there are also entry requirements, where an addict will need to be "clean" for a certain period before being admitted. Such is not the case with AA, where a member can show up drunk if they so wish - they will be asked not to share, however. Certain treatment programs will also give preference to people who fill certain criteria and deemed to have a higher chance of success, on the basis that it would be a better use of resources.
Some of the issues with testing the efficacy of programs such as AA (not sure if the same is true of CBT) is that of a placebo, not least the ethical issues of administering this placebo to addicts who really need the help of proper treatment.
I don't think there are many addicts who would argue against the idea of more research into addiction and the efficacy of treatment programs, in fact, I could nearly guarantee every one would be in favour of it. I'm also fairly sure that the majority of AA members would be in favour of research into the efficacy of the 12-step approach. AA is not a research organisation though and I'm not sure the organisational structure - of what is essentially not an organisation - lends itself too readily to a centralised approach to such an investigative approach. I don't doubt if some researchers got themselves a research grant from somewhere and were to approach the AA and asked for co-operation they wouldn't be turned down. But then, I can't speak for the whole of AA.0 -
That is precisely the point. You have done little more than refer to both texts
Shock horror. While evaluating the efficacy and claims of AA.... that I should refer to the texts and tenets of AA. Should I perhaps be reading Lord Of The Rings instead before I comment. Please.
Again the thread is about whether AA is religious. And my point is that the 12 steps that is the core of it (it is called.... wait for this.... a 12 step program.... after all) are expressly religious, not only mentioning "god" but attributing to "god" many of the attributes that are instantly recognizable to anyone with even a passing knowledge of monotheism and the Christianity from which AA emerged.
There is nothing superficial in that. All you are doing is attempting to dilute it away so you can wash your hands of it. I am not buying it.
Nope, I think that by repeatedly pointing out how you are referring to little more than a simplistic reading of the text of the 12-steps and 12-traditions, while ignoring the main bodies of literature associated with the 12-step program, and necessary for interpreting the aforementioned texts, that the point of "superficial understanding" will be plain to see.Fun Fact: a meeting which makes no mention of the 12-steps or which "throws together" steps as they see fit isn't a 12-step meeting - by definition.
Fun Fact 2: if a group throws together steps as they see fit, then they aren't following the 12-step program.
Fun Fact 3: That was my points exactly.
You are pretty much making my points for you now.
I invite you to search my username over on the City Data Forum where I was forced to make that very point myself. There was a proponent of AA there who was trying to say that the meetings he attends were "AA", but they did not use the 12 steps much, or even mention them, except maybe in introduction.
The simple point I was making is that anecdotally I am, when having conversations about AA with supporters of AA, often meeting people who tell me that they call their meetings "AA" but they do nothing that would in any way recognizably make it "AA".
In those cases, such as the example I give you from City Data, I simply ask them "If you throw out all the texts and tenets of AA, then please tell me how your meeting is AA in any way except the name you stick on the door?".
An answer to which I simply have not been given by such people. Anywhere. Ever.Throwing out words like "unregulated" and "ad hoc" might [again, here's that word again] superficially sound like a valid point but it just demonstrates a lack of understanding of the genesis of the 12-step program and how it works.
Or more to the point how YOU think it SHOULD work. But if people are just throwing meeting together and they are all being run totally differently then unregulated, ad hoc, and inconsistent are not a lack of understanding on my part but a factual description of these meetings as a whole.
And this position is supported by the words of AA attendees themselves. They tell you often that if one meeting does not appeal to you then try others until you find one that does. Why? Because they are all different.Due to a lack of alternative treatments for addiction a couple of alcoholics devised a program that worked for them
That they THINK worked for them. They do not know it did. Likely what worked for them is the mutual support they gave each other. Or their focus on their new hobby together. Social support... and an outlet.... the two things I have mentioned numerous times on this thread.
Their "program" does not appear to have anything to do with it. Especially given the efficacy of their program (5%) is exactly the same efficacy as no program/treatment at all. Statistically SOME people are going to fall into that 5% and therefore THOSE people are going to attribute their success to whatever it was they were engaged in at the time. The question we have to ask therefore is WAS it anything to do with what they were doing at the time, or are they just in the 5%? A question that I do not see a single proponent of AA on this thread, or a single person working with AA, wanting to engage in answering. And THEREIN lies my concern.0 -
I put it to you that your suggestions that AA is secretive, resemblant of a cult and non-cooperative with any medical enquiries, as being completely baseless
Then where is the data evaluating the efficacy of the program? Why are they not performing it? You would think that if they actually wish to help people that one of their primary goals would be to evaluate and improve their own programs and procedures. Where is this being done. I am all ears. Show me what you got. So far: Nothing.0 -
Well that is progress of a sort if you accept AA is a support group.
How is that progress when it is what I have been saying pretty much from the start? The progress appears to be in your understanding what I write, rather than any change in what I have written.And would you accept it is no more or no less effective than other such 12 step support groups.
No, their success will be on a continuum. As such they would have to be more successful than some, and less than others. The questions I and others have brought up is HOW we should evaluate this and WHAT we should do with that data when we get it.0 -
Would you consider the following belief a religious belief:
Through the process of evolution, the human brain has developed in such a way that self-examination, making amends, and helping others can have a positive effect on recovery from addiction. Also, that the human brain has evolved in such a way that the various practices of meditation affect the neural pathways of the brain in such a way that can be beneficial to a recovering addict.
Further, that an individual does not consciously control the process of evolution and certainly could not have controlled the process up until the point their birth; that the process of evolution, although being a process which occurs within them also occurs external to them.
Also, that an addict can come to believe that, as a result of evolution, if they carry out the certain, aforementioned, steps that they can abstain from addictive substances.
No, as there is no higher power involved.0 -
Nope, you should be referring to more than just the text of the 12-steps and, on occasion, the 12 principles. "The big book" perhaps, or the book entitled 12-steps and 12-traditions, both of which serve to illuminate both texts further and give a deeper understanding of both texts. Attending some meetings might also prove beneficial, even if it is only to better understand the actual dynamics of meetings.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Shock horror. While evaluating the efficacy and claims of AA.... that I should refer to the texts and tenets of AA. Should I perhaps be reading Lord Of The Rings instead before I comment. Please.
The 12-steps are compatible with religions that are not monotheistic, with pantheism, where evolution can be the "higher power", buddhism - a non-theistic religion - and most other forms of non-theistic, naturalistic philosophies you can think of. This has been demonstrated.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Again the thread is about whether AA is religious. And my point is that the 12 steps that is the core of it (it is called.... wait for this.... a 12 step program.... after all) are expressly religious, not only mentioning "god" but attributing to "god" many of the attributes that are instantly recognizable to anyone with even a passing knowledge of monotheism and the Christianity from which AA emerged.
There is nothing superficial in that. All you are doing is attempting to dilute it away so you can wash your hands of it. I am not buying it.
