Perchance

Jumping in here but...

I have to admit this disturbs me.

Wouldn't it be the equivalent of someone newly converted to a religion deciding that he won't read or watch anything that opposes that religion, will ignore all allegations or accusations against the religion without first evaluating them to see if they might be true, and refusing even to discuss the shaky points of doctrine?

I suppose I can see where these steps might be effective if someone has already suffered greatly from a religion and is deliberately seeking to deprogram himself. But for an ordinary theist, I think they would sound warning bells. After all, this kind of isolation from opposing sides and opinions is one of the major problems of (some branches of) theism. It's one reason that people continue to "believe in the face of all the evidence."

I suppose I'm rambling here, but if this program presented only the arguments against theism, and deliberately prevented the "trainees" from reaching out to the opposite side at all, then how would it be different from more extreme theism in its effects? I don't know that it would necessarily produce a skeptical or critical mind, only a determined atheistic one.

Or is there something here (quite likely) that I'm missing?

-Perchance.

Jobar

I agree with Perchance- what we should build is a way of growth, not something which stunts those following the way. There will be some 'stopping' involved, most certainly- but what we need to emphasize is that it is religion that is the limiting and stunting factor, *not* our proposed system. In fact, I would say that we should *encourage* the careful reading of religious materials- but from a skeptical and open viewpoint, with commentary both pro and con. (This step should be well 'up the ladder', however- let's not forget that for many, religion is an addiction more subtle and alluring than heroin.)

One thing I greatly admire about AA- and which addresses Helen's point about the cults of personality which religions tend to become- it is, indeed, anonymous. Its members are known only by first name, and sometimes an initial. Even the book (called by AA members- rather tellingly- The Book!) does not have an author's name, except for Bill W., one of the founding fathers of AA, who made great efforts to prevent AA from becoming his own little fiefdom. If we are to do this properly, I think we must avoid M.M. O'Hair's mistake with American Atheists, and avoid personally identifying ourselves as 'leaders' in this. If anyone profits, it becomes far less effective- look at the booming 'drug treatment' biz, which will probably collapse as soon as rational drug laws are passed (assuming, sadly, that they ever are- the business itself becomes a subtle but powerful obstacle to solving the problems it professes to solve!) Let us always remember that we look forward to the day when our Way is no longer necessary! That should be, not the second step, but one of the latter ones.

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

Perchance

This, I would agree with (i.e., that people who might seek out the group might have had their fill of religion for a while, and might need to stop reading or watching religious things, or associating with religious people, for their own sake). And if the group is for the severely religiously addicted only, then it might even be necessary to encourage such a thing if the individual has not thought of it him- or herself.

I do think that when an individual thinks he or she is ready to read things with a skeptical mind, then he or she should be allowed to do so- it should rely on the individual's measure of self, not necessarily only on another person's point of view.

The other thing I would fear about a group that severely limited contact with the 'other side,' beyond a tyranny similar to that of (some) theism, is that it might encourage those who feel they only need a little help to stay away. Would this group only be for those who are so severely involved that they feel they need to be kept away from theistic materials, or even people? Or would it also be for people who are only "moderately" involved but also would like to "recover?" Would it need multiple programs? Or would that need to be decided as it went along?

-Perchance.

HelenM

Originally posted by Perchance:

I do think that when an individual thinks he or she is ready to read things with a skeptical mind, then he or she should be allowed to do so- it should rely on the individual's measure of self, not necessarily only on another person's point of view.

These are all general considerations about situations where in the past, a person has found themselves unhealthily attached/dependent on something...

I think what you said ought to be conditioned on whether the individual can rightly judge their own recovery and their strength against exposure to what used to be a problem for them. I mean, is it ok for ex-alcoholics to try a little bit of alcohol again some time after they seem to be over their addiction or is that too risky regardless of how 'strong' they feel?

Once someone has a proven weakness, is it wiser to protect them in future or to let them see how strong they are by exposing themselves to what caused them problems, in the past?

It kinda depends which model you use and what protection you have should the worst happen and the person start to give into the whateveritis again.

I agree that it's best of all when someone can learn to be around something and not succumb to it's allure...

But is that always possible? And is it always worth taking the risk of finding out whether a person is beyond being sucked back in, or not?

love
Helen

Daydreamer

Mythological and Highly Improbable Being Dammit!

... Nope, just doesn't roll of the tongue like the original.

M.a.H.I.B. Dammit!

... Hmm, getting better.

Perchance

Point well-taken, Helen.

Perhaps I should have said, or made clearer, that I do think the person who thinks he/she is ready should consult others, and listen seriously to their advice if they're against it. On the other hand, leaving the decision entirely up to others smacks of having "handlers" (or cult control) to me. A compromise seems the best bet.

Of course, I have a biased perspective on this, since I'm an individualist and believe the person's individual choice should always come first- but, on the other hand, if the individual has chosen to be in a program like this, then he or she has already probably chosen to listen to others at least once.

Exactly. And, again, I'm probably biased because of the particulars in question. Reading is what I love most and do the most of, both on the Internet and off. I would find the very idea of someone telling me what to read horrifying, and I can't think of any circumstances where I would obey the order.

