Moderated: Why do people insist AA is not religious?/Efficacy of AA & other treatment programs

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Just a personal story, has no significance to this, really, but I remember the time my ex got himself a new sponsor. And she was gorgeous. I think their affair lasted 3 months or so.

Slingblade, I've got your back in this thread for the most part, but I have to say that any program that relies on people making intense emotional connections is going to lead to a certain amount of infidelity. That doesn't excuse anyone who cheats; I just mean it's separate from the (alleged) religious aspects of AA.

Originally Posted by ilsita

Alfie, If the buck stops with the individual, then can I expect you to denounce these foundational AA principles: powerlessness over inert substances; self-will run riot; progressive, terminal disease of the mind,body, and spirit; turning over one's will and life to the will of a higher power; asking a higher power to remove your defects of character for you; let go and let god?

By the way, I love you.

But basically, I would ask Alfie to ponder and respond to the following questions:

1) What would you accept as evidence of "what AA does/believes/advocates"?
2) Under that definition, what do you think you can claim AA does/believer/advocates?

My gripe is that you want to claim that AA saves lives, kept person X sober, etc., but in response to critics you insist that anecdotes don't count, nothing short of official statements from an entity that apparently doesn't issue statements counts, etc.

Alfie, you need to come up with a consistent definition for when you credit AA with "success" and when you're willing to say "yeah, that's AA, but..."

Originally Posted by hud

Ok, I'll take one more crack at this.

Admitting I was powerless over alcohol was a way for me to admit I had a problem and needed help.

Full stop, that's all, no God involved for me at all. The only higher power I used was a group of people with the same problem to talk to.

Is it really that hard for people to understand that even a flawed program may have useful parts in it?

Not at all. I hang out here even though I don't agree with everything that's said. I think the JREF does good work even if I don't agree with every position that it takes. And I've said all along that AA may well do some good even if it is religious, given that a majority of the population in many of the areas in which it operates are religious (and many of the non-religious people can find a way to deal with it).

In other words, I'm waiting for someone to say, "yeah, AA is religious, but so what? We help a lot of religious people, some non-religious people, and the other non-religious people are free to seek out other sources of help." I might still have some criticisms, wondering if the religious aspects were really that important, but I'd accept it as an honest answer.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Slingblade, I've got your back in this thread for the most part, but I have to say that any program that relies on people making intense emotional connections is going to lead to a certain amount of infidelity. That doesn't excuse anyone who cheats; I just mean it's separate from the (alleged) religious aspects of AA.

That's true, Dunstan, and I said it wasn't part of this matter, not really. But Joey's post made it pop into my head. Quite honestly, there was harm in every aspect of my first worst marriage, but I was young enough and christian enough and naive enough to be disappointed he found yet more avenues for harm through AA. Mostly my fault, for poor perceptions.

I do remember his original sponsor coming to our home, with him, to "counsel" me; basically denial from them both that it was bad to have an oppsite-sex sponsor, and noooo, no affair was going on. I only learned the truth some 6 or 7 years later when he "Ninth Stepped" me, and admitted it.

C'est la vie.

(but...maybe if they hadn't handed him that "powerless over alcohol," and "only a higher power could restore me," and "god as I understand him" stuff...maybe...)

Quote:

In other words, I'm waiting for someone to say, "yeah, AA is religious, but so what? We help a lot of religious people, some non-religious people, and the other non-religious people are free to seek out other sources of help." I might still have some criticisms, wondering if the religious aspects were really that important, but I'd accept it as an honest answer.

I'm really hoping we won't have to wait much longer. It shouldn't be all that difficult to admit the patently obvious.

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by slingblade

(but...maybe if they hadn't handed him that "powerless over alcohol," and "only a higher power could restore me," and "god as I understand him" stuff...maybe...)

Maybe. But it seems pretty clear to me from what you've said that this husband was a jerk and would have seized on any rationale, religious, sobriety-based, or otherwise, to do whatever suited his needs.

Sorry.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by slingblade

"If feeling good is good for you, then it's good to work on feeling good."

That's my take. But when drinking we work on feeling bad.

Originally Posted by slingblade

Then the "god" references in AA need to be removed. They simply aren't needed to make AA work. As long as a god concept is included in AA, and it is, because the word's all over the place, in all the literature, in the headquarters, pinned up to a wall in GREAT BIG GOTHIC FONTS...the AA Program of Recovery is simply lousy with god...then the AA Program of Recovery does have a religious bent, influence, or overtone.

I used to have a problem with that too. But I accept it now as the language of the day, Bill's language etc. The religious bent is certainly there and I have never claimed otherwise. It does get in people's way, but for others it gives freedom.

Originally Posted by slingblade

I get that you take what you need, but if spirituality is about nurturing and developing the positive human emotions and qualities, and AA is spiritual, then why promote a god concept at all?

Because we need to find out what our spirituality is about. Unless we know or start to explore it, how will we find out?

Originally Posted by Dunstan

But basically, I would ask Alfie to ponder and respond to the following questions:

1) What would you accept as evidence of "what AA does/believes/advocates"?
2) Under that definition, what do you think you can claim AA does/believer/advocates?

Great questions. Just off the top...

I think for question one, the 12 traditions covers most of it. More can be found in the actions of the central office (as a representation of the membership) and general literature.

That said, I can concede that a lot of the 12 traditions are open to some personal interpretation.

For question 2 I think that tradition five covers it:

"Each group has but one primary purpose - to carry it's message to the alcoholic who still suffers."

The message being Hope.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

My gripe is that you want to claim that AA saves lives, kept person X sober, etc., but in response to critics you insist that anecdotes don't count, nothing short of official statements from an entity that apparently doesn't issue statements counts, etc.

I'm not sure I have made too many direct claims here except perhaps to counter what is being said by my "opposition" by throwing in opposite claims.
But I agree and have conceded same before; it's just that I do that anecdote-for-anecdote and like to tell a few stories.

However, I do tend to rely on statistics of the world movement that is AA. How many groups and members are there across the globe?
Tinyal and I both believe AA had/has a lot to do with our respective sobrieties. I am 12 years clean and sober this year, he is 20 odd I think.

The tens of thousands of active groups and members are not just a figment of ones imagination. And the doors do not remain open due to some extensive conspiracy. The membership (filled with deists, agnostics and atheists) suggests something good is going on.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Alfie, you need to come up with a consistent definition for when you credit AA with "success" and when you're willing to say "yeah, that's AA, but..."

