|
Home > Archive > Recovery aa > February 2006 > An Atheist/Agnostic in AA by Steve Knapp
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
An Atheist/Agnostic in AA by Steve Knapp
|
|
| GaryE 2006-02-23, 11:11 am |
|
This was posted back on June 15, 1993 when the group was still
alt.recovery. It, of course, flies directly in the face of guys like
Dick B (who seems to think making a lot of money writing about AA
publicly through a web site (and consequently, by default, making
himself a spokesman for AA) is convinced that The Bible and Xianity
are the heart and root of AA and anything other than that is not AA.
He seems to have a few followers. On his web site (which I will not
link here because it is a commercial web site) contains his
'research' and conclusions. His case is not shallow or doesn't seem
to be, but even if everything he says is correct, times change and
they were changing even in the early years of AA as new people came
into it. It may have started out as a primarily God Yahweh, Xian
inspired and Bible reading organization, but early atheists and
agnostics who just wanted to get sober and not convert found their way
in and made their imprint on AA and what its words might mean for just
drunks and not just drunks who need the God deal.
Since this was posted in a newsgroup and no copyright was indicated,
I've taken the liberty of reproducing it here with the author's name.
An Atheist/Agnostic in AA [1].
(From Steve Knapp [k...@cs.unr.edu]
Part I. The Difficulty as I Find It.
[This is the first of two parts discussing one person's
experiences at participation in AA as an atheist/agnostic.]
Disclaimer: Please understand that the views contained herein are
my own; they are not meant to be universal or necessarily to
apply to anyone else; the following thoughts should be understood
to be in the nature of opinion; and there is no intention to
offend. I submit them in the spirit of experience, strength, and
hope to this newsgroup in the expectation that they might be of
value to some others.
A. It seems that, as seen by persons who, like myself, are
not religious (i.e., who have not the sense of "faith"), AA is
religious. By contrast, to those who *are* religious, AA seems
not to be religious, and the term "spiritual" is usually used by
them. I have great difficulty reconciling my own rather
panchromatic and cosmic sense of spirituality with the prevalence
of prayers and readings of dogma (especially at meetings in the
Western US) and with the strong elements of religious
fundamentalism (and specifically confession) embodied in the 12
Steps. The Steps were borrowed and adapted (in somewhat less
absolutist language) from a Christian fundamentalist
organization, the Oxford Group.
B. Notwithstanding the efforts by Bill Wilson to incorpor-
ate some distance between the dogma of the Oxford Group and the
"official" Steps and other components contained in AA, many
contemporary AA groups seem to exhibit religious-like ferver to a
degree which may likely alienate or exclude those of little or no
faith. Persons who, like myself, question ideas and as a result
might appear not to conform to the "party line" are often
publically judged and made to feel not to belong or unwelcome,
despite the customary recitation of tradition 3.
C. Moreover, the religious aspects are strongly Judeo-
Christian, not for this person the most desireable perspective in
terms of spirituality. Consider the Lord's Prayer, for example.
D. To one who found relief and a profound sense of
understanding of his own past in the disease concept of drug
addiction (and specifically alcoholism) and its ramifications in
behavior, it is repulsive to attribute the primary or only cause
of one's alcoholism to "character defects', or "self-centered-
ness", or similar personality traits. As a scientist I am
compelled to search the literature for the latest work in the
field to keep abreast of developments, including the emerging
picture leaning toward a physical basis of the disease. I find
the conventional AA literature offensive in this respect, with
some exceptions like the relatively modern "Living Sober" book.
E. For the last seven-plus years of sobriety, I have been
privileged to grow, thanks in part to my participation in
meetings. Yet I see the religious character of AA suggested
above as possessing little growth at all.
F. According to most sources of information at my disposal,
be it anecdotal, from meetings, from modern academic work, and
from my own favorite references (not written 50 years ago, but
rather evolving with ongoing research developments), the chances
of my staying sober when left to my own devices are not
favorable, statistically speaking; I am not comfortable with the
idea of testing this theory by experiment and I will not do so
today.
G. Because AA appears to offer the most widespread and
established organization for supporting sobriety, I participate
for my best odds at survival, among other reasons. But this
participation is often at some considerable philosophical
discomfort, as outlined *in part* in the preceeding paragraphs.
H. In the next posting I will try to share a few of my
methods, evolved over my (not great, not small) time of sobriety,
for coping with these difficulties.
Part II. Some Partial Solutions to the Difficulty.
[This is the second of two parts discussing one person's
experiences at participation in AA as an atheist/agnostic.]
Disclaimer: Please understand that the views contained herein are
my own; they are not meant to be universal or necessarily to
apply to anyone else; the following thoughts should be understood
to be in the nature of opinion; and there is no intention to
offend. I submit them in the spirit of experience, strength, and
hope to this newsgroup in the expectation that they might be of
value to some others.