The only thing about the steps which might make them religious is the use of the word "God", that is, if one clings to a dictionary definition. But then, to do so would be just a superficial position without any real understanding of the concept of god "as we understood him". Again, a person can believe that through evolution the human mind is affected by self-examination, making amends, helping people, prayer (depending on your understanding of that term) and meditation. If this is religious then so too is any naturalist philosophy of the universe.
If it is religious then it is a unique religion which welcomes all religions and naturalistic philosophies i.e. non-religions.
There might be a technical problem on your end, or you might be messing up the quote tags.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Nope, I think that by repeatedly pointing out how you are referring to little more than a simplistic reading of the text of the 12-steps and 12-traditions, while ignoring the main bodies of literature associated with the 12-step program, and necessary for interpreting the aforementioned texts, that the point of "superficial understanding" will be plain to see.
Ah, so is this the source of the idea that groups get together and just pick and choose which steps to follow, or that some groups don't bother with them at all?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Fun Fact 3: That was my points exactly.
You are pretty much making my points for you now.
I invite you to search my username over on the City Data Forum where I was forced to make that very point myself. There was a proponent of AA there who was trying to say that the meetings he attends were "AA", but they did not use the 12 steps much, or even mention them, except maybe in introduction.
What you say here is markedly different. The emboldened again just highlights a superficial understanding of the 12-step approach and the dynamics of meetings.
In meetings the 12-steps and traditions are read out at the start or "maybe in introduction". The meetings themselves are not about working through the steps. There are specific types of meetings where people discuss a specific step and their experience with it. The other meetings are the "support group function" of the 12-step approach - but I've already explained this to you.
These "support group meetings" are part of the 12-step program. Working the steps happens when someone finds a sponsor and their sponsor brings them through the program. Again, you are just demonstrating a superficial understanding by not knowing this, even after it has been explained.
I've separated this part of the post just for the sake of reiteration, because it has been explained a few times now, but hopefully it will be clear after this.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The simple point I was making is that anecdotally I am, when having conversations about AA with supporters of AA, often meeting people who tell me that they call their meetings "AA" but they do nothing that would in any way recognizably make it "AA".
In those cases, such as the example I give you from City Data, I simply ask them "If you throw out all the texts and tenets of AA, then please tell me how your meeting is AA in any way except the name you stick on the door?".
An answer to which I simply have not been given by such people. Anywhere. Ever.
What you describe as "throwing out all the texts and tenets of AA" does not follow from someone saying that they are read out at the start of meeting, as an introduction, and not mentioned again. This is bcos the meetings are not about the steps, they are, as you quite rightly describe, a support group function. But this support group function is a key part of the 12-step approach. The steps are worked through outside of meetings with a sponsor who, themselves, has worked through the steps. Not knowing this basic fact about 12-step meetings just further highlights a distinct lack of understanding.
Again, the reason why people are told to seek out meetings until they find one that appeals has been explained to you, but you seem to be ignoring that as well. Yes, the meetings are all different bcos different people go to different meetings just as different people go to different support groups and have different stories to tell. Addicts from the inner city will tell different stories to a farmer who has lived on his own for years. In the beginning the farmer might not be able to relate to those from the inner city, so (s)he might not feel comfortable sharing in that meeting; however, if that person finds a meeting where there are other famers who have been in a similar situation they might find it easier to relate - that is the answer to your "Why?".....again!nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Or more to the point how YOU think it SHOULD work. But if people are just throwing meeting together and they are all being run totally differently then unregulated, ad hoc, and inconsistent are not a lack of understanding on my part but a factual description of these meetings as a whole.
And this position is supported by the words of AA attendees themselves. They tell you often that if one meeting does not appeal to you then try others until you find one that does. Why? Because they are all different.
Also, the notion that people just throw meetings together is a fallacy. There are guidelines on how to start meetings and meetings are often started by people who already attend meetings but wish to start one that is more convenient for themselves or if they believe it might be helpful for others; for example, a meeting closer to their homeotwn or at a time that is more convenient. Usually a member who has been attending meetings will talk to others to see if they would be interested in this new meeting and they also seek the support of other members to help get the meeting established. So there not quite as ad hoc as you would try to make out.
Also, meetings are regulated by the person who chairs the meeting (not the person who shares their story btw, bcos the terminology might confuse that). If a person shows up drunk to the meeting the chair person will usually inform them that they are not supposed to share. They are the ones who get people to read the relevant texts, or they will do it themselves if no one volunteers. In that sense, groups are self-regulating.
Remember now, we are talking about the support group function here, where people talk about their experiences in addiction. There isn't a stringent structure that needs to be followed and regulated - apart from the introduction which should, and from my experience is, always adhered to.
Now, if some rogue addict decides to set up a meeting on their own and try to abuse the 12-step approach there is not much stopping them, apart from the fact that they will have to convince people to attend and convince someone to rent them a room to host the meetings. They will also have to contend with other genuine members showing up and seeing what they are doing and not telling others what the score is. They will also have to get the meeting established before it is listed as an official meeting by AA central office - so again, there is some regulation there.
Bear in mind that the support group function is an integral part of the 12-step approach. Also, one of the steps is to help other alcoholics or the "new hobby", as you would term it. There are of course other steps involved which don't mention the word "god". There is self-examination, making amends, prayer (depending on your understanding of it) and meditation. No doubt you will probably say that, OK, these steps helped too. The crux of the issue is that all of those things ARE the 12-step program, to say they work but the 12-step program doesn't is to commit a category error.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »That they THINK worked for them. They do not know it did. Likely what worked for them is the mutual support they gave each other. Or their focus on their new hobby together. Social support... and an outlet.... the two things I have mentioned numerous times on this thread.
Except, as I'm sure your fingers are twitching to point out, we are left with a few other steps which you question. Indeed, we get down to the crux of the issue - which isn't surprising in an atheist and agnostic forum - the use of the word "God". But, again, we return to the critical phrase "as we understood him". It has been pointed out that a completely naturalist interpretation, based on evolution, is entirely compatible with the 12-steps, so long as that is how someone understands the whole process. Of course, someone might not be well versed in evolution and neuroscience (I certainly amn't) and they might attribute their recovery to an unknown "higher power" or even a magic man in the sky, bcos they don't fully understand the process. The things is, this understanding is also compatible with the 12-step approach.
Oh, there is also the point of telling people they are powerless, but again, this has been addressed - it's powerlessness over addiction.
On the one hand you say that support groups and helping other alcoholics ("new hobby") are probably what helped some addicts recover - remember, both key components of the 12-step approach - on the other you point to the efficacy rate and say that no treatment at all is just as effective. So, are you saying that support groups and new hobbies are just as effective as no treatment at all?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Their "program" does not appear to have anything to do with it. Especially given the efficacy of their program (5%) is exactly the same efficacy as no program/treatment at all. Statistically SOME people are going to fall into that 5% and therefore THOSE people are going to attribute their success to whatever it was they were engaged in at the time. The question we have to ask therefore is WAS it anything to do with what they were doing at the time, or are they just in the 5%? A question that I do not see a single proponent of AA on this thread, or a single person working with AA, wanting to engage in answering. And THEREIN lies my concern.