I think you will find any claims I make are made with a (or previously stated) disclaimer that I only have anecdotes. But I have seen and met thousands upon thousand of people all in AA/NA and elsewhere getting and staying sober through a spiritual program.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

In other words, I'm waiting for someone to say, "yeah, AA is religious, but so what? We help a lot of religious people, some non-religious people, and the other non-religious people are free to seek out other sources of help." I might still have some criticisms, wondering if the religious aspects were really that important, but I'd accept it as an honest answer.

Haven't you heard me say - since the start of this thread that:

AA has many roots in religion, and can be religious if you want it to be, but in practice it doesn't have to be (or similar)

Were you paying attention when I said those things? Is this the honesty you were after?

I do not believe I have ever strayed from this position or stated otherwise.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Maybe. But it seems pretty clear to me from what you've said that this husband was a jerk and would have seized on any rationale, religious, sobriety-based, or otherwise, to do whatever suited his needs.

Sorry.

Another anecdote.

My ex wife still blames AA for our marriage breakdown. Frankly I find this to be a major copout on her behalf. While it is absolutely true that my drinking and drugging dramatically undermined the relationship, I sopent six or seven years trying to put things right.

Sadly, the marriage never came good despite my best efforts. I was clean and sober, I wasn't cheating, I had a good job (income wise - I hated the work in the end) and she didn't have to work, two kids, a beautiful house, investments, nice cars, nice things etc. In other words, all the trimmings of a normal middle class suburban life.

She blamed me and AA, however (and I'm not being sexist or demanding when I say this):
- she never cooked for me (remember she wasn't working and I was doing up to 12 hours per day).
- she did my washing, never my ironing.
- we rarely slept together (in a sexual sense)
- we had different bedrooms.
- she didn't enjoy my company.

It was a loveless marriage. I went to her and expressed my dismay that I felt our marriage was failing a number of times in the final three three years. I took her to marriage guidance counselling; she went once. I pleased - she denied the problem, I begged, she ignored me. And on and on.

I finally took a dramatic course of action and left and she said she didn't understand why?!? Incredible.

AA was not the reason for our marriage breaking down, it was my drinking that ruined it, and her lack of action in my recovery to try and jointly right the boat that sank it.

Is AA to blame?

Any way, I 13th stepped a girl in AA.

I'M KIDDING.

I did meet someone in AA after we split, we are married today, have four kids between us, two dogs, two snakes, a nice home, new jobs and careers.

My life is wonderful and I thank AA for an awful lot of it. My ex wife is still miserable and does nothing to try and find spiritual contentment (i.e. happiness).

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

I think for question one, the 12 traditions covers most of it. More can be found in the actions of the central office (as a representation of the membership) and general literature.

That said, I can concede that a lot of the 12 traditions are open to some personal interpretation.

Thanks for answering that.

Quote:

For question 2 I think that tradition five covers it:

"Each group has but one primary purpose - to carry it's message to the alcoholic who still suffers."

The message being Hope.

Forgive me if I say that's a bit of a dodge. "Hope"? That's it? Not to sound like an American conservative politician, but "hope" is not a solution, program, policy, etc.

Saying "hope" or "things can get better" doesn't really get you anywhere. Unless alcoholics are really stupid, I would think the next question would be "how?" And if you're offering AA as the solution, I think it behooves you to explain how AA provides that hope.

Quote:

Haven't you heard me say - since the start of this thread that:

AA has many roots in religion, and can be religious if you want it to be, but in practice it doesn't have to be (or similar)

Were you paying attention when I said those things? Is this the honesty you were after?

I do not believe I have ever strayed from this position or stated otherwise.

Alfie, the problem I have with those statements is that they're so contentless.

First, there's the issue that one can't say anything about AA without you insisting that it doesn't count unless it's in an official tradition, and when it's pointed out that Tradition Two mentions God, you brush it off.

Second, as I've pointed out to you earlier in this thread, by your definition of "religious," most church services aren't religious, either. They don't impose an entrance exam or require you to swear an oath. Atheists are allowed in to admire the architecture or music, or simply to keep their significant other happy. You can "take what you like" (the architecture, music, and sense of community) and "leave the rest" (the actual believing in God stuff).

You may very well have been "consistent" in the sense that you've never deviated from these positions. But that's easy to do when the positions don't mean anything.

And if the traditions of AA are so flexible as to be meaningless, how they can offer "hope" to anyone?

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Another anecdote.

(Lots of stuff snipped)

Thanks for sharing that, and I mean that honestly.

I'm not sure that it tells us anything, though. Getting sober should change a person, and sometimes that is going to mean that a relationship stops working. Whether that's because AA destroyed the relationship (as you claim your ex claims) or because this was a copout (as you claim), or because you had a dysfunctional relationship to begin with that was bound to fail (which seems more likely to me as an admittedly ill-informed outsider).

Quote:

She blamed me and AA, however (and I'm not being sexist or demanding when I say this):
- she never cooked for me (remember she wasn't working and I was doing up to 12 hours per day).
- she did my washing, never my ironing.
- we rarely slept together (in a sexual sense)
- we had different bedrooms.
- she didn't enjoy my company.

Other than the last item, it's really hard not to see that as a sexist complaint. Sorry, I'm trying not to be judgemental, but if you're going to share your history with people....

Quote:

I did meet someone in AA after we split, we are married today, have four kids between us, two dogs, two snakes, a nice home, new jobs and careers.

My life is wonderful and I thank AA for an awful lot of it.

Well, as I said to slingblade, I think it's entirely reasonable for people to connect in AA or similar environments. I'm happy you're happy. But....

Quote:

My ex wife is still miserable and does nothing to try and find spiritual contentment (i.e. happiness).

Without knowing your ex, and more about what you mean by this, this is very open to interpretation. Somehow I suspect that your ex is less religious than you, and that this is what you're referring to by "spiritual contentment" despite the disclaimer.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if she's unhappy. I trust you'll forgive me for saying that anyone who marries and/or stays with an (unreformed) alcoholic probably has problems, too.

Of course, that begs the question of whether Al-alon is religious, which I hope won't require a 100-page thread....

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Saying "hope" or "things can get better" doesn't really get you anywhere. Unless alcoholics are really stupid, I would think the next question would be "how?" And if you're offering AA as the solution, I think it behooves you to explain how AA provides that hope.

Practcing alcoholics aren't stupid; they are however insane.