I. First and foremost, I have learned from attendance at
many meetings and from certain wise heads to take what I can use
and leave the rest. I hope that readers of this posting will
apply this idea! On occasions, however, it is true that I can
have difficulty tuning out sharings which are particularly
offensive to me, and then I may have to struggle against carrying
resentments. This is part of the human condition, I think.
J. For those interested in the background of AA, I would
suggest two "official" references: "Not God - A History of
Alcoholics
Anonymous", by E. Kurtz [2nd ed., Hazeldon, 1991]; and
"Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age", by Wilson, et al. [A.A.
Publishing]. These and other references have given me some degree
of an historical perspective on AA and also of our (USA) cultural
context. I find it valuable to have some understanding of the
philosophical difficulties and debate during the establishment of
AA and its formalisms.
K. I steadfastly refuse to say the Lord's Prayer or to use
the word "god" in a reverential fashion; when leading a meeting
with a format including prayers I ask someone else to lead the
prayers.
L. The reference work most valuable to me as a scientist in
recovery is "Under the Influence", by James R. Milam and Katherine
Ketcham [published in paper by Bantam]. This book contains a
consistent, comprehensive, and modern description of alcoholism,
including a medically accurate picture of the physical character-
istics, its genetic component, its social/familial/behavioral
ramifications, techniques for intervention, and effective life-
style changes to improve the chances for long-term sobriety. The
assessment of AA contained in "Under The Influence" has been most
helpful to my continued participation in AA.
M. Steps 4, 5, 6, and 7 are offensive to me because of their
religious moralizing. The genetic origin of my alcoholism, or of
my predisposition to it, is well established. Better to ask god
to relieve me of my parents or of my genes than my defects of
character! The idea that personality defects or "self-
centeredness", etc., caused my alcoholism is absurd, in view of
the multitude of non-alcoholic persons with those offensive
personality characteristics; this point is explained in a
beautiful book ("Physician Heal Thyself", published by CompCare,
Minneapolis), by Dr. Earle M., a member of the program who has
been of great service to AA during more than 35 years of sobriety
and who was a close confidant to Bill W.
N. I am unable to read large portions of the Big Book and
any of the 12x12. It is not merely that these volumes are
unscientific to me or that research since their writing has
contributed toward a more rational understanding of my disease; it
is also that their viewpoint is, for me, religious and moralizing,
and their tone seems dismal. Guilt, shame, and self-deflation are
not appropriate to my program, for which rejoicing at finally
discovering some of the truth, previously hidden, is more
relevant. It is clear to me that the program's cocktail of
"powerlessness" is definitely to be imbibed by me in extreme
moderation; sobriety has provided me with renewed power in a
process of renaissance. It is said that Bill W. was considerably
depressed during the writing of the 12x12 [see "Getting Better",
by Robertson, in paper by Fawcett]; I often wonder how the 12x12
would have turned out if modern anti-depressants, or emphasis on
nutrition and exercise, etc., were utilized by Bill!
O. Chapter 4 of the Big Book is unacceptable to this
agnostic/athiest. It stikes me as a form of the "Divine
Watchmaker" idea. In the pamphlet "Three Talks to Medical
Societies", Bill W. states that that chapter was included "to
soften up the agnostics". Well, it hardens me, and I also submit
that it is likely to fail for alcoholics who just happen to be
atheists; perhaps this is why the latter are hardly mentioned
explicitly in the chapter or in the literature.
P. I concentrate on those aspects of meetings which work
best for me. These include the idea of "fellowship", which I
prefer to call "spiritship". It is a delight to hear the sharings
of the numerous wise old heads, most with a large body of
recovery, who have comprehensive open-mindedness. I find the
peace and quiet in a meeting is a stress-reducer and I consciously
attend knowing that I will usually leave more relaxed. It is
important for me to identify with others on a path to recovery; I
need to be reminded that I am just one of many fellow-travelers.
Long suspicious of things psychological, I have gained substantial
respect for recovery in a group setting. Nevertheless, I retain
my right to maintain my contempt for psycho-babble.
Q. Today, and for most of my time in the program, I avoid
step-study and book-study meetings, for reasons partially listed
above with regard to religion and dogma. I prefer discussion
meetings, and given the choice I attend smaller meetings, where I
find the sharing to be more honest and specific. Book-banging, be
it the Bible, the Big Book, or the 12x12, (or even, I hope, "Under
the Influence") is bad for my program.