Just to clarify the point, on the one hand you say that support groups and a "new hobby" are potentially all that an addict needs to recover, on the other you say that the efficacy of the 12-step approach is the same as no treatment at all, forgetting that support groups and helping other addicts ("new hobby") are integral components of the 12-step approach.
The issue, once we strip away the contradiction, is something you have mentioned before, the stuff that is built up around it. So let's look at the stuff that is built up around it - I have a feeling it probably boils down to one key point that is to be expected on this section of boards:- Searching and fearless moral inventory = Self-examination
- Making amends and admitting when one is wrong
- Prayer - how you understand it is not necessarily how it is to be understood
- Meditation - something I think you have agred is beneficial
- Powerlessness (over addiction)
- God
I'm guessing that you won't disagree with self-examination, making amends, or meditation. So that would leave the issue of powerless and God.
To reiterate, it is powerless over addiction, not over oneself in general. The idea that when an addict uses a substance they lose the run of themselves and control over themselves - this is a physiological fact of substances, they affect our motor skills. This is why abstinence is prescribed by the 12-step program. I'm not sure if the same is true for CBT - my family member told me that at the beginning of treatment they ask you if you want to reduce or eliminate, but I couldn't swear.
That leaves us with "God". Again, it should be pointed out that it is "God as we understood him", and it has already been outlined how a naturalistic interpretation, based on the evolution of the human brain, as well as various pantheistic, non-theistic (Buddhism), and indeed monotheistic interpretations are all compatible with the 12-step approach.
So, are support groups and "new hobbies" - both key components of the 12-step approach - all that an addict needs to recover do you think? Bcos if so, the 12-step approach has both. It also has other beneficial steps, such as self-examination, making amends, and meditation, but I'm guessing the only real issue was ever the use of the word "God" - hopefully that has been adequately addressed?0 -
Well such an interpretation is compatible with the 12-steps.gaynorvader wrote: »No, as there is no higher power involved.0 -
-
gaynorvader wrote: »What is the higher power in your interpretation?
whatever power or natural forces that have driven evolution up until this point, and that continue to drive change in the universe. It wasn't an individuals own will power that made them evolve the way they have done, it was something more powerful than themselves, something they can't control, over which they are, esentially, powerless. It is these external forces which mean that if the steps are followed - self-examination, making amends, meditation, etc. - recovery is possible and the "shortcomings" will be removed.0 -
whatever power or natural forces that have driven evolution up until this point, and that continue to drive change in the universe. It wasn't an individuals own will power that made them evolve the way they have done, it was something more powerful than themselves, something they can't control, over which they are, esentially, powerless. It is these external forces which mean that if the steps are followed - self-examination, making amends, meditation, etc. - recovery is possible and the "shortcomings" will be removed.
And you don't think that's religious? Even supposing you put your trust in "nature" or evolution, you are anthropomorphising it by believing it will help you overcome an addiction. The term "higher power" generally doesn't just mean more powerful, it means more authoritative, a better being all round, etc.
Honestly, I think the steps by themselves, without the allusions to a higher power, would probably help some people by themselves. Self-examination, making amends, meditation, etc are not bad things and are beneficial to anyone, be they an addict or not.0 -
Advertisement
-
gaynorvader wrote: »And you don't think that's religious? Even supposing you put your trust in "nature" or evolution, you are anthropomorphising it by believing it will help you overcome an addiction. The term "higher power" generally doesn't just mean more powerful, it means more authoritative, a better being all round, etc.
Honestly, I think the steps by themselves, without the allusions to a higher power, would probably help some people by themselves. Self-examination, making amends, meditation, etc are not bad things and are beneficial to anyone, be they an addict or not.
For the vast majority that higher power is a religious one and usually the God of their of their childhood or a variation of that.
For a very, very small minority it is not and there is provision within the literature and the group for that.
Loads on anecdotal evidence has been presented here of knowing such and such a person who saw this that or the other at an AA meeting or this was said or that was said.
Yet the experience of people who have been to meetings first hand is not accepted ? Why is that.0 -
For the vast majority that higher power is a religious one and usually the God of their of their childhood or a variation of that.
For a very, very small minority it is not and there is provision within the literature and the group for that.
Loads on anecdotal evidence has been presented here of knowing such and such a person who saw this that or the other at an AA meeting or this was said or that was said.
Yet the experience of people who have been to meetings first hand is not accepted ? Why is that.
I have neither dismissed nor entertained anecdotal evidence. I have merely said that belief in a higher power is religious and as AA literature requires you to believe in a higher power, it must be religious. So far all I've gotten back in argument has been "no it's not, because I'm not religious and I attend AA" or "It's not religious because the higher power is science". Neither of which are good arguments.
I'm not trying to conflate AA with any religion, nor am I condemning it for being religious, but I think it is religious at its core. Hell, if you attend and don't subscribe to the higher power part, or if your particular group ignores that part of the steps and you get help from it more power to you, I'm delighted for you.0 -
gaynorvader wrote: »I have neither dismissed nor entertained anecdotal evidence. I have merely said that belief in a higher power is religious and as AA literature requires you to believe in a higher power, it must be religious. So far all I've gotten back in argument has been "no it's not, because I'm not religious and I attend AA" or "It's not religious because the higher power is science". Neither of which are good arguments.
I'm not trying to conflate AA with any religion, nor am I condemning it for being religious, but I think it is religious at its core. Hell, if you attend and don't subscribe to the higher power part, or if your particular group ignores that part of the steps and you get help from it more power to you, I'm delighted for you.
I am sorry if I am mistaken but did you not refer to individuals who had attended AA meeting and found them unsatisfactory ?
There is a specific chapter in the literature titled We Agnostics , I don't know how much clearer it can be that that.0 -
I am sorry if I am mistaken but did you not refer to individuals who had attended AA meeting and found them unsatisfactory ?
That was less for what they were saying, more for how they were saying it.There is a specific chapter in the literature titled We Agnostics , I don't know how much clearer it can be that that.
Again, just because an organisation or person claims something, doesn't make it true. If you are telling me that belief in a higher power is not longer one of the central tenets of the 12 steps method, then I'd be interested to hear what this schism is called, are there 2 groups?0 -
gaynorvader wrote: »That was less for what they were saying, more for how they were saying it.
Again, just because an organisation or person claims something, doesn't make it true. If you are telling me that belief in a higher power is not longer one of the central tenets of the 12 steps method, then I'd be interested to hear what this schism is called, are there 2 groups?
It makes no difference what they said or how they said it- it is still anecdotal . Now I don't have a problem with that per se ,but if you use that argument then you must accept the same from the other side. By the way may I ask have you spoken to anyone that has used AA successfully ?
