Alcoholics Anonymous and belief in God

[Loffler]

Do I need to pull out the puppets? I feel like I'm having to go back further and further to more fundamental logical principles to explain this to you.

If 10% of people who go to church get better, and 10% of people who don't go to church get better, are you really going to tell me that churches help people get better? Please tell me that you understand the simple concept of controls and variable.

The 10% that go to church and used their religious beliefs to aid them in recovery got better and the 10% that don't go to church and used whatever aids they chose got better.  Both groups got better using different tools.  

Or they both just got better and the stuff they thought helped them didn't.

I think we're using two different definitions of "helped." Are you using it to mean anything someone does to pass the time while they recover? I feel like you are.

Hell, imagine it's a science project. I have bread mold on white bread, multi-grain, and whole wheat. All three have the same amount of mold after a month. Do we conclude no difference in mold growth on the bread? Not on this thread, folks! On this thread they were all different, and the same amount of mold was just a coincidence!

Actually this kind of proves our point, they are all different, made of differing ingredients yet they all grew mold.  Hmmm.
It was your argument that the selected inputs were coincidence, not ours.

...

Wow. Just... wow.

It's most likely the ingredients the breads have in common that yielded the identical mold growths. Identical growths due to grain husks on one bread and refined flour on another bread would be a pretty amazing coincidence, and one that science wouldn't catch until they conducted a more thorough experiment. If the kid put your answer as their conclusion on the science project, a good teacher would make them rewrite it because the conclusion would be wrong, or at least hugely incomplete.

[Miss Anthrope]

Do I need to pull out the puppets? I feel like I'm having to go back further and further to more fundamental logical principles to explain this to you.

If 10% of people who go to church get better, and 10% of people who don't go to church get better, are you really going to tell me that churches help people get better? Please tell me that you understand the simple concept of controls and variable.

Hell, imagine it's a science project. I have bread mold on white bread, multi-grain, and whole wheat. All three have the same amount of mold after a month. Do we conclude no difference in mold growth on the bread? Not on this thread, folks! On this thread they were all different, and the same amount of mold was just a coincidence!

Yes, I'm quite familiar with concept of controls and variables. And no, I would never say "Churches help people get better" as if churches are needed or make all people better. But if 10% of people who go to church specifically to help themselves overcome an addiction succeed, then it's perfectly rational to say "Church helped them get better.", "Church helps some people get better" (as you've already conceded). If the other 10% percent used some prescription pharmecuedicals, like methadone, to overcome addiction, we can say the same things about that.

Do you understand that this was not a statistics based argument at ANY point?

It seems like you take the stance that everything that happens is a coincidence and the connections we make are ALL just within our minds. Now, at a fundamental level I would agree with that, at least to some degree, but from that perspective there's no point in arguing about anything. Since many of us come here to engage in semi-relaxed argumentation, it doesn't make any sense for you to try to kill any arguments against your hard assertions.

If just as many people were hurt has helped, believing in God did not help at all. Maybe that's the source of our disagreement.

I VERY CLEARLY FROM THE OUTSET OF THIS ARGUMENT IMPLIED THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE HELPED BY THEIR BELIEF IN GOD.
You're just now realizing that this was not about humanity in general or statistics, despite the numerous times I've tried to make this distinction?

Why didn't you just respond from the beginning with something like "I meant that believing in God does not help people, as a whole, at all."
I'd imagine because you like to play games with people. It probably makes you feel clever and creative.

Yes, and it is precisely that verifiable impact, published by science and circulated in the media, which proves that they have an impact. ONLY THEN. That is NOT the point VanReal was making, which was that if someone does something and they get better, that something made them get better. VanReal was presenting this as an obvious tautology, and it was far from that.

No, that was NOT the point VanReal was making. VanReal's point was that science is not needed to prove that the things people do TO HELP THEM RECOVER
actually helped them. VanReal did not say ANYTHING that was irrational, i challenge you to find one example VanReal gave that a scientist would say "No, that's pure fantasy."

[VanReal]

I think we're using two different definitions of "helped." Are you using it to mean anything someone does to pass the time while they recover? I feel like you are.

No, once again recovery is a process of many different events and activities occuring.  Recovery is not occurring in a vacuum where you toss the person in with one stimuli and see if it works.  "Help" again, as I am using it is one of the many tools used over the recovery period that assisted the person in obtaining their goal.  

Wow. Just... wow.

It's most likely the ingredients the breads have in common that yielded the identical mold growths. Identical growths due to grain husks on one bread and refined flour on another bread would be a pretty amazing coincidence, and one that science wouldn't catch until they conducted a more thorough experiment. If the kid put your answer as their conclusion on the science project, a good teacher would make them rewrite it because the conclusion would be wrong, or at least hugely incomplete.

There you go again, another helping of condescending attitude anyone?

You never said anything about identical mold growth in the original example/comment, nor did I in my response.  My answer was 100% correct, "they were all different, they all grew mold".  You are the one implying coincidence.  It was your example, are you forgetting that what you think inside of your head does not flow through my laptop?  

Again you are talking about scientific measurements of some sort when there is no such ability when talking about addiction or any other habit or behavior correction.

Here's a link, since you seem to need one so much: http://www2.pmusa.com/en/quitassist/successful/index.asp

Those people all recovered from smoking addiction using different tools, some sucked on hard candy, some chewed gum, some drank water, some did it with their spouse, some began to exercise or take walks, and so on.  Hmmm, I guess those activites had nothing to do with their recovery because no scientist documented this.  They are probably really still secretly smoking because there is no way these tools actually had any affect on their recovery since no scientist followed them around documenting the experience and drafting statisics on their affects.