P. At about the end of my first year of sobriety I attended
my first "We Agnostics" meeting, of which there were several in
Los Angeles, where I was at the time. The We Agnostic meetings
have a tradition of free expression toward religious values and
also toward the lack of them. Here was a flavor of AA which met
my tastes for recovery within the umbrella of AA, where the only
requirement is a desire to stop drinking, without prayer or a
strongly dogmatic approach. The We Agnostic meetings are one of
the cornerstones to my continued participation in AA. There are
not many as far as I know, and they are found almost exclusively
in very large cities.
Q. Lastly, since I am constitutionally prone to analyzing
everything, in my recovery I follow the ongoing research efforts
in the fields of addictions, alcoholism, and related fields.
Despite the current lack of a consensus on the origins and "cures"
of alcoholism and other compulsive behaviors, I think the research
is tending toward a set of concrete explanations, especially with
regard to physical factors. At some risk I maintain that alcohol
is cunning and powerful, but less and less baffling as time goes
on.
R. One more point is important: I think that by attending
meetings and keeping my ears open especially to the suggestions
found in the AA environment on how to live life and to interact
with others I have benefitted personally. I am grateful for this.
R. Well, this is much more prose than I had intended. I
hope that you will have had the patience to hear me out. I hope
that some or you will find something to help your recovery.
Please try to listen to the spirit behind these thoughts rather
than finding wrong with specifics. I am human, too. Thanks very
much for letting me share. And have a good day, today.
| |
| CHANGEISGOOD 2006-02-23, 11:11 am |
|
"The reference work most valuable to me as a scientist in
recovery is "Under the Influence", by James R. Milam and Katherine
Ketcham [published in paper by Bantam]. This book contains a
consistent, comprehensive, and modern description of alcoholism,
including a medically accurate picture of the physical character-
istics, its genetic component, its social/familial/behavioral
ramifications, techniques for intervention, and effective life-
style changes to improve the chances for long-term sobriety. The
assessment of AA contained in "Under The Influence" has been most
helpful to my continued participation in AA."
***************************************************************************=
********
Dont have time to completely respond to Godless Gary but I will post
the following discrediting the ideas found in Under the Influence.
Myths and realities of Alcoholism
Dr.James Milam published a book called "Under the Influence" in
1981. "Experts" at the time were ecstatic about the book. It has
sold over a million copies.
It was hailed as "the most important breakthrough in alcohlolsm since
the founding of Alcoholics Anonymous in 1935" by Ron Fagan of the
Cedar Hills Alcoholism Treatment Center.
Marty Mann (sometimes called the first lady of AA who founded the
National Council of Alcoholism) said "I find Dr.Milans concept
extraordinary and exciting"
"Under The Influence will advance by light years the understanding of
alcoholism and the recovery process----Mel Schustad, cofounder,National
Association of Alcoholism Counselors.
In the book Dr. Milan states " Physiology not psychology determines
whether one drinker will become addicted to alcohol and another will
not". In the book Dr. Milan cites abnormal metabolism of acetaldehyde
, the intermediate byprodcust of alcohol metabolism, as the culprit.
He cites studies by Marc Schuckit , a psychiatrist and researcher at
the university of California at San Diego, and Charles Lieber , chief
of research program at the Bronx Veterans Hospital, as scientific proof
that alcoholics are different. Here At long last, according to
experts, the riddle of alcoholism is solved.
Even to this day the idea of abnormal metablolism of acetaldehyde is
advanced in many AA circles as being the "cause" of alcoholism.
Dr. Milan is now associated wth the Lakeside-Milam Recovery Centers.
The Lakeside-Milam Recovery Center still advances the same idea
published in the book in 1981:
Their website says:
Reality: Addiction to alcohol is primarily physiological. Alcoholics
become addicted because their bodies are physiologically incapable of
processing alcohol normally.
All this is great. Right. It is except for one thing. The passage of
time has proved that the idea of abnormal metablolism advanced in
"Under the Influence" Iis re simply not true. According to the
Addiction Science and Research Center at the university of Texas at
Austin:
" Old ideas that acetaldehyde is a poison that leads to organ damage
and perhaps brain damage, and that the rate at which acetaldehyde turns
to acetate in the brain influences the onset of alcoholism, have not
been substantiated by science".
What? You mean a book by an Alcoholism expert subtitled "a guide to
the myths and realities of alcoholism" actually promotes a myth? Yes.
And even years after the idea has been discredited the author still
promotes it and so do many AA members? Yes.
The inmates are running the asylum
=A92005 Christianrecovery.blogspot.com
| |
|
| On 23 Feb 2006 07:52:59 -0800, "CHANGEISGOOD" <tedw2@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>
>***********************************************************************************
>Dont have time to completely respond to Godless Gary but I will post
>the following discrediting the ideas found in Under the Influence.
>
>
tedw doing ad hom? my. No surprise when you don't know how to
answer, don't pass Go, go directly to ad hom. Thanks for making my
points for me. It really helps.