On the schism idea - not at all- there is specific provision in the literature and in the meetings for agnostics . The concept of a higher power for the vast majority is indeed a religious one or God but the key is it is a higher power of one's own understanding .
The notion of a higher power is the idea of a power outside oneself - no more than that. To most it is God , to some it is the collective knowledge or as the old joke has it 'the 32 bus on the Kilburn High Street at that can pass every pub whereas we can't'
I can't really persuade you anymore than that - it is in the literature and there are agnostics in the groups . Would I wish there were more ? The answer is I just don't care ,it is irrelevant to me ,it is all about identification and not comparison.
Might I ask what would you do if faced with helping a chronic alcoholic ? Would you recommend or dissuade them from going to AA ? And I suppose that is what it all boils down to.0 -
It makes no difference what they said or how they said it- it is still anecdotal . Now I don't have a problem with that per se ,but if you use that argument then you must accept the same from the other side. By the way may I ask have you spoken to anyone that has used AA successfully ?
Yes, but I only took issue with how the anecdotal evidence was presented. I do accept it from anyone so long as they're willing to have a discussion and not try to bludgeon me with their anecdotal evidence.On the schism idea - not at all- there is specific provision in the literature and in the meetings for agnostics . The concept of a higher power for the vast majority is indeed a religious one or God but the key is it is a higher power of one's own understanding .
The notion of a higher power is the idea of a power outside oneself - no more than that. To most it is God , to some it is the collective knowledge or as the old joke has it 'the 32 bus on the Kilburn High Street at that can pass every pub whereas we can't'
I can't really persuade you anymore than that - it is in the literature and there are agnostics in the groups . Would I wish there were more ? The answer is I just don't care ,it is irrelevant to me ,it is all about identification and not comparison.
You keep saying that there's provision in the literature, which is fine. But belief in a higher power is a religious belief. If you were to believe in a drug curing you for example, that would be fine, unless you believed the drug could control aspects of your life or understand your problems, then you are straying into the religious side of things. Belief in a power outside of yourself does not make it a higher power. A friend for instance, that helps you quit is not a higher power, although they might be a great help to you.Might I ask what would you do if faced with helping a chronic alcoholic ? Would you recommend or dissuade them from going to AA ? And I suppose that is what it all boils down to.
I would neither recommend nor dissuade someone from going to AA. I'd probably try to get them to seek counselling first and if they decided AA was the best recourse for them, that'd be grand in my book. For the record I have already been through this with my dad and he found AA was no help to him, but did go to a support group without the 12 steps. Part of that was making amends, but there was no mention of a higher power for him. AA is not for everyone, but it does help some, and that's enough. I do think there needs to be more research into treating and diagnosing alcoholism.0 -
gaynorvader wrote: »Yes, but I only took issue with how the anecdotal evidence was presented. I do accept it from anyone so long as they're willing to have a discussion and not try to bludgeon me with their anecdotal evidence.
You keep saying that there's provision in the literature, which is fine. But belief in a higher power is a religious belief. If you were to believe in a drug curing you for example, that would be fine, unless you believed the drug could control aspects of your life or understand your problems, then you are straying into the religious side of things. Belief in a power outside of yourself does not make it a higher power. A friend for instance, that helps you quit is not a higher power, although they might be a great help to you.
I would neither recommend nor dissuade someone from going to AA. I'd probably try to get them to seek counselling first and if they decided AA was the best recourse for them, that'd be grand in my book. For the record I have already been through this with my dad and he found AA was no help to him, but did go to a support group without the 12 steps. Part of that was making amends, but there was no mention of a higher power for him. AA is not for everyone, but it does help some, and that's enough. I do think there needs to be more research into treating and diagnosing alcoholism.
Well if you believe a belief in a higher power is exclusively a religious concept then we will just have to agree to disagree . There is no more I can say.
As for more research , I couldn't agree more , it is the single biggest health problem in our society, and the least studied and understood .
Might I ask -if it is not too intrusive- how is your Dad doing now ?0 -
Well if you believe a belief in a higher power is exclusively a religious concept then we will just have to agree to disagree . There is no more I can say.
As for more research , I couldn't agree more , it is the single biggest health problem in our society, and the least studied and understood .
Might I ask -if it is not too intrusive- how is your Dad doing now ?
He's doing very well, thanks. Still on his mind more or less daily, but he's holding out well.0 -
gaynorvader wrote: »He's doing very well, thanks. Still on his mind more or less daily, but he's holding out well.
Sounds like torture.0 -
Advertisement
-
gaynorvader wrote: »He's doing very well, thanks. Still on his mind more or less daily, but he's holding out well.
It can be unbelievably tough , but the very best to you and to him.0 -
I think what is sometimes lost in all the discussion of AA is the fact that it is not a professional service and this is stated explicity in its traditions. Doctors, counsellors, psychologists etc may attend the meeting but they are there only in their capacity as a fellow alcoholic. The anonymous aspect means that an individual's profession is left outside along with their surname. For those who are saying that it is a support group and that the effectiveness lies in the supportive nature of the meetings...that is the whole point. It began as two alcoholics sharing their story with each other and finding a level of understanding that they had never experienced before. They found that this mutual support helped them get and stay sober and from that beginning the fellowship began. The 12 steps are a narrative of how they achieved and continued to maintain sobriety and are presented as suggestions for other alcoholics to try.0
-
Where's the anthropomorphism?gaynorvader wrote: »And you don't think that's religious? Even supposing you put your trust in "nature" or evolution, you are anthropomorphising it by believing it will help you overcome an addiction.
Humans have evolved in such a way that the aforementioned practices have an effect on the human brain.
No ascription of human qualities to the universe there; and no magic man in the clouds acting like the wizard of Oz granting hearts or courage to addicts.
It's as religious as Darwin's theory of evolution is religious.
Where are you getting that from?gaynorvader wrote: »The term "higher power" generally doesn't just mean more powerful, it means more authoritative, a better being all round, etc.
Also, it's "god", or "higher power", as "we understood him"; if that's how how you understand "higher power" then who am I to argue with you (about that particular point)?
That's not my interpretation of "higher power" - I outlined my understanding of it - but, if that's how you understand it, then.....absolutely nothing, that's your understanding.
Absolutely, they could be beneficial to everyone. I've said it myself - not on here - people who are not addicts could benefit greatly by working the steps.gaynorvader wrote: »Honestly, I think the steps by themselves, without the allusions to a higher power, would probably help some people by themselves. Self-examination, making amends, meditation, etc are not bad things and are beneficial to anyone, be they an addict or not.
I don't disagree about "the issue" - of the "higher power" - using the word "God" lends itself to so many preconceptions; but that isn't the fault of the word. "God" is an English term, that wasn't used up until - someone help me out with the centuries and stuff.
The reason they put in "as we understood him" (btw, I disagree with the use of the male personal pronoun) was bcos addicts will try and find any loophole to get out of taking steps towards recovery - obviously not completely literally, bcos there are addicts in recovery; but in the initial phase of recovery, some addicts, who may not have chosen to be there - sent by the court, co-erced by family, etc. etc. - will look for excuses. What better excuse than, "God is a load of bollix!".