But someone else would probably be different.

I think it is always worth at least taking the risk...

Bet you knew I was going to say that .

It probably should be a joint position, based on the person's own ideas as well as his or her consultation with others. Many times, outsiders can evaluate a situation more clearly than the person stuck inside it. On the other hand, individuals often have a clearer idea of their own strength.

When I was treated (by means of Prozac and counseling) for depression, I heard therapists telling me I should spend more time "relaxing," not thinking or reading. I had one who advised me to give up writing altogether for a little while. Yet the drugs didn't seem to help, and the counseling sessions just seemed to make me feel worse; in the end, forcing myself to think about the guilt that caused the depression and get through it got me out of it.

It may depend on the individual in question, and therefore I think the people helping them or advising them with decisions like this should know the people in the program fairly well.

-Perchance.

Family Man

I think mine could be reworded a bit, but yours loses a bit of the bite I was going for. I want people to understand that wishing for immortality is not a good thing, and I think your rewording loses that.

On the other hand, this was your idea....

Perchance

I used to say "God" quite a bit, just as an automatic exclamation (and had people chide me about using the Lord's name in vain). The last month or so, though- since I joined II, in fact- I realized I wasn't saying that. It wasn't until I concentrated that I realized I was saying "Man!"

An improvement, I suppose, although someone might accuse me of taking humanity's name in vain.

I still say, "Sheesh!" I wonder if this is acceptable? .

-Perchance.

Eudaimonist

If you haven't already, start working out your new world view and new plan for living. A religious free life is not (or should not be) merely the purging of religious habits and practices. A religious free life is not merely a "freedom from", but a "freedom to". Now that you are free from religion, what are you going to do with your life?

Needless to say, figuring that out takes work. You are going to have to expose yourself to more ideas, and you will need to judge them for yourself. You also have to do some self-examination to figure out what life goals are meaningful to you in your religious free life.

This takes a lot of effort, but it is worth it. You will discover what it is to take responsibility for creating your self and your life. You may discover the purest form of self-respect.

HelenM

Originally posted by Perchance:

Perhaps I should have said, or made clearer, that I do think the person who thinks he/she is ready should consult others, and listen seriously to their advice if they're against it. On the other hand, leaving the decision entirely up to others smacks of having "handlers" (or cult control) to me. A compromise seems the best bet.

I understand. I have an aversion to over-control. I think it started the day in 1996 that they put me in the 'quiet room' in the psychiatric unit and then made me take meds even though I knew I was supposed to have the right to refuse because they'd given me a bit of paper about my rights the same day...

Of course, I have a biased perspective on this, since I'm an individualist and believe the person's individual choice should always come first- but, on the other hand, if the individual has chosen to be in a program like this, then he or she has already probably chosen to listen to others at least once.

Part of their problem might be that they are over-dependent on the opinions of others. So, pushing them to make their own decisions might be part of their recovery, actually.

Exactly. And, again, I'm probably biased because of the particulars in question. Reading is what I love most and do the most of, both on the Internet and off. I would find the very idea of someone telling me what to read horrifying, and I can't think of any circumstances where I would obey the order.

I doubt that reading would generally be as 'dangerous' as exposure to addictive substances or highly influential/compelling people or groups.

But someone else would probably be different.

Never say never...but I tend to think reading alone (i.e. not as part of a program of exposure to a group and its teachings etc) is one of the least likely things to draw a person unhealthily into something problematic for them.

I think it is always worth at least taking the risk...

Bet you knew I was going to say that .

Well, now I do!

It probably should be a joint position, based on the person's own ideas as well as his or her consultation with others. Many times, outsiders can evaluate a situation more clearly than the person stuck inside it. On the other hand, individuals often have a clearer idea of their own strength.

That makes sense to me.

In the better groups, that's the way they work (imo). A person is advised to seek wise counsel but it is respected that in the end, the person has to make their own decisions.

When I was treated (by means of Prozac and counseling) for depression, I heard therapists telling me I should spend more time "relaxing," not thinking or reading. I had one who advised me to give up writing altogether for a little while. Yet the drugs didn't seem to help, and the counseling sessions just seemed to make me feel worse; in the end, forcing myself to think about the guilt that caused the depression and get through it got me out of it.

*sigh* don't get me started on well-meant but unhelpful advice about dealing with affective disorders...most of mine began with an implicit "since this is all your fault"...

It may depend on the individual in question, and therefore I think the people helping them or advising them with decisions like this should know the people in the program fairly well.

Absolutely.

And even then you have to realize that there are limits on how much you can know someone else.

But - since the example is affective disorders; I have to reluctantly accept that manic people do have rather defective judgment...it might not be as bad as others tend to think due to their lack of understanding; nevertheless the interface between 'well' people and a 'manic' person might inevitably lead to the well people thinking they must take 'protective' measures rather than let the person do as they think best.

It's probably best not to generalize although it's helpful to have principles that help us to avoid the extremes of letting people hurt themselves through foolishly testing their own strength beyond what it can bear; and on the other hand never letting them try anything which as you say, smacks of the kind of over-control in cults (and/or disfunctional relationships!)

love
Helen