You asked what AA advocates, I responded that step five covers it. Hope was the message. I will concede I could have been more complete in my response and could have said that the message was that abstinence will see your life improve. Isn't that what is being advocated? If you want to extend the question to How?", go right aheadHowever we are leading back to the 12 steps and spirituality pathway again.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Alfie, the problem I have with those statements is that they're so contentless.

You said you were after honesty, I am giving you nearly the exact response you want and you move the goalposts. Whatsthatabout?

Originally Posted by Dunstan

First, there's the issue that one can't say anything about AA without you insisting that it doesn't count unless it's in an official tradition, and when it's pointed out that Tradition Two mentions God, you brush it off.

And so it does. God as we understand him. Bill in his own religious-speak way is saying group consensus or democracy. If you take the time to actually read step two (long version) you will see what is actually being said.

Linky

http://www.prismnet.com/aamen/trad.html

Originally Posted by Dunstan

And if the traditions of AA are so flexible as to be meaningless, how they can offer "hope" to anyone?

Simple: Hope is offered by the clean and sober member who has come from the depths of despair to a fulfilling life. The new member can hear where they came from and be given hope that their life too can change for the better.

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Other than the last item, it's really hard not to see that as a sexist complaint. Sorry, I'm trying not to be judgemental, but if you're going to share your history with people....

Well, the first two I think can be fair complaints. If he did work 12 hours per day in a paid job then it is not sexist or outright unfair to expect that the other person does the housework, is it?

(Did she cook for herself and do her own ironing, though?)

The next two just seem to be an extension of the final point. Again, I see no outright sexism here - I am not suggesting that either side should be blamed here, but it seems to describe a number of symptoms of a non-working relationship.

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Practcing alcoholics aren't stupid; they are however insane.

You asked what AA advocates, I responded that step five covers it. Hope was the message. I will concede I could have been more complete in my response and could have said that the message was that abstinence will see your life improve. Isn't that what is being advocated? If you want to extend the question to How?", go right aheadHowever we are leading back to the 12 steps and spirituality pathway again.

Well, that's kind of my point.

We say "AA is the steps," you say "no, no, take what you want and leave the rest," we say, "well, what is AA then," you say "hope," I say "how," and you say, "look at the steps."

Quote:

You said you were after honesty, I am giving you nearly the exact response you want and you move the goalposts. Whatsthatabout?

A contentless response, that can be changed when it suits your purposes, is not an honest one. When you spend most of a thread insisting that AA is not "religious," only to redefine "religious" when pressed in a way that renders it meaningless, is not very honest. Or, in case you're truly being sincere about this, let's just say that it's not conducive to meaningful dialogue.

Quote:

And so it does. God as we understand him. Bill in his own religious-speak way is saying group consensus or democracy. If you take the time to actually read step two (long version) you will see what is actually being said.

Your link leads to a massive wall of text. Before I bother to read it, will you agree that it is an authoritative explanation of AA? Or will you disclaim anything I find on that site that disagrees with your claims?

Quote:

Simple: Hope is offered by the clean and sober member who has come from the depths of despair to a fulfilling life. The new member can hear where they came from and be given hope that their life too can change for the better.

Well, that's a message I can endorse and I hope it works.

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by Rasmus

Well, the first two I think can be fair complaints. If he did work 12 hours per day in a paid job then it is not sexist or outright unfair to expect that the other person does the housework, is it?

(Did she cook for herself and do her own ironing, though?)

Sure, they could be fair complaints. But we're missing some information, like your stated assumption that he was working 12 hours per day in a paid job, and your unstated assumption that she wasn't.

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Sure, they could be fair complaints. But we're missing some information, like your stated assumption that he was working 12 hours per day in a paid job, and your unstated assumption that she wasn't.

He said so, didn't he?

Quote:

(remember she wasn't working and I was doing up to 12 hours per day).

Okay, it says "up to", and I am assuming that this means regular work and long hours regularly. Even with a 9-5 kinda job I'd think it fair to be mostly excluded from the housework. (I don't want to belittle the latter at all. And I am in no way suggesting that the sex of either partner should have anything to do with who does what.)

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by Rasmus

He said so, didn't he?



Okay, it says "up to", and I am assuming that this means regular work and long hours regularly. Even with a 9-5 kinda job I'd think it fair to be mostly excluded from the housework. (I don't want to belittle the latter at all. And I am in no way suggesting that the sex of either partner should have anything to do with who does what.)

No, you're right, I missed that.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

A contentless response, that can be changed when it suits your purposes, is not an honest one. When you spend most of a thread insisting that AA is not "religious," only to redefine "religious" when pressed in a way that renders it meaningless, is not very honest. Or, in case you're truly being sincere about this, let's just say that it's not conducive to meaningful dialogue.

I haven't defined or redefined anything. The literature, "the program" (steps etc) and those in AA consistently state that it is a spiritual program, not religious.
Outsiders see spiritual as being religious and religious as being spiritual, i.e. totally interchangeable, they are not. It is they who are redefining words to confuse their respective meanings imho, not I who are rendering them meaningless.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Your link leads to a massive wall of text. Before I bother to read it, will you agree that it is an authoritative explanation of AA? Or will you disclaim anything I find on that site that disagrees with your claims?

The 12 traditions are the "rules" by which we play. I said earlier in response to you that I felt they were the best guide as to what AA was about. I also said that some interpretation (as in everything else in life) was also open to some personal interpretations.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Well, that's a message I can endorse and I hope it works.

We share our experience, strength and hope.

Cheers....um.. er....

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

I haven't defined or redefined anything. The literature, "the program" (steps etc) and those in AA consistently state that it is a spiritual program, not religious.
Outsiders see spiritual as being religious and religious as being spiritual, i.e. totally interchangeable, they are not. It is they who are redefining words to confuse their respective meanings imho, not I who are rendering them meaningless.

Let me state it bluntly. The thread title asks "Why do people insist AA is not religious?"

You have answered it in two ways, I believe: (1) it's not religious because there is no entrance requirement, i.e. nobody requires you to believe in god; and (2) AA isn't anything, really, because it's a bottom-up organization.

Let me know if I've characterized those views unfairly.

As to (1), I think you're playing word games, because most church services aren't "religious" under your definition.

As to (2), I think you're equivocating because you're willing to praise AA when it suits you, meaning that AA is "something" about which general statements can be made ("AA is helpful/offers hope/etc.") but when pressed on anything that might undermine your position ("AA is religious"), your revert back to the "well, that's just some local group, not AA as a whole" defense.