But, it's not "God" as was preached to you from an altar, it's "God as we understood him" - maybe better wording would avoid issues; but it is, in actuality, an individuals interpretation of "God".
As mentioned, that can be a completely naturalistic, scientific interpretation; I use the term "pantheism" - the universe is god; no magic man, no anthroporphism, just straight up neuroscience - of which I know very little.
Some people might attribute it to a magic man in the sky; that may be bcos they have even less of an understanding of neuroscience than I do - and my understanding is seriously negligible.
But, if they use a "god of the gaps" to fill in the blanks and that helps them stay sober, then AA or the 12-steps makes allowances for that - addicts are trixy little hobbitses btw!
Apologies for going on. I will be the first to accept the limitations of the 12-step program and I will highlight the shortcomings of it:
it should be "God as we understood God", not "God as we understood him"
but if unfair criticisms are levelled at the program, I'll also try to clarify any misunderstandings. Currently, I don't attend any meetings and am not an "active member" of the 12-step program. I do hope that my posts have been rational though.
I would, wholeheartedly, agree that every addict would benefit from an empirical investigation into the 12-step program - there are a lot of issues that would have to be addressed with such a study (which I would love to discuss). If any agency could secure a research grant to do so, then I could - almost - guarantee that every member of a 12-step program would be supportive of it (there would be a few who would oppose it, such is human nature).
Again, apologies for prattling on!0 -
I think what is sometimes lost in all the discussion of AA is the fact that it is not a professional service and this is stated explicity in its traditions. Doctors, counsellors, psychologists etc may attend the meeting but they are there only in their capacity as a fellow alcoholic. The anonymous aspect means that an individual's profession is left outside along with their surname. For those who are saying that it is a support group and that the effectiveness lies in the supportive nature of the meetings...that is the whole point. It began as two alcoholics sharing their story with each other and finding a level of understanding that they had never experienced before. They found that this mutual support helped them get and stay sober and from that beginning the fellowship began. The 12 steps are a narrative of how they achieved and continued to maintain sobriety and are presented as suggestions for other alcoholics to try.
In all honesty this post reads (and by extension quite a lot of the noise from the pro-AA apologists everywhere) to me as "fcuk competence, we'd rather cling to a 'solution' that doesn't work over looking at what we do, keeping what works, ditching what doesn't and allying the result with best practise elsewhere in order to improve our service", because "true belief in the face of evidence other wise is the only way to prove that our system works and everything else fails".
Sad to see in this day and age that people would choose credulous certainty in something that doesn't work, rather than rational uncertainty and a system which leads to bette ends.0 -
Brian Shanahan wrote: »In all honesty this post reads (and by extension quite a lot of the noise from the pro-AA apologists everywhere) to me as "fcuk competence, we'd rather cling to a 'solution' that doesn't work over looking at what we do, keeping what works, ditching what doesn't and allying the result with best practise elsewhere in order to improve our service", because "true belief in the face of evidence other wise is the only way to prove that our system works and everything else fails".
Sad to see in this day and age that people would choose credulous certainty in something that doesn't work, rather than rational uncertainty and a system which leads to bette ends.
Brian, where are the alternatives from the scientists, researchers etc that you speak of ?
You don't expect those suffering from heart or lung disease to do their own research . So why put that burden on alcoholic or drug addicts ?
And this is the nub of the issue - can you offer a credible alternative ? Actually drop the credible, just any alternative .
If there was a 'medical' cure do you honestly believe we wouldn't grab on to it ?0 -
Brian Shanahan wrote: »In all honesty this post reads (and by extension quite a lot of the noise from the pro-AA apologists everywhere) to me as "fcuk competence, we'd rather cling to a 'solution' that doesn't work over looking at what we do, keeping what works, ditching what doesn't and allying the result with best practise elsewhere in order to improve our service", because "true belief in the face of evidence other wise is the only way to prove that our system works and everything else fails".
Sad to see in this day and age that people would choose credulous certainty in something that doesn't work, rather than rational uncertainty and a system which leads to bette ends.
Brian - I have been under the care of psychiatric services, general hospital services and counselling services. The general hospital cares only about medically getting me through the DT's safely, while referring me to a psychiatric liaison nurse. Said nurse will refer me to the psychiatric services again. Psychiatric services will treat the depression I present with, or the suicidal thoughts, but they can't address the alcoholism - as they don't seem to know how - apart from to tell me that people who attend AA 'generally' do better.
Why are they not finding a solution?????????? Because no research is being plunged into the causes and treatment for alcoholism.
AA has a line in their book which is a little disheartening but it reads along the lines of 'the medical profession has yet to find a cure for alcoholism, but if they do, we will applaud them; until they do, we are here to try to help'. Something like that, not a direct quote.
You don't seem to realise the amount of people who come to AA through PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. Thanks to the demon drink, it renders some of us a wee bit mad in the head at times, so we tend to have a propensity towards coming into contact with the medical profession.
I can guarantee you, if there was some effective solution, people, including AA members, would be running in their droves for an easier solution.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think CBT is one possible alternative, as someone else mentioned in this thread. A family member of mine used it to address their gambling problem and, as far as I know, they haven't gambled in a few years. From my own personal perspective though, they could do with further treatment to address some of the deeper lying issues.Brian, where are the alternatives from the scientists, researchers etc that you speak of ?
You don't expect those suffering from heart or lung disease to do their own research . So why put that burden on alcoholic or drug addicts ?
And this is the nub of the issue - can you offer a credible alternative ? Actually drop the credible, just any alternative .
If there was a 'medical' cure do you honestly believe we wouldn't grab on to it ?
I'm not sure what the efficacy rates are for treatment programs which use CBT but, from what little I do know about it, it sounds like a potentially effective approach. Obviously it's not 100% effective, or else the entire world would know about it by now. I'm also not sure where CBT is offered in Ireland bcos when I was there I didn't need it. The 12-steps, in particular meditation, kept me clean and sober.0 -
The question that might be worth posing is, what part of the 12-step approach is it that you think doesn't work, and should be ditched?Brian Shanahan wrote: »In all honesty this post reads (and by extension quite a lot of the noise from the pro-AA apologists everywhere) to me as "fcuk competence, we'd rather cling to a 'solution' that doesn't work over looking at what we do, keeping what works, ditching what doesn't and allying the result with best practise elsewhere in order to improve our service", because "true belief in the face of evidence other wise is the only way to prove that our system works and everything else fails".
Sad to see in this day and age that people would choose credulous certainty in something that doesn't work, rather than rational uncertainty and a system which leads to bette ends.