[VanReal]

That is NOT the point VanReal was making, which was that if someone does something and they get better, that something made them get better. VanReal was presenting this as an obvious tautology, and it was far from that.

Oh no, I did not see this part until Miss Anthrope responded to this.  I even bolded this word in my last post before the falling tree incident.  Since it obviously was invisible in all of my previous posts that you skimmed I specifically said these are TOOLS used as a part or aid to recovery.  Now I know you aren't reading.

[Miss Anthrope]

I responded to non-link posts with link posts, so I'm not sure how I'm the simplifier and you guys are supplying the "information posts."

I'm not sure what to make of this, as I'm usually the guy telling others not to be so mean, and sorry if I came off as attacking but... I mean this in the most delicate possible way, but would it be at all possible to maybe... lighten up?

You're links, as I've already pointed out a few times, were about optimism not helping cancer and statistics about AA. They were IRRELEVANT within the context of what was being argued. I had already pointed out that optimism is not a cure-all, and I never once argued about AA AT ALL. the things I was saying about optimism being a contributor to good health, exercise, etc were not breakthrough or hard to find things; ANYONE who stays even remtoely informed and up to date about science knows about these things. Hence why I don't understand why I have to link to anyhting if you're really a "man of science" as you claim.
Nothing I said was along the lines of some weird fringe science.

Sure, i'd lighten up, I'm not really "angry" anyway, but you seem like the type of person who would just try to take advantage of others' while their guards are down. You're sarcastic when people can't infer what you're thinking ("No, genius..." - As if it was irrational for me to think you were questioning my objectivity becasue I went to church based on your vague reply. In you rmind, I should have INSTANTLY known you were thinking about selection bias). Also, you NEVER respond when someone wants an explanation for your rudeness, like on my Joker thread. In short, you place yourslef so high above everyone else that you refuse to afford them the same courtesises they would probably offer you, so why should anyone lighten up?

[Loffler]

these are TOOLS used as a part or aid to recovery.

I did not directly address this because it is an irrelevant distinction. It's weird that you think it is. Either they have an effect or they don't. Tool is just another way of saying partial cause.

If 10 people have 10 different coping mechanisms, and some people have no coping mechanisms, and recovery success rates and speeds of success are all the same for all the people involved, the most obvious explanation is that the coping mechanisms were not tools and did not even partially aid recovery.

Again, you guys have no idea what I'm arguing,  and possibly what this entire thread is about.

[Loffler]

VanReal's point was that science is not needed to prove that the things people do TO HELP THEM RECOVER

Then what is needed to prove which things help people recover?

[Loffler]

"All three have the same amount of mold after a month."

I said it right there. Same amount of mold.

[Miss Anthrope]

VanReal's point was that science is not needed to prove that the things people do TO HELP THEM RECOVER

Then what is needed to prove which things help people recover?

In what capacity? ALL people, MOST people, SOME people? Some people respond to certain drugs, and some people don't (and I'm not just talking about drugs that aid in recovery from addiction)

If you want to prove that a certain drug helps people recover from addcition, of course it's going to have to pass clinical trials and rigorous scientific studies (well, ideally, personally I don't hold the pahreceudical industry in very high regards when it comes to certain standards)

If someone plays videogames SPECIFICALLY to help keep theri mind occupied while getting off of drugs or alcohol, science does not need to figure out a link between videogames and recovery for that person. YOU are the only one who is arguing from a "what is useful for the majority" perspective. How many times do I have to point this out? PLEASE read what people write.

[VanReal]

these are TOOLS used as a part or aid to recovery.

I did not directly address this because it is an irrelevant distinction. It's weird that you think it is. Either they have an effect or they don't. Tool is just another way of saying partial cause.

If 10 people have 10 different coping mechanisms, and some people have no coping mechanisms, and recovery success rates and speeds of success are all the same for all the people involved, the most obvious explanation is that the coping mechanisms were not tools and did not even partially aid recovery.

Again, you guys have no idea what I'm arguing,  and possibly what this entire thread is about.

We obviously don't because you make a plain and simple statement and then when it is remarked on you say "I didn't say that" or add in items that you never included originally.

You said "That is NOT the point VanReal was making, which was that if someone does something and they get better, that something made them get better."  That is NOT what I said, NOT!  Don't assume that you can make a bold statement about my point and that when I defend that as false to turn around and say that is not what you are saying and that we are obviously just to dim to understand.

We don't understand you because you are deceptive and you are not really debating but rather intending to provoke and frustrate.  Job well done.    I was joking when I said you had multiple personalities, but seriously you just don't make any sense and don't maintain any consistency in your posts.  Now suddenly you are talking about coping mechanisms?  And you are saying that some have some and some don't and they all recover?  Provide link please. I'll be satisfied with the link that shows how people recover from addictive behavior without any coping mechanism - I assume that is magic?

[Loffler]

If (if, people) there is no discernible difference in the recovery rates and speeds of people who PARTIALLY attribute church to KINDA MAYBE SORTA helping them recover, and the recovery rates and speeds of people who did not go to church, that means there is no evidence that church helped ANYBODY AT ALL. And the skeptic position is to withhold belief that church can help, even a micro-smidgen, with recovery... until a study comes forth which demonstrates otherwise.

Here's why: if the guitar can help people recover, and exercise can help people