Who is advocating 'Under the Influence'? Anyone on this NG. Or do
you see spooks everywhere. Give me your best name calling deal tedW.
Call me anti something. Anti God, Anti Xian. Give it your best
keyboard shot.
Best,
GaryE
| |
|
|
"GaryE" <garyexxxxxxx@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:4g0vv198utq9c7247679v67kna98nsgu5a@4ax.com...
> On 23 Feb 2006 07:52:59 -0800, "CHANGEISGOOD" <tedw2@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>***************************************************************************
********
> tedw doing ad hom? my. No surprise when you don't know how to
> answer, don't pass Go, go directly to ad hom. Thanks for making my
> points for me. It really helps.
>
> Who is advocating 'Under the Influence'? Anyone on this NG. Or do
> you see spooks everywhere. Give me your best name calling deal tedW.
> Call me anti something. Anti God, Anti Xian. Give it your best
> keyboard shot.
>
> Best,
> GaryE
I advocated UTI in the eighties. Fer fux ache, milam had a cite in there
that 'proved' that persons operating a vehicle after consuming the
equivalent of one ounce of 100% etoh performed better than those who had
nothing to drink at all. ('double blind', "controlled" study) what more
could a drunk ask for?
Funnier in the whole scheme is how he and Ketchum and Gorski (or actually
Gorski thru co-opting Milam's work) created the 12 step-mired treatment
industry we still see today.
I liked what Milam was saying then, i bought it. Though he got soft on
whether to condemn or praise AA (different parts of the book will give you
different impressions) he was saying that there is no moral disease, no
spiritual sickness. At least his research was RESEARCH, solid as anything
else at that time. Not much different than the best FDA approved drivel
you'll find today; don't eat eggs, eat eggs- don't eat potatoes, eat
potatoes, whatever.
More will be revealed.
Addiction will become a disease when the definition of disease becomes
addiction.
Shoot an arrow at the wall-paint a target around it. Bullseye!!!
| |
|
| BP wrote:
> "GaryE" <garyexxxxxxx@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:4g0vv198utq9c7247679v67kna98nsgu5a@4ax.com...
>
>
> ********
>
>
>
> I advocated UTI in the eighties. Fer fux ache, milam had a cite in there
> that 'proved' that persons operating a vehicle after consuming the
> equivalent of one ounce of 100% etoh performed better than those who had
> nothing to drink at all. ('double blind', "controlled" study) what more
> could a drunk ask for?
>
> Funnier in the whole scheme is how he and Ketchum and Gorski (or actually
> Gorski thru co-opting Milam's work) created the 12 step-mired treatment
> industry we still see today.
>
> I liked what Milam was saying then, i bought it. Though he got soft on
> whether to condemn or praise AA (different parts of the book will give you
> different impressions) he was saying that there is no moral disease, no
> spiritual sickness. At least his research was RESEARCH, solid as anything
> else at that time. Not much different than the best FDA approved drivel
> you'll find today; don't eat eggs, eat eggs- don't eat potatoes, eat
> potatoes, whatever.
> More will be revealed.
Pass the salt pleeese.
| |
|
| On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 04:43:16 GMT, "BP" <efU@efme.net> wrote:
>
>More will be revealed.
>Addiction will become a disease when the definition of disease becomes
>addiction.
>Shoot an arrow at the wall-paint a target around it. Bullseye!!!
>
I missed something somewhere on this disease deal. I went to AA
meetings for about five years, (over ten years ago) mostly in
Colorado but some in Texas.
I heard individuals refer to their 'disease' but not many. It was
more the exception than the rule. In any event, individuals still
have constitutional rights in this country. And if AA members started
the treatment industry, then they did so as individuals. They are not
constrained from using their experience to make a living, best I can
tell. One may not think it is the best model but people have a right
to make a living if its legal. But it's individual's not AA. In the
same way, I have the right to use the job experience of my previous
employers to make money if I want and unless I am constrained by an
agreement that I sign, I have every right to do that. AA
'methodology' is not patented. It is in the open market place.
Treatment centers are regulated by the states. Not AA. What a waste
to complain to a handful of AA members or former AA members that hang
out here.
I listened to the argument about court ordered AA attendance and I
found it convincing that it should be done that way.
I can accept the notion that, *under the US Constitution* it is not
unreasonable to classify AA as a religion even though it leaves some
major AA activities (like QuadA and other atheist/agnostic groups in
AA) unexplained as to how they fit in a religious organization.
But the disease thing is a never ending argumentum ad nauseum drum
that I can't see a case for. I mean there may be a case that,
medically, alcoholism or any other addictions don't properly qualify
as a 'disease' but are simply addictions and that's sufficient. But
my opinion is what, one?
Best,
GaryE
|
| |
|
|