Also, what is the current "best practice" for the treatment of addiction, to which AA should be aligned. I'm talking about the actual best practice not the idea of continually carrying out research - bcos AA is not a research organisation. It is an amateur organisation made up of volunteers. The point being, how do you know that the 12-step approach doesn't represent current best practices for treating addiction? Even if these were happened upon by chance.0 -
Nope, you should be referring to more than just the text of the 12-steps and, on occasion, the 12 principles.
Again: the question of this thread is whether AA is religion and in answering that question I do not apologize for referring directly to the 12 steps that make up the very core of those meetings.
Again: Not only was the program invented by nut job christians, but the 12 steps also mention god. And not only that but they lend attributes to that god that are IMMEDIATELY recognizable to anyone even passingly familiar with monotheistic thought.
The fetid desperation with which you want to distance yourself from that merely belies the truth of my claims. It certainly has not rebutted them in any way. But do keep floundering.
"The big book" perhaps, or the book entitled 12-steps and 12-traditions, both of which serve to illuminate both texts further and give a deeper understanding of both texts. Attending some meetings might also prove beneficial, even if it is only to better understand the actual dynamics of meetings.This has been demonstrated.
Not to me it has not. Not on this thread. And most certainly not by you. The only way to make these things compatible is to simply outright ignore half of what these things say. If YOU want to make "god" mean something else in the 12 steps then more power to you. But you do this through nothing more than the application of a mix of your imagination and the insertion of your head into some sand.
Again if this works for you.... GREAT. Go for it. No one wants to stop you. But I will not be cajoled into ignoring the pretense that is involved in the attempt.The only thing about the steps which might make them religious is the use of the word "God"
That is, as I have said, simply false. The 12 steps do more than use the word "god". They discuss and give attributes to this god that EXACTLY match what we are familiar with from monotheism. Denying this is just desperation and a falsehood. Neither of which I am about to fall for thanks.Ah, so is this the source of the idea that groups get together and just pick and choose which steps to follow, or that some groups don't bother with them at all?
All I am doing here is passing on what others have told me. When I enter forums and complain about the content of the 12 steps I am told quite often by people using AA that they do not really bother with the 12 steps at all. Some are told of their existence on day 1 and never see them again. Some have them stuck on the wall but no one even mentions them. While OTHER meetings stick to them religiously.
So I am anecdotally getting massively conflicting feedback as to how these meetings are run. They appear to me to be entirely ad hoc, unregulated and down to the whim of whoever is organizing them. You say "In meetings the 12-steps and traditions are read out at the start or "maybe in introduction".". Maybe in YOUR meeting(s) they are. But I get just as many anecdotes saying the exact opposite. Who am I to believe?
And my question to those people, which has gone TOTALLY unanswered by those people, is if you divest an AA meeting of the tenets and texts of AA. Then how exactly is it still AA except for the name on the door? How is a 12 step program a 12 step program is no one uses the 12 steps? It makes no sense to me. Nor, from reading your floundering posts, to you either.Again, you are just demonstrating a superficial understanding by not knowing this, even after it has been explained.
You appear to think that repetition of the word "superficial" makes a point for you in place of you actually making one, or failing to make one. Repeating that word over and over again is not going to make it true. It just makes you feel good about yourself as if you scored a point somehow in a competition that you appear to be the only competitor in.
The thread is about whether AA is religious and the 12 steps in the text are very clearly expressly religious. Where the conversation has turned to the efficacy of the program however the fact is that how the meetings are run and implemented are so diverse that it is impossible to claim any efficacy at all, AAs own documents suggest an efficacy % that is no better than inaction, and there simply is not a shred of a jot of evidence to suggest that the "12 steps" help anyone.
All we have at the end of the day is a social support group and an outlet. Both of which are great things, do not get me wrong! But the thread is not about social support or having an outlet. The thread is specifically about AA and no one.... very much less so you yourself.... has offered a single shred of data to suggest AA is anything more than just that: Another social support outlet.
So you can throw around words like "superficial" and "ignore" and "lack of understanding" all you like to make it sound like other people are suffering from these things when in fact you are the only one who is. But not one point I have made has been rebutted. And not one concern I have raised has been addressed.Now, if some rogue addict decides to set up a meeting on their own and try to abuse the 12-step approach there is not much stopping them
Which is one of the concerns I have raised by having an unregulated nonsense program that just anyone can start. Can you imagine if some pervert could just set up a gynecology at will without regulation or license? Or someone setting up a psychiatry practice on a whim in order to get access to needy and vulnerable people?
We have regulations, best practice guidelines, licensing and more for a reason. If we genuinely want to help people we subscribe to these things and we not only evaluate the efficacy of our practices but we update those practices by iteration in the face of the results of those evaluations. We ensure that the people offering such assistance and medical practices and help are licensed and regulated and answer to a code of practice and conduct and a regulatory body.
All I am suggesting is that if we are going to help the needy and vulnerable people in our society suffering from addiction then this too might be the best way to go about it. Even the most well meaning and well intentioned individual can cause more harm than good by blindly implementing a set of practices that they may not even understand, or may not be effective at all. Questions do have to be asked about the efficacy and effects of things like AA and I am concerned myself that with AA...... it simply it not being done.0 -
Have you any evidence other than anecdotal that the AA meetings are run in the ad hoc manner you suggest ?0
-
Have you any evidence other than anecdotal that the AA meetings are run in the ad hoc manner you suggest ?
Well, a book which proscribes the rules under which an organisation is supposed to run is far stronger in terms of evidence than anecdote. So seeing as Nozz has access to the AA books on the 12 steps, yes he does have more than anecdote.
In a similar vein do you have any evidence at all, apart from hearsay, that it's ok to run a 12 step programme without using the 12 steps?0 -
Advertisement
-
Brian Shanahan wrote: »Well, a book which proscribes the rules under which an organisation is supposed to run is far stronger in terms of evidence than anecdote. So seeing as Nozz has access to the AA books on the 12 steps, yes he does have more than anecdote.
In a similar vein do you have any evidence at all, apart from hearsay, that it's ok to run a 12 step programme without using the 12 steps?
Well then he/she will know how meetings are run. Assuming he has read as far as the 12 traditions!
It's difficult to explain AA, but it's not like you proceed through a programme and get a degree or PHD at the end of it. There are many aspects being addressed, people coming from different histories, drinking habits etc.
As my Beethoven appreciating old friend often says, 'I came into AA expecting to be given a sort of a prescription - now - you there - it's awful what you've done - I want you to stay off the drink for 6 weeks' Hee hee.
You can have people as far ranging as possible in one meeting i.e. for e.g.:
A 50 year old female nurse, who decided to get treatment when her children refused to talk to her.
A 50 year old female teacher, who is sober 25 years, having first come into AA 25 years ago, following a threat that she would lose her job if she was ever caught drinking on the job again.
An 18 year old, who has been drinking since he was 12, and has been in and out of jail since that age.
A 32 year old qualified and experienced social worker, who is also a mother, and who has decided to try to stop, after her husband gave her an ultimatum.
A 28 year old secretary, who had a panic attack and was advised to go to AA.
