Atheism in the 12 Step Movement

[Inevitable Droid]

Someone very close to me is currently in recovery and involved with the 12 step program.  It so happens she's a non-religious theist, so the spiritual dimension of the program works very well for her.  But naturally I began to wonder what would have happened if she were an atheist instead.  As is my wont, I went googling, and found this: Atheism in the 12 Step Movement - http://www.positiveatheism.org/rw/naway99.htm

It is my perception, from the outside looking in, but having had some deep conversations with this terrific young woman, that the concept of something external to self, upon which one can place one's trust, is key to success in recovery.  It makes sense to me that the program itself could play that role, as is suggested in the article I reference above.  Often I hear the motto, "The program works if you work the program."  Surely placing trust in the program itself would be efficient and effective.

An important point from the article is the greater openness to atheists to be found in Narcotics Anonymous, and, crucially, the fact that alcoholics are welcome to join Narcotics Anonymous, as alcohol is viewed as just another drug.  I wanted to state this in my post, in case any atheists in recovery from alcoholism were reading this.

Does anyone have any further insight into any of this?

[Whitney]

I have a problem with teaching people that they have to place trust in any sort of higher power in order to find the strength to get over an addiction.  After all, ultimately that strength must be found internally.

[Inevitable Droid]

I have a problem with teaching people that they have to place trust in any sort of higher power in order to find the strength to get over an addiction.  After all, ultimately that strength must be found internally.

Yes.  I get that.  I would have said I agreed with that, except I'm watching the process unfold, and I see the utility.  Addiction to a chemical is a problem whose magnitude many of us, like me for instance, have trouble imagining.  Experiments have been done with mice, who normally run for the shadows when a light is turned on.  All their survival instincts say hide.  Except when they've become addicted to a chemical.  If they learn the chemical will be available out in the open when the light goes on, the mice will go right out in the open to get the chemical.  Survival goes out the window.  Millions of years of natural selection go out the window.  The chemical trumps all.  

Against a force like that, some sort of counter-mechanism seems to be needed, and one that works is trust in an external anchor and compass.  Addiction is so destructive and dangerous that if a counter-measure works, I hesitate to reject it.  Even so, I'm not advocating theism.  I think the program itself can serve as that external anchor and compass.  The article I referenced makes the same suggestion.

Incidentally, the chemical that has become a part of an important young woman's life was a perscription drug, a painkiller.  Another take-away from all this, for me, is to be wary of painkillers.  Research them.  Don't trust your doctor to be protecting you from eventual addiction.

[Whitney]

While smoking isn't typically lumped in with other addictions (probably because one can function at normal levels while using) it is also an addiction (both physical and chemical) that people have to overcome.  We expect them to be able to do so using patches, gum, medication, and ultimately will power even though it's addictive nature is likened to heroin.  My husband and I were both able to quit smoking without having to rely on a higher power.  We apparently were successful enough at it that we can decide to have one every few months (like at a party or something) and then not have another.  I'm not sure how any other addiction could be much different since if it has bad withdrawl side effects that is typically treated with medication anyway.  Plus if one does put their faith in a higher power stops because they think the higher power helped them and then loses faith in that higher power doesn't that create a huge chance of relapse?

Not to mention that a member of another forum I visit started the 12 steps for some sort of addiction as a fairly reasonable agnostic and has now become a looney spiritualist who attends church because he now thinks he is too weak to overcome addiction without the help of a god figure.

Your friend may just not be in one of the 12 steps programs that pushes organized religion...or she is reasonable enough to not buy into it.

[Inevitable Droid]

My husband and I were both able to quit smoking without having to rely on a higher power.  We apparently were successful enough at it that we can decide to have one every few months (like at a party or something) and then not have another.  I'm not sure how any other addiction could be much different since if it has bad withdrawl side effects that is typically treated with medication anyway.

First, let me say that I admire people who quit smoking.  I know it's a significant accomplishment.  My mother and my cousin both did it, and in neither instance was it anything like easy.

Let me pose this to you.  Imagine if, back when you were smoking daily, assuming you were, the last pack of cigarettes for a thousand miles in any direction was at the center of a room with a hundred poisonous snakes slithering about.  Would you have gone for the cirgarettes?  Perscription drug addicts at their worst would brave the snakes to get to their drug.  And of course that means they would die.  And they would know they would die.  And that knowledge wouldn't stop them.

Plus if one does put their faith in a higher power stops because they think the higher power helped them and then loses faith in that higher power doesn't that create a huge chance of relapse?

Yes, that strikes me as a real danger.  Which is why I think trusting the program is better than trusting a leprechaun zombie.  The program is both external and internal.  Externally, it's a whole network of living, breathing people, at least one of whom will step up to the plate when you're in dire need - generally.  Internally, it is you.  The program becomes a symbol for precisely what an atheist would want to rely on, namely, one's best self, one's survival instinct, one's conquering strength.

Not to mention that a member of another forum I visit started the 12 steps for some sort of addiction as a fairly reasonable agnostic and has now become a looney spiritualist who attends church because he now thinks he is too weak to overcome addiction without the help of a god figure.

Non-religious theists, who typically are New Agers, view their Higher Powers as either their Higher Selves or their Spirit Guides, none of whom get a cut from any church collection plate.  More importantly, perhaps, the New Ager would already have committed to the New Age perspective before ever attending the first 12 step meeting.  Nevertheless, I won't pretend there isn't a chance the Lamb of God will get them any way.

Your friend may just not be in one of the 12 steps programs that pushes organized religion...or she is reasonable enough to not buy into it.

I hope both are the case.  Time will tell.  Meanwhile, she's clean, and staying clean so far.  That's the priority.  But yes, I strongly agree, and she would too, that relapse stalks her always, the way death stalks you and me.

[Will]

12 step is suspiciously free of scientific backing. I'd prefer something like this if I were fighting addiction.

[Inevitable Droid]

12 step is suspiciously free of scientific backing. I'd prefer something like this if I were fighting addiction.

Looks like a good book.  Regarding the 12 step program, it says, on page 155, "Because chemical dependence (but not chemical abuse) is a brain disease, and people get better under 12 step programs, neurobiologists speculate that these programs probably promote some biological change in the brain."

I agree that applying science to the 12 step programs, and to addiction in general, is very much to be desired.

The book also says, on page 181, in a chapter that isn't specifically about the 12 step program, "Unlike long term treatment of hypertension, for example, the more complex disease of chemical dependence will require (according to the model) posttreatment monitoring and support; long-term, stage appropriate recovery education; peer-based recovery coaching; assertive linkage to communities of recovery; and, when needed, early reintervention."  It turns out that everything in the foregoing list is a component of the 12 step methodology.  This jibes with what I think is probably the case, namely, that the 12 step program works for practical reasons having to do with sound system design, the Higher Power symbol being optional, so long as it's replaced with some other concept that will play the same role in the system.

I look forward to the day when science devises a new methodology that is even more effective than the 12 step program and which doesn't rely on self-deceit.  I hope this happens soon.

[Whitney]

RunForMyLife, welcome to the forum.  

I don't think AA has groups for atheists because what they really mean by higher power is god and they sell the other options for higher powers because they have to do that to maintain that they are a secular group (which is important to them since they are often court appointed).  There are, however, various other recovery and support programs out there which are truly secular.

you could also check out: http://www.atheistthinktank.net/atheist_alcoholic.html

I found some programs googling for "atheist AA" http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/30/a ... anonymous/

Smart Recovery: http://www.smartrecovery.org/
Rational Recovery: http://www.rational.org/
Secular Organizations for Sobriety / Save Our Selves: http://www.cfiwest.org/sos/index.htm
Women for Sobriety: http://www.womenforsobriety.org/

I have heard of Save Our Selves before but not the others.

[Whitney]

I've never had a problem with alcohol but did quit smoking last year.  I have a tendency to try to compare the two as if they are the same in at least some ways but was just thinking that alcohol has a social aspect currently absent from smoking.  For instance, the only time I really want a cigarette is when I'm around a bunch of other people having one at a party and I am able to really have just one or two that night then not have another for months.  However, it's not many parties where I end up actually being around the people smoking so it's out of sight out of mind.  With alcohol it's not so easy because it's such a big part of social gatherings in western culture and there are a lot more opportunities for temptation.  Is that why ex-alcoholics need a continued support group and ex-smokers generally do not?  Or is it just a myth that ex-alcoholics can never have a drink again not even socially (I have also always assumed they could re-learn how to drink responsibly)?  Just curious.

[Inevitable Droid]

Secular Organizations for Sobriety / Save Our Selves: http://www.cfiwest.org/sos/index.htm

I couldn't quickly evaluate the other ones you offered, Whitney, but the one referenced above seems to contain the constructive components one would find in AA without the potentially destructive components.

I think this oft quoted remark by Karl Marx is relevant: "Religion is the opiate of the masses."  You see, I think there is a psychological difference between a certain kind of theist and a certain kind of atheist.  The kind of theist I mean is the one who is looking for salvation outside the self.  I don't know that all theists are looking for that, but I think it's clear that some are.  The kind of atheist I mean is the one who isn't looking for salvation outside the self.  This wouldn't be the atheist who has merely replaced God with, say, the State, or some political ideology.  Why is any of this relevant?  Because, as far as I can tell, one component of chemical addiction for many people is the search for salvation outside the self.  The chemical of choice becomes the savior.  What AA does is replace the chemical with a different savior, namely, the higher power, and then, for good measure, a second savior, the program itself, and then, for better measure still, a third savior, the sponsor.  This trinity of higher power, program, and sponsor is a powerful tool for keeping a certain kind of addict sober, the kind of addict who was searching for salvation outside the self.

If I'm an atheist but I happen to be one who is looking for salvation outside the self, and I latched onto some chemical as that savior, then it will be important for me to replace that chemical with a different savior, unless and until I can let go of my need for external salvation.  The program and my sponsor can act as external saviors for me, even if I'm atheist.

I might believe in God yet have no need for external salvation.  I might likewise disbelieve in God and have no need for external salvation.  Either way, I won't need the program or my sponsor to play the savior role for me, nor will I need some imaginary higher power to play that role.  

I tend to think that most people who have become addicts were, at least for a time, looking for salvation outside themselves, and found it in the chemical.  I therefore would argue that if these people develop mentally and emotionally to the point where they no longer are looking for external salvation, they will have freed themselves of the mental and emotional root cause of their addiction.  This is the best case scenario.  However, if it doesn't come about, then the chemical must be replaced by something else, something that doesn't threaten survival, competitive advantage, or happiness.  The replacement doesn't have to be some imaginary higher power.  But it will have to be something.