Quote:

The 12 traditions are the "rules" by which we play. I said earlier in response to you that I felt they were the best guide as to what AA was about. I also said that some interpretation (as in everything else in life) was also open to some personal interpretations.

You evaded my question.

I asked you how AA offers hope. You pointed to the traditions. I said, doesn't the 2nd tradition refer to God. You said, read this explanation. I said, I'm not going to read it unless you agree that it's an authoritative explanation. I don't want you saying, this site is great when it explains how the 2nd tradition totally isn't religious, oh, but ignore what it says down there about Jesus.

Earlier in the thread you chastised someone for selectively quoting from part of a site that generally supported your position. I'm just asking that you don't do the same thing.

So, again: is that site an accurate description of AA? If your answer is anything but "yes," then I'm not going to waste my time reading it. You can paraphrase any key points that you think need to be made. If your answer is "yes," then I'll read it and respond.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Let me state it bluntly. The thread title asks "Why do people insist AA is not religious?"

You have answered it in two ways, I believe: (1) it's not religious because there is no entrance requirement, i.e. nobody requires you to believe in god; and (2) AA isn't anything, really, because it's a bottom-up organization.

Let me know if I've characterized those views unfairly.

I believe you have characterised this innaccurately.

1/. AA is not religious (but it can be), it is spiritual however.
2/. ??? The bottom up stuff was relating to something else altogether; not religiosity.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

As to (1), I think you're playing word games, because most church services aren't "religious" under your definition.

Not games, I am using definitions: the simple fact is that spirituality and religion are two completely different things.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

As to (2), I think you're equivocating because you're willing to praise AA when it suits you, meaning that AA is "something" about which general statements can be made ("AA is helpful/offers hope/etc.") but when pressed on anything that might undermine your position ("AA is religious"), your revert back to the "well, that's just some local group, not AA as a whole" defense.

I think the word mischaracterised is appropriate here.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

You evaded my question.

I asked you how AA offers hope. You pointed to the traditions. I said, doesn't the 2nd tradition refer to God. You said, read this explanation. I said, I'm not going to read it unless you agree that it's an authoritative explanation. I don't want you saying, this site is great when it explains how the 2nd tradition totally isn't religious, oh, but ignore what it says down there about Jesus.

Earlier in the thread you chastised someone for selectively quoting from part of a site that generally supported your position. I'm just asking that you don't do the same thing.

So, again: is that site an accurate description of AA? If your answer is anything but "yes," then I'm not going to waste my time reading it. You can paraphrase any key points that you think need to be made. If your answer is "yes," then I'll read it and respond.

It is an accurate desription of how "God as we understood him" (as specified in the steps) reveals himself through the collective conscience of the group. In otherwords; Billspeak for a democratic decision.

Does Bill speak woo? Sure.
Is it democracy in action? Yep, it's that too.
Is it authoritative? Yep.
Is it open to interpretation? Yes again.

I suggest you read it and find out what I am talking about then you will be informed and discussions can commence.

I would point out that I am uncertain how we got to a link between 'hope' and step 2; it seems they were different topics.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Evidence?

You mean more anomymous anecdotal tales which seem to be Proof for most here?

Quote:

Hell, if it's required of us, Al, it's darn sure required of you.

For me as a drunk the only thing I required from AA is learning not-to-drink, and with luck make a better life not drinking.

For many years now, mission accomplished -- one day at a time.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by hud

My posts, if you read them, were the opposite. I did not see this happening in meetings. I didn't know the "Official Position" until you posted it.

So, how can I forget the "Official position" and focus on the practice? My (anecdotal) evidence is that it DOESN'T happen.

I don't know what else to say?

I understand where the burden of proof lies in logical argumentation: with the positive claim.

However if said claim is being made, and you have no experience with it, and what you consider evidence--non-anecdotal--isn't forthcoming, then why wouldn't you at least try to find evidence on your own? Why wouldn't you look into claims, if only to bolster your own experience? Myself, I would prefer and have preferred finding out I'm wrong, than remaining uninformed about it.

If the answer is something along the lines of: "Because it isn't mine to prove," you mean, not even to yourself? Never mind the argument being had here. Why wouldn't you want to know, one way or the other, for your own information? Why wouldn't you think of small sampling, and the possibility that the meetings you attended were less than one-tenth of one percent of the whole, and that's pretty flimsy "evidence?"

I have agreed with much of what you've said here, and at the risk of causing another bout of nausea for some (), I do admire your sobriety, and how hard you have to work at it every day to maintain it. Far, far earlier in the thread, I mentioned that alcoholic who was once in my life has slipped, and fallen very close to hitting bottom, once again. After what we thought had been twenty years sober, we have now, according to his newest ex-wife, discovered his drinking, drugging, and prostitute-paying been going on for at least 5 years, and no one is discounting the possibility it's been even longer than that. So, I do admire those who keep winning their own fight, one day at a time. And that includes Alfie, even if he frustrates me sometimes.

Going back to the main discussion, it seems to me that AA could emphasize "spirituality" without having to mention god at all.

I would think it better, in many ways, to emphasize not a higher power than ourselves, but a power greater than that which we have used before. That power is inherent in me, and in my fellow humans. This keeps the rhetoric focused on how its our problem, and therefore ultimately our solution, and doesn't drag any woo into it. And it doesn't imply that people can't have their theism, their religiosity, just because the word "god" is removed!

Religious/theistic persons engage the world each day in many ways that don't promote religion in any form, and they function just fine. Because they utilize their religious beliefs, anyway, in spite of that lack of "official" sanction. God could still be an open and celebrated part of the individual's program, while not officially being part of the AA Program of Recovery, and that wouldn't be discouraged in any way.

Spirituality can be spiritual without any inclusion of god. but religion can't be religious without inclusion of god. If "spiritual" is what's being aimed for, it won't hurt to drop the religious part. It's still spiritual.

I'm functioning on 4 hours sleep, and am admittedly foggy, so I hope I'm being clear. I'm not saying to discourage "god," but rather, don't officially encourage "god," so that the program is more inclusive of all.

We atheists are growing in numbers. This hitch in the system is going to keep getting bigger...

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

But basically, I would ask Alfie to ponder and respond to the following questions:

1) What would you accept as evidence of "what AA does/believes/advocates"?
2) Under that definition, what do you think you can claim AA does/believer/advocates?