A 70 year old man who was told by his doctor, to give up the auld drink.
A 36 year old fella, who has held onto his job, but has been given a warning.
The 40 year old priest.
The 50 year old Buddhist
The 22 year old atheist etc. etc. etc. etc. etc..............
Meetings can have huge numbers sometimes. There really is no common denominator apart from alcoholism. Meetings however are essentially 'the same the world over'.0 -
Brian Shanahan wrote: »Well, a book which proscribes the rules under which an organisation is supposed to run is far stronger in terms of evidence than anecdote. So seeing as Nozz has access to the AA books on the 12 steps, yes he does have more than anecdote.
In a similar vein do you have any evidence at all, apart from hearsay, that it's ok to run a 12 step programme without using the 12 steps?
I don't follow you there, the book suggests how meeting should be run but Nozz continuously refers to people who have attended meetings and this has happened or that has happened . We will all agree that is anecdotal. Has he any evidence other that that.
On the second point I have no knowledge of any 12 step programmes other than AA. But on AA yes I do - my own experience , and as that is direct I believe it is not anecdotal. I believe a few other posters involved in this thread have the same.0 -
I don't follow you there, the book suggests how meeting should be run but Nozz continuously refers to people who have attended meetings and this has happened or that has happened . We will all agree that is anecdotal. Has he any evidence other that that.
On the second point I have no knowledge of any 12 step programmes other than AA. But on AA yes I do - my own experience , and as that is direct I believe it is not anecdotal. I believe a few other posters involved in this thread have the same.
It appears there are some people who would like to attend open meetings. I know that pretty much every month, there is an open meeting hosted around the country. I don't know whether Dublin would have them more frequently? It might help allay the fears/increase the understanding of AA by Nozz for e.g.?
To be honest Nozz - it's not as remotely as cloak and dagger as you suggest. I have been at formal Open meetings, but I have also been at what would have been a closed meeting, where the secretary explained that the meeting would be 'Open' as a non-alcoholic, was bringing his sister to her first AA meeting (she's still sober today and I'm not!). Presumably they agreed this in advance with AA, but I can't confirm nor deny this. The reason it needs to be announced, is because if you're not an alcoholic, we won't 'share' as honestly with you. There is the spoken rule and unspoken rule of anonymity. There is a sort of mutual respect, where, people can get things off their chest, without fear nor judgment, nor penance. It is quite cathartic!
Besides, if you tell a room of 'normal' people, what you'd be thinking, they'd be looking at you as if you had two heads and ringing the local psychiatric hospital. When you speak at an AA meeting, as an alcoholic, you get a lot of nodding heads while you're speaking.
Clearly, and I'll give you this point, there is f all chance of recovery from alcoholism. I wouldn't dismiss AA though, unless you have an alternative.0 -
Just to give an overview of AA meetings - this is just my own opinion ,others may differ.
Its only purpose is to achieve a contented sobriety , to have a life where alcohol has no part, not thinking about it, not craving for it, not hanging on day after day pining for it.
And the methodology I have choosen is AA - consisting of the 12 step programme, meetings, the main AA literature , sponsorship and an essential element (when able) is helping others when asked.
In discussing anything there is little point in taking elements in isolation, even less taking individual meetings in isolation.
You could go into a meeting in Ireland today and another one tomorrow and they would have nothing other that the reading of the step and 'how in works' at the start and one tradition at the end and the Lord's prayer , which you are free to ignore .
To judge the meeting one should experience quite a few in a compressed time frame and ideally in the same area . Then you will see how in its own way it all fits together.
To illustrate , I was advised when I started to go to 90 meeting in 90 days , seems hard but it is not compared to drink 8 hours a day or more every day. Against that what is 2 hours a day.
But in doing that ones gets an idea of what is going on in the overall region,
For example - In one area every Friday night is a first step meeting , except for the 1st Friday of the month which is an open meeting to the general public .
At other groups they may have a designated day as a step meeting whereby they work through the steps or traditions sequentially . But any attendee can speak on any issue they choose.
Other meetings may have a topic set out by an invited speaker and others may take it up or not as they so prefer.
If it is known there are newcomers present the meeting usually reverts to a 1st step meeting or can be requested to tend in that direction.
It should be remembered that most groups have a core membership that attends week in week out and they can unintentionally become cosy affairs
as they can follow the stories like an on-going soap , but when a new dynamic enters such as a 1st timer or person returning after a slip or a person asking for help however coded than it is like a call to arms .
I don't know of anyone attaining sobriety after a few meetings , it is no different than anything else - the more you put into it the you will get out of it.0 -
In fact, I brought my baby to an AA meeting (she was asleep, but was passed around the room), I saw another girl pop into a meeting with a baby asleep in a car-seat, and I was at another meeting where there was a child about 8 with her Dad - the Dad had brought a jigsaw with him for her to play with, but an hour is a long time for a child!. Obviously, I wasn't able to share openly with a little child in the room, but the Dad had sole custody of the child and had feck all choice other than drink or go to an AA meeting! They would be rare instances.0
-
Have you any evidence other than anecdotal that the AA meetings are run in the ad hoc manner you suggest ?
The simple fact that there is no regulation proves this already. Anyone can set up a meeting and call it AA. The simple fact that people, including on this thread, keep recommending you attend different meanings because they are all different supports the claim. Read what sopretty writes below with regards to how there is no set program at all.We will all agree that is anecdotal.
I do not recall for one moment suggesting otherwise. In fact I specifically acknowledged it in more than one post so far. All I have is one set of anecdote versus another set of anecdotes. And all I am saying on this thread is that raises some concerns with me. Concerns that are not being addressed in any way, and in fact appear to be actively prevented from being addressed.
So I am not sure what point you think you are making here?
The best people can do is tell me to attend meetings myself. There is two problems here. Firstly there is an assumption that I have not done so. And people should not assume to know what I have or have not done. Secondly whether I have or not, or do or not, or continue to or not, this will only add one more single anecdote to the pile. So I have people here deriding anecdote (not necessarily a bad thing) but making counter points to mine that are entirely based and steeped in it.
At the end of the day if we purport to be helping people with addiction then all I am saying is that we should submit our processes to the rigours of evaluation and create a centralized and regulated program to ensure the program is not only implemented and controlled, but measured and improved. I am, as yet, failing to understand why this raised the hackles of the AA Zealots on the thread. Surely if people want to help others then they should be _welcoming_ evaluation and testing of their processes and claims to vindicate and improve them???It's difficult to explain AA
For you maybe, but not for everyone. We have explained it quite well I think. It is a social support group and time outlet, with a religious foundation and origin and run off a list of 12 steps that are blatantly religious.
What is difficult to explain about that?
AGAIN: It is a social support group and outlet. If you have an addiction then a social support group and outlet is likely to be a good thing (though there are some who suggest quite convincingly that many who attend AA a lot (we have for example one user here claiming to have gone to many 1000s of meetings) is merely exchanging one addiction for another).
