greyline

The "Big Book" is packed full of religious-speak, and is specifically demeaning to atheists. It says up front:

"We don't use this as an excuse for shying away from the subject of God. When it will serve any good purpose, we are willing to announce our convictions with tact and common sense."

and

"Lack of power, that was our dilemma. We had to find a power by which we could live, and it had to be a Power greater than ourselves. Obviously. But where and how were we to find this Power? Well, that's exactly what this book is about. Its main object is to enable you to find a Power greater than yourself which will solve your problem.... [That] means, of course, that we are going to talk about God."

"But after a while we had to face the fact that we must find a spiritual basis of life -- or else. Perhaps it is going to be that way with you. But cheer up, something like half of us thought we were atheists or agnostics."


From Doctor Bob himself:

"If you think you are an atheist, an agnostic, a skeptic, or have any other form of intellectual pride which keeps you from accepting what is in this book, I feel sorry for you."


Have all these references been removed from the Big Book these days?


"Atheists and agnostics are repeatedly: pitied; told we are deceiving ourselves; told we are going to die if we don't believe in God (also known as "Him"); told that we actually really do believe in God (also known as "Him") "deep down inside" -- if we could only be honest enough to admit it; told that much of our problem is prejudice against "spiritual things" -- whatever that means -- eliminating the possibility that some of us have spent years scrutinizing religious claims (and even the claims of Twelve Steppers!); told we will have difficulties if we don't change our religious views; coaxed to join the "over half" who have had problems in this respect but are now happy believers in God (also known as "Him")."
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8806.htm
(Written by a 1700-meeting veteran.)


Yet no treatment at all is at least equally successful, and various non-12-step treatments, that view alcoholism as a behaviour not a disease, are vastly more successful.

greyline

Thank you.

chapka

This is the part of the AA theory I've heard questioned. I believe the argument was analagous to the anti-"abstinence only" argument: by placing so much emphasis on the first drink and how there is no such thing as having "just one drink," AA slightly reduces the chance of drinking at all, but ensures that when you do drink, you can't stop after just one drink. Whereas programs that teach alcoholics to return to moderate drinking are better at avoiding binges and benders, and have just as good (or better) success rates at keeping people from slipping back into alcoholism. The argument was that "one drink = lost weekend" is a self-fulfilling prophecy rather than a physiological issue, and that teaching people to say "when" is more effective than teaching them to say "no."

I seem to recall that there was a study a few years ago to this effect, but I can't remember where I saw this, so I can't evaluate the source. Does anyone else remember this?

Jackalope

I do. I'll try and find the references later, though it may be too old for MedLine. I remember getting soundly mocked and reviled for bringing that study (and a couple simiilar ones) up when I was working at the detox. I've come across studies since that show that AA's all-or-nothing method of abstinence makes for a higher failure rate. If I still worked in the field, I'd go reference hunting (or more likely already have them at hand). Personally, I think it's become entrenched, rather like some forms of faith.

And be very, very careful of what you hear doctors giving talks about. After all, the Scientology-sponsored Narconon program (not Narcotics Anonymous) that's used in prisons is also "supported" by studies. That are totally bogus, but nevermind that part. The Scientology program is in fact part of the reason that Dubya's "Faith-Based" programs went down in flames the first time around. He didn't realize the $cienos were already sucking off the public teat with their drug rehab program. Substance Abuse is definitely a field where even the studies have been hopelessly fouled by the heavy-handed way that the government does research funding.

This site definitely has it's own bias, but it'll do until I can find the real studies:
AA Deprogramming

Viti

FYI, there is a post on secular recovery programs in the "Secular Resources" sticky in the Secular Lifestyle forum.

kaelcarp

Like I said, in today's secular community, it does come across like that. I'm not a big fan of the whole thing, and if I had problems with alcoholism, I wouldn't go for AA on the basis of its religiosity. It's also probable that what was originally thought of as a progressive take on religiosity has become outdated and is now conservative, and members have developed a more conservative religious view along with it.

Quote:

Yet no treatment at all is at least equally successful, and various non-12-step treatments, that view alcoholism as a behaviour not a disease, are vastly more successful.

I don't have access to any of the data the speaker had, but he had conducted a large amount of research on substance abuse of various kinds and found AA to be significantly successful compared to no treatment and compared to some other treatments. He did not compare it to other 12-step programs in his talk.

The speaker himself was not a religious man at all, and kept bringing up the religious aspect of the program as a downside because it turns a lot of people off.

rad

The data I have seen shows a steady decline in the effectiveness of AA over it's lifespan- IMO because the "higher power" began as Christ but has become anything from a Hindu rain God to none at all. In any case we have no reason whatsoever to think willpower by itself is of any more use to day than it was fifty years ago, so I'm afraid the atheist calls for more "personal responsibility" is so much wishful thinking.

I wouldn't mind seeing some independent data on the effectiveness of secular programs though.

Rad

greyline

Are you saying that AA works best when the higher power is the Christian God? That atheists don't have much hope of succeeding with a 12-step program since they have no interest in religious conversion?

rad

Not quite. I'm saying that within AA that seems to have been the case. As far as secular programs go, I'd have to see some convincing data that they actually work as good as the old AA did in iys heyday.

I have good reason to suspect that a merely "religious" approach is virtually useless and actually feeds into guilty and shameful feelings, as some ex AA members claim. I think the AA founders quite clearly hoped their members would become Christian. It is one thing to have some vague "higher power" forgive you, and another to have the Son of God himself (if you so come to believe) forgive and love you. I think they felt a personal relationship with God through Christ was essential to complete and permanent recovery.

One evidence of this is that in India (e.g) the AA recovery rate is only about 6%, while here it was originally much higher, on the order of 50%, although we have to depend on AA for numbers which may not be reliable. I find it hard to fathom how any program could have drawn so many alcoholics if it really didn't work however.

Rad

kaelcarp

From what I understand, there is no data for AA's effectiveness until recent years. Whatever "heyday" you mention is theoretical.

There is no real such thing as a "recovered" alchoholic, only one that is in remission, and it is very hard to measure these things. You have to be very thoughtful about your parameters.