My gripe is that you want to claim that AA saves lives, kept person X sober, etc., but in response to critics you insist that anecdotes don't count, nothing short of official statements from an entity that apparently doesn't issue statements counts, etc.

And my gripe is that Alfie says that there is no such thing as an AA program, not officially, and yet he credits it with saving lives. How can "nothing" save a life, Alfie?

On the other hand, it has been amusing to watch Alfie's lofty claims about AA evolve over the course of this thread. In the beginning AA was everything to Alfie but now it is nothing . . . except 'hope' . . . allegedly . . . and unofficially, of course.

I would also like to know how Alfie decides one step outweighs all the others? That the step talking about hope is official but all the ones talking about god aren't. It seems to me this is no different than what believers do with the bible. They disregard everything they don't like/know is wrong in the text and then claim the rest doesn't exist/isn't official. Cognitive dissonance at its best.

[slingblade]

I have to admit, Qayak, "take what you need and leave the rest" does rather smack of cherry-picking, from at least a certain point of view.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Maybe. But it seems pretty clear to me from what you've said that this husband was a jerk and would have seized on any rationale, religious, sobriety-based, or otherwise, to do whatever suited his needs.

Sorry.

Oh, I agree! However, AA was where I learned of the concept of enabling, and forgive me, but I can't help but see that in some ways, AA enabled him, too. It didn't mean to, but drunks take advantage and poorly use even the things they seek on their own for help.

So maybe, if AA hadn't handed him what quickly became convenient excuses...

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by AlBell

You mean more anomymous anecdotal tales which seem to be Proof for most here?

Why would I mean that? Why would I limit your evidence? Provide whatever evidence you like, even anecdotal, for your claim that threads like these have discouraged people from checking AA out.

That we have provided some of our evidence in a form you don't agree with is no barrier to you presenting yours, whatever it may be. Let us evaluate it, please, as you have evaluated ours.

Quote:

For me as a drunk the only thing I required from AA is learning not-to-drink, and with luck make a better life not drinking.

For many years now, mission accomplished -- one day at a time.

And as I have been for the many here who share this accomplishment, I am proud of and pleased for you. May you continue in good health.

[hud]

We seem to agree on alot. I think somewhere upthread we were talking past each other and the religion arguments got mixed up with the anti-drug anti-psych arguments. I think.

Originally Posted by slingblade

I understand where the burden of proof lies in logical argumentation: with the positive claim.

I haven't made much in the way of positive claims. I mostly have only my own personal anecdotes, weak evidence to be sure. I think that I have been clear on that from the beginning.

Quote:

However if said claim is being made, and you have no experience with it, and what you consider evidence--non-anecdotal--isn't forthcoming, then why wouldn't you at least try to find evidence on your own? Why wouldn't you look into claims, if only to bolster your own experience? Myself, I would prefer and have preferred finding out I'm wrong, than remaining uninformed about it.

I honestly don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak, and my intellectual curiousity only extends to finding a better way to help a few alcoholics I know. Not going to meetings any more - I mentioned the God thing eventually turned me off - I don't have any opportunities for more "research."

Quote:

If the answer is something along the lines of: "Because it isn't mine to prove," you mean, not even to yourself? Never mind the argument being had here. Why wouldn't you want to know, one way or the other, for your own information? Why wouldn't you think of small sampling, and the possibility that the meetings you attended were less than one-tenth of one percent of the whole, and that's pretty flimsy "evidence?"

My own information that I found through experience is this: Going to meetings over a period of 5 years was positive for me and helped me get sober. Although the flaws I saw in the program eventually caused me to stop going, I think I got something out of it.

Quote:

I have agreed with much of what you've said here, and at the risk of causing another bout of nausea for some (), I do admire your sobriety, and how hard you have to work at it every day to maintain it. Far, far earlier in the thread, I mentioned that alcoholic who was once in my life has slipped, and fallen very close to hitting bottom, once again. After what we thought had been twenty years sober, we now, according to his newest ex-wife, discovered it's been going on for at least 5 years, and no one is discounting the possibility it's been even longer than that. So, I do admire those who keep winning their own fight, one day at a time. And that includes Alfie, even if he frustrates me sometimes.

Going back to the main discussion, it seems to me that AA could emphasize "spirituality" without having to mention god at all.

I would think it better, in many ways, to emphasize not a higher power than ourselves, but a power greater than that which we have used before. That power is inherent in me, and in my fellow humans. This keeps the rhetoric focused on how its our problem, and therefore ultimately our solution, and doesn't drag any woo into it. And it doesn't imply that people can't have their theism, their religiosity, just because the word "god" is removed!

Religious/theistic persons engage the world each day in many ways that don't promote religion in any form, and they function just fine. Because they utilize their religious beliefs, anyway, in spite of that lack of "official" sanction. God could still be an open and celebrated part of the individual's program, while not officially being part of the AA Program of Recovery, and that wouldn't be discouraged in any way.

Spirituality can be spiritual without any inclusion of god. but religion can't be religious without inclusion of god. If "spiritual" is what's being aimed for, it won't hurt to drop the religious part. It's still spiritual.

I'm functioning on 4 hours sleep, and am admittedly foggy, so I hope I'm being clear. I'm not saying to discourage "god," but rather, don't officially encourage "god," so that the program is more inclusive of all.

We atheists are growing in numbers. This hitch in the system is going to keep getting bigger...

Agree pretty much with all of this and have said something like it in posts in this thread at one time or another.

I looked into the SMART thing for a short time last night and it looks promissing. There sure aren't very many actual physical meetings, with the closest to me being a good 2 hour round trip. That would be my biggest criticism. I wouldn't mind going to one of those meetings, though.

An available, cheap, non-religious program/drug/therapy that actually works and can be proven to work would be the biggest agent for change in AA imaginable, much bigger and more effective than anything you or I could do.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by AlBell

You mean more anomymous anecdotal tales which seem to be Proof for most here?

Here's another anonymous anecdotal tale. Too bad for you it comes from AA Grapevine in 1989.

Quote:

I am not afraid to recommend counselors, and I do not flinch when someone who is putting in an honest effort asks about antidepressant medication or expresses an interest in Antabuse. I wonder if Bill W. would have referred to these medications as an "easier, softer way" if they had been in existence back in the '30s. Bill himself supposedly battled a chronic depression using AA principles alone. Was it because his only other alternative back then was shock therapy? I feel very uneasy when I hear old-timers at meetings criticize the new ones because they rely on counselors or admit to taking prescribed medications. Is a suicidally depressed alcoholic really recovering simply because he or she is abstaining totally from all drugs? The usual comment is that the individual's only problem is that he or she is working a "bad program" and needs to find a sponsor. I see this inflexibility as one area where change in AA is needed.

There are endless testimonies of this happening on on the internet. You have several members in this thread confirming it's a problem. Either we're all making it up or it's true. Do you think there is an army of trolls making this stuff up to destroy the divine program givin to us by God through Bill and Bob? Perhaps you think I spend some of my time making them up, as to have something to argue my resentments with.

I've asked repeatedly what anyone's ideas are to reform AA and prevent this from happening. All you need is an accountability system, rules, a reporting system, and a power structure willing to discipline cult woos giving quack advice. Apparently, this isn't necessary, because the people who think it's a problem are delusional.

Quote:

I also was only sleeping 3 hours or so, every 3 days. My sponsor had said that god would heal me and when god wanted me to sleep I would. My Dr said that sometimes god gives us a parachute and he was my parachute. I took his advice and took a very mild pain medication for 3 days that was all I needed to heal. I also took a mild antidepressant medication to help me sleep ( I was becoming increasingly suicidal from the pain and lack of sleep). I was afraid to tell my sponsor. After about 5 days of sleeping I told her. She fired me on the spot and said she will not sponsor a zombie. I apologized profusely and immediately stopped taking the antidepressant. source

Yeah she probably made that up.

Quote:

I lived with and loved an AA member who struggled for ten years with his depression but whose sponsor told him never to consult a psychiatric doctor, that all he needed was to work his program harder. This guy worked AA like the well trained military scientist that he is, absolutely thoroughly. It was only his near suicidal depression that got him, both of us actually (because I believed this too), out of AA and on the meds that he needs to live a fulfilled life. source

The man who told him this stuff should have been disciplined, why is there no authority in AA to do that? Oh wait they probably just made that up, probably because they just wanted to get drunk.

So, Al, what should that woman be able to do? How are we going to discipline this woman's sponser? How are we going to get AA to stop giving this advice? What are your ideas for this?

[Joey McGee]

Just more worthless, made-up anecdotes from AA Grapevine, their "Official Journal" (I had to set up a trial subscription to read these, all you need is an email)

This time from 2005

Quote:

I confided to my sponsor that I was on a combination of antidepressant and anti-psychotic medications as treatment for clinical depression. I had been diagnosed by a number of professionals over a period of twenty years; not one had a differing opinion. My sponsor suggested that I not talk about this at meetings because there were some in AA who thought that the program could cure any form of depression.

This is outrageous. Yes, don't upset the cult woos, they will attack you for being nonspiritual and egotistical. You just want to get high!

October 2002, memoirs of a quack

Quote:

I recall learning at a particular meeting that a member of my first home group was taking Valium. In the general sharing that followed I inveighed against pill-taking to the point that another member of the group waved the General Service Conference-approved pamphlet, "The AA Member--Medications and Other Drugs" in front of me. I can't recall if I read the pamphlet at the time, but if I did, I still was not persuaded to moderate my view.(Joey: Because there is no discipline for authority figures in the cult) At five years of recovery, I was on a beginners' panel and shared that I had drunk on top of antidepressants and offered a word of caution about their use. A woman, sharing from the floor, verbally attacked me. She said she knew of people who had thrown away their medications on the advice of jerks like me and then committed suicide. I was stunned by the vehemence of her response and felt humiliated.

This guy is a real winner, goes on to whine about this.

Quote:

a horror story may be thrown in of someone in recovery who jumped out a window because of the ignorant advice dispensed by unenlightened members of the Fellowship who encouraged the person to dispense with prescribed medication. And maybe such horror stories are in line with the facts. In any case, I often find such meetings disturbing. I feel intimidated and put in my place.

Good! Take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth, boy!

1997

Quote:

Earlier this year a friend of mine who has been sober for more than ten years became severely depressed. After no amount of talking helped, he saw a doctor who prescribed an antidepressant. My friend went back to work and doesn't think about killing himself anymore.

That's the good news. What bothers me is that my friend's sponsor of more than ten years told him that he could no longer be his sponsor because he was "taking drugs again." This devastated my friend, whose sponsor had been like a father to him. As an alcoholic and a physician, I am devastated to think that this kind of punitive, uninformed attitude still exists.

Probably just made it up. After all, The AA Grapevine is anonymous...

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

My gripe is that you want to claim that AA saves lives, kept person X sober, etc., but in response to critics you insist that anecdotes don't count, nothing short of official statements from an entity that apparently doesn't issue statements counts, etc.

PLUS they deny the best evidence available. For example, the meta-analysis of 8 randomized and controlled (with no treatment) studies. That means they combined the studies to make a super study. It shows it does not work. It's called the Cochrane review, anyone can read the entire thing right here, and try and poke holes in it all they like. This is to show that the program doesn't help you become sober or prevent relapse. So keep that in mind when the apologists are telling you what the benefits of the program are. Quack medicine exists, homeopathy has also been proven to not work (There's a Cochrane review for that too!) but homeopaths are all over the place telling stories and selling lies just the same. If there was a way to prove AA worked, it would have been done by now. Actually, the research was conducted properly, it failed.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

The tens of thousands of active groups and members are not just a figment of ones imagination. And the doors do not remain open due to some extensive conspiracy. The membership (filled with deists, agnostics and atheists) suggests something good is going on.

I think you will find any claims I make are made with a (or previously stated) disclaimer that I only have anecdotes. But I have seen and met thousands upon thousand of people all in AA/NA and elsewhere getting and staying sober through a spiritual program.

see above. Like the homeopaths say, "There are four-year programs for homeopathy and it's a multi-billion dollar industry with millions of testimonies of effectiveness! Obviously there's something to it!"

Originally Posted by qayak

And my gripe is that Alfie says that there is no such thing as an AA program, not officially, and yet he credits it with saving lives. How can "nothing" save a life, Alfie?

The aa program doesn't only exist, you can run randomized trials on it!

[hud]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

PLUS they deny the best evidence available. For example, the meta-analysis of 8 randomized and controlled (with no treatment) studies. That means they combined the studies to make a super study. It shows it does not work. It's called the Cochrane review, ...

<snip>

Your link is broken, I had to google it.

The Cochrane thing seems much more inconclusive than anything else. They basically say that more studies are necessary, not that they have good evidence AA doesn't work.

Quote:

Authors' conclusions

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.

There are 2 much more recent studies that show AA having some (emphasis on some, not complete) success.

This article mentions the two most recent studies:

http://www.choosehelp.com/news/alcoh...ess-of-aa.html

Granted that's a pro-AA website but the studies it mentions were real, not conducted by AA or an affiliation. I used to have direct links to the actual studies but they got lost when I bought a new PC a month or two ago... I'll see if I can find them.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by hud

Your link is broken, I had to google it.

It is fixed. That is the entire review, hard to find online, not much you can criticize if you only have the abstract.

Quote:

The Cochrane thing seems much more inconclusive than anything else. They basically say that more studies are necessary, not that they have good evidence AA doesn't work.

Wrong. Conclusions: No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems. So it doesn't work. Period. Why were those studies no good? That's the only valid recourse, and it's not valid in this case.

Plus, this is akin to legalese, as skeptic doctor/scientist Orac quipped

Quote:

And:

There is currently little evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy for the treatment of ADHD. Development of optimal treatment protocols is recommended prior to further randomised controlled trials being undertaken.

This is what I hate about Cochrane. No matter how fantastical the therapy, no matter how resoundingly negative the evidence, Cochrane reviews almost always conclude that "more research" is needed or provide some weaselly comment like the one above.

So, it's important to know how to read a scientific study.

Quote:

There are 2 much more recent studies that show AA having some (emphasis on some, not complete) success.

This article mentions the two most recent studies:

http://www.choosehelp.com/news/alcoh...ess-of-aa.htmlGranted that's a pro-AA website but the studies it mentions were real, not conducted by AA or an affiliation. I used to have direct links to the actual studies but they got lost when I bought a new PC a month or two ago... I'll see if I can find them.

Thanks I'll look into those soon.

[hud]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Wrong. Conclusions:No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems.

Wrong. That they found no evidence for AA being effective is not the same thing as saying it doesn't work. Their conclusion was that more studies were necessary, not that the matter was settled as you are trying to say.

Quote:

Thanks I'll look into those soon.

Here is a link, to one of the authors of the study I mentioned showing some success. He's a researcher at Harvard, not a quack or a denier or an apologist :

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publicatio...34/350-355.htm

[hud]

Also Joey before you get mad and flame me again, my only point is that the studies into AA's effectiveness are all over the map and generally inconclusive.

I'm NOT saying that AA is proven, scientifically, to help.

[ilsita]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

That "turning our life and will over" does not mean we are not responsible for our actions. For me it means more that I am no more in control of my ultimate destiny than the next person, and that trying to control every outcome - while I do my best to manage them - is not in my control, etc etc.

That's interesting. So for you, turning over your life and will to the care of a higher power actually means being more in control of your life than anyone else because you are not in control? I'm not sure what the "etc etc" could possibly refer to. Usually, "etc" is used when what comes next is obvious, but I can't even imagine what that would be here, unless you went on to assert that up is down and black is white, etc.

Anyway!

I think I can make a pretty good case for why AA is religious and not spiritual. Recently, I wrote something on our blog called "4 Reasons Why AA Is Religious," which you can find by doing a search on Stinkin' Thinkin' for that title, or by scrolling on the calendar in the sidebar to 3/9/2011

I'm so sorry for being lazy! I just don't want to write it all out again.

If you find it, you can respond to it here, if you want.

[Rasmus]

http://stinkin-thinkin.com/
and
http://stinkin-thinkin.com/2011/03/09/

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by hud

Wrong. That they found no evidence for AA being effective is not the same thing as saying it doesn't work. Their conclusion was that more studies were necessary, not that the matter was settled as you are trying to say.

Science is never settled. By that logic homeopathy is still valid.

Quote:

Here is a link, to one of the authors of the study I mentioned showing some success. He's a researcher at Harvard, not a quack or a denier or an apologist :

Yeah because we haven't had any of those come out of Harvard ever...

Originally Posted by hud

Also Joey before you get mad and flame me again

when was that, this? Yes, I was mad at you, and the purpose of this conversation is to make myself feel better. Good call.

Quote:

my only point is that the studies into AA's effectiveness are all over the map and generally inconclusive.

That's a huge mark against it's effectiveness then. That's why we need to do meta-analyses in the first place.

Quote:

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publicatio...34/350-355.htm

Why does effect disappear? Burn out from being in the cult?

Quote:

By the 8-year follow-up, 46 percent of those in formal treatment reached abstinence compared with 49 percent of the AA-only group.

Quote:

Drinkers in the study who self-selected into both AA and formal treatment also were more likely than those in formal treatment only to be abstinent at years 1 and 3 (42 percent and 51 percent vs. 21 percent and 26 percent) and, again, were not significantly different by year 8 (58 percent vs. 46 percent).

Hey here's where I really agree with them!

Quote:

Questions sometimes arise as to whether MHGs are less suitable for certain populations. For example, because these groups focus purely
on substance use and emphasize abstinence, some believe they may not appeal to people with dual diagnoses or people taking psychotropic or anti-relapse medications. In addition, it is believed by some that such groups may not resonate with atheists or agnostics because of their spiritual orientation, and that women and young people may not feel comfortable because they perceive MHGs to be male dominated and composed largely of middle-aged and older adults. Whereas the available empirical evidence suggests that these populations can benefit from participation in traditional AA or NA meetings, the benefits may be enhanced if people attend groups tailored more specifically to their individual needs, as with youth-oriented meetings (Kelly et al. 2005) and DTR, which is aimed at people with dual diagnoses (Kelly and Yeterian 2008a).

Quote:

These groups may help people recover by providing an ongoing recovery-specific social context that mobilizes active coping efforts, enhances self-efficacy, and continually remotivates people toward recovery.

Which is what I've been saying all along, it's not that the program itself works, it's that a support group can help, which I agree with. Big distinction. Especially when you consider the title of this review is "The Role of Mutual-Help Groups in Extending the Framework of Treatment"

Quote:

From AA’s perspective, people recover from alcohol dependence through a “spiritual awakening” or “psychic change” resulting from a combination of factors that include working the 12 steps, having a sponsor, believing in a “higher power,” and helping others (AA 2001). However, other theories also may explain how AA works. (Joey: Read: This is obviously bs, so here's our take) For example, the more implicit social component of AA meetings may promote therapeutic elements through group dynamics, such as the instillation of hope, vicarious learning and modeling, and altruism (Yalom 1995). In addition, empirical research on the mechanisms of change in AA highlights important cognitive, behavioral, and social factors associated with AUD remission (Kelly et al. 2009). For instance, several studies have found that the positive relationship between AA/ MHG involvement and substance use outcomes can be explained by
an increase in people’s social network and greater network support for abstinence

So, is this evidence for the program or for a support group?

Quote:

I'm NOT saying that AA is proven, scientifically, to help.

Sure it is, in certain dimensions, just like it's proven to harm in others.

Quote:

Three months after terminating treatment the only variables that revealed differences concerned drinking behavior. ... In this analysis AA was five times more likely to binge than the control and nine times more likely than the lay-RBT. The AA group average was 2.4 binges in the last 3 months since outcome.
Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism, by Jeffrey Brandsma, Maxie Maultsby, and Richard J. Welsh. University Park Press, Baltimore, MD., page 105.

I'm also willing to believe that over time, newer studies that actually compare AA attendance with no treatment might get better, just because the influence of science-based medicine and modern psychology on the program and it's attendants.

[hud]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Wrong. Conclusions: No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems. So it doesn't work. Period. Why were those studies no good? That's the only valid recourse, and it's not valid in this case.

Originally Posted by hud

...

I'm NOT saying that AA is proven, scientifically, to help.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Sure it is, in certain dimensions, just like it's proven to harm in others.

You seem to be literally arguing with your own statements.

Does it work, does it not work, does it work for some groups but not for other groups, do all MHG's work to some degree, what exactly are you arguing?

[ilsita]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

By the way, I love you.

I got an instant crush as soon as I saw your avatar.

Quote:

In other words, I'm waiting for someone to say, "yeah, AA is religious, but so what? We help a lot of religious people, some non-religious people, and the other non-religious people are free to seek out other sources of help." I might still have some criticisms, wondering if the religious aspects were really that important, but I'd accept it as an honest answer.

This is really important to me too. I'd never want to destroy AA -- some people really like it. But the fact that this program of spiritual enlightenment has been elevated to the gold standard of addiction treatment in this country, recommended by doctors, therapists, and (illegally) mandated by courts has stymied progress in this field for 75 years. Since when does medical science consider itself powerless over a disease? Everything we think we know about addiction -- all conventional wisdom -- is mythology, based on the basic tenets of this nutbag religion. Ideas like "permanent, progressive disease" are absolutely not grounded in any science. They're derived straight out of theology.

AA should exist for people who like that sort of thing. But it is well past time for it to get out of public policy. Of course, admitting it's a religion would do the trick (maybe?), but there's an enormous industry churning around it. I mean, check out Hazelden's quote of the day today (still can't post links so maybe you can put this together): hazelden.org/web/public/thought.view?catId=1901

[hud]

Originally Posted by ilsita

<snip>

AA should exist for people who like that sort of thing. But it is well past time for it to get out of public policy. Of course, admitting it's a religion would do the trick (maybe?), but there's an enormous industry churning around it.

<snip>

Agree with this for the most part. Good luck getting the religion out of anything here in the US, but I'm all for it if it happens.

By the way, thanks for the link to the SMART group. In a post above I mentioned that I spent some time looking it over.

Did you by any chance check the link to the recent study I posted? There's some both pro and con to it, but it does shhow some level of success for AA (and other groups likeit).

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by hud

You seem to be literally arguing with your own statements.

Does it work, does it not work, does it work for some groups but not for other groups, do all MHG's work to some degree, what exactly are you arguing?

No, stop making straw men against me everyone. The first quote is me clarifying what the results of the study were.

The second is not kind of statement you seek, homeopathy works in certain dimensions by acting as a placebo, 50 odd % of doctors prescribe placebos...

Like I said, it's clear that a support group can help. That's different from saying the program of AA is helpful or their beliefs are accurate.

[hud]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

So, stop making straw men against me everyone. The first quote is me clarifying what the results of the study were.

The second is not kind of statement you seek, homeopathy works in certain dimensions by acting as a placebo, 50 odd % of doctors prescribe placebos...

Like I said, it's clear that a support group can help. That's different from saying the program of AA is helpful.

What strawman. Show me, with an actual quote like you said you always do.

Are you saying you disagree with the study I linked to, yes or no? If so, why? Are you saying it was a placebo effect, and that the researchers did not account for that?

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by hud

What strawman. Show me, with an actual quote like you said you always do.

It's just up there ^^^ you are saying I'm disagreeing with myself. No, I was telling you what the study concluded. This is clear, you saw one thing you could possible use against me and...

Quote:

Are you saying you disagree with the study I linked to, yes or no? If so, why? Are you saying it was a placebo effect, and that the researchers did not account for that?

No, what I'm saying is that the program of AA, the mental technology, the belief systems, all of that, isn't what helps you get sober, and the last 20 years of research have shown that. It's the social aspects, and that's exactly what the researchers just said.

Do I tell people not to go to a recovery group? No I tell them don't go to the one that doesn't want to learn and change and discipline itself against quacks. The fact that recovery groups work isn't evidence that AA's technology works and it's beliefs are true...

I highlighted what the researchers think about how it works, which supports my view of AA. Did I ever say that a social network and learning from recovered alcoholics doesn't work? No, I said that the program is a faith healing cult that has damaged a lot of people and needs to change. It needs to be able to prevent idiot old-timers from spewing their quack beliefs to vulnerable victims. It needs to prevent a lot of things but I imagine the cult blueprint is too strong, so people should just abandon it and start new groups.

[ilsita]

Originally Posted by hud

Agree with this for the most part. Good luck getting the religion out of anything here in the US, but I'm all for it if it happens.

No doubt. It's going to be a long haul, in a country where we don't take people seriously unless they believe in the a sky monster.

Quote:

By the way, thanks for the link to the SMART group. In a post above I mentioned that I spent some time looking it over.

Oh good. I think SMART is a much healthier alternative to AA.

Quote:

Did you by any chance check the link to the recent study I posted? There's some both pro and con to it, but it does shhow some level of success for AA (and other groups likeit).

I just peeked at it. I am really the worst person for evaluating studies. But the idea I get from a lot of these studies is, essentially, "people who go to the pool are more likely to go swimming." If that makes sense. You might be interested to know that among community reinforcement is among the top five most effective therapies, along with CBT therapies. AA does offer that community support, but the nature of the program fosters a very unhealthy dynamic among members that seems to do more harm than good, ultimately.

Edited by LashL:

Edited for compliance with Rule 12.