But what everyone has failed to do, especially on this thread, is show how AA specifically, or the 12 steps, or the "big book" can or has helped anyone. Outside of AA being a social support group and outlet.... what.... if anything.... is specifically good or useful about AA?Meetings however are essentially 'the same the world over'.
Evidence for THIS claim? I had not realized you have been to them all.0 -
AA is self-regulating through its 12 traditions
Yes they can but Tradition 3 adds the proviso thatnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The simple fact that there is no regulation proves this already. Anyone can set up a meeting and call it AA.
Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group,provided that, as a group, they have no other
affiliation.
On the issue of meetings being run in an ad-hoc manner, this is also covered in the traditions. Tradition 4 states that
With respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the welfare of neighboring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount.
So each individual group is free to run the meeting as it sees fit but must remain within the basic paramaters of the AA programme.
AA is not a professional service. It is and always has been, a peer support group run by alcoholics for alcoholics for the sole purpose of mutual support and recovery from alcoholism. Yes, it has archaic religious overtones which come from its roots in white, middle-class 1930s America. However, again the traditions explicitly refer to the fact that all beliefs and none are welcome and that sectarian religious beliefs are not promoted
Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other
affiliation.
No A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside controversial issues—particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters they can express no views whatever.
Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever nonprofessional. We define professionalism as the occupation of counseling alcoholics for fees or hire. But we may employ alcoholics where they are going to perform those services for which we might otherwise have to engage nonalcoholics. Such special services may be well recompensed. But our usual A.A. “12 Step” work is never to be paid for.
One of the problems as I see it is that counselling and psychotherapy are not subject to statutory regulation in this country. Most counsellors and psychotherapists work within voluntary regulation of IACP or similar bodies but there is nothing, at the moment , to stop anyone setting up business and calling themselves a counsellor or psychotherapist. Until the professional services are subject to mandatory regulation it is unlikely that the voluntary sector will be. I would welcome regulation of both sectors but in its absence I feel that AA and the other 12 step groups are actually quite rigorous WRT self-regulation.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The simple fact that there is no regulation proves this already. Anyone can set up a meeting and call it AA. The simple fact that people, including on this thread, keep recommending you attend different meanings because they are all different supports the claim. Read what sopretty writes below with regards to how there is no set program at all.
I do not recall for one moment suggesting otherwise. In fact I specifically acknowledged it in more than one post so far. All I have is one set of anecdote versus another set of anecdotes. And all I am saying on this thread is that raises some concerns with me. Concerns that are not being addressed in any way, and in fact appear to be actively prevented from being addressed.
So I am not sure what point you think you are making here?
The best people can do is tell me to attend meetings myself. There is two problems here. Firstly there is an assumption that I have not done so. And people should not assume to know what I have or have not done. Secondly whether I have or not, or do or not, or continue to or not, this will only add one more single anecdote to the pile. So I have people here deriding anecdote (not necessarily a bad thing) but making counter points to mine that are entirely based and steeped in it.
At the end of the day if we purport to be helping people with addiction then all I am saying is that we should submit our processes to the rigours of evaluation and create a centralized and regulated program to ensure the program is not only implemented and controlled, but measured and improved. I am, as yet, failing to understand why this raised the hackles of the AA Zealots on the thread. Surely if people want to help others then they should be _welcoming_ evaluation and testing of their processes and claims to vindicate and improve them???
For you maybe, but not for everyone. We have explained it quite well I think. It is a social support group and time outlet, with a religious foundation and origin and run off a list of 12 steps that are blatantly religious.
What is difficult to explain about that?
AGAIN: It is a social support group and outlet. If you have an addiction then a social support group and outlet is likely to be a good thing (though there are some who suggest quite convincingly that many who attend AA a lot (we have for example one user here claiming to have gone to many 1000s of meetings) is merely exchanging one addiction for another).
But what everyone has failed to do, especially on this thread, is show how AA specifically, or the 12 steps, or the "big book" can or has helped anyone. Outside of AA being a social support group and outlet.... what.... if anything.... is specifically good or useful about AA?
Evidence for THIS claim? I had not realized you have been to them all.
Anyone can hang a shingle up in Ireland and call themselves guidance counsellor ,a gang of 4 can get together and call themselves Institute .
That is the law ,or lack of it,in Ireland .AA is subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else.
IF you find that a problem ( as I do ) then agitate to change the law , it is much quicker that one group at time.
As regards attending different meetings proving the point they are all the same ! now you are really stretching it. Would you say just attend one football match or hurling match . Once you have seen one you have seen them all, of course not , because it is a variation of theme within a defined set of guidelines . So with AA - one meeting may be on the 1st step ,another on the 5th. One dealing with relapse or bereavement and the temptation to drink or re-integrating with family.
As for you accepting your evidence is anecdotal , well if it is then why not stop using it . You would not accept in in any other thread.
Do you agree direct experience, i.e attending oneself is not anecdotal ?
As for the zealots in AA being opposes to this that and the other as you say, have you any evidence for that ? AA is working with professional bodies all the time , always has always will.
And to dismiss So Pretty with a crass 'I hadn't realized you had been to them all '- If that is the standard you choose to apply how can you pass judgement on any? How many have you attended ?
As for failing to show how AA has helped anyone - To borrow from Descartes - I am an atheist I am sober and I am in AA. So can we agree it has helped at least one ?0 -
Nozz has been turned into a man of straw!
Direct experience is practically by definition anecdotal.
I don't think anyone on this thread has put forth the claim that AA has helped no one.With respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience.
This is an incredibly dangerous ideology. Any organisation that espouses this needs to change.0 -
gaynorvader wrote: »Nozz has been turned into a man of straw!
Direct experience is practically by definition anecdotal.
I don't think anyone on this thread has put forth the claim that AA has helped no one.
This is an incredibly dangerous ideology. Any organisation that espouses this needs to change.
Direct experience with regard to medical or addictive conditions is indeed anecdotal in the grand scheme of things ,but in the relationship between a psychologist/doctor/Councillor and a patient/addict it forms a significant part of the process.
The point I am making is that saying I suffer from this condition or go to this meeting carries more weight that saying I know someone that suffers from this and goes to that meeting.
As for the dangerous ideology - It is only an AA meeting if it follows the steps and traditions and the approved literature . Being run by the group conscience does not allow any fundamental changes to that , if it were so people would leave and go to the proper meeting down the road.
What it means in the general run of things is that a group conscience meeting is called to change the time or date of a meeting , to elect a new secretary or some other 'housekeeping' issue.
Bearing in mind all the scandals and abuses that have come to light in the in the last decades in all walks of society in this little country of ours has there been even one involving AA ?
There is little interest in this country in getting to grips with alcoholism and drug addiction and until that changes and genuine alternatives are available I and others like me will just have to stick with AA or cold turkey or whatever works for us .
There is not much more I can say so I will bow out at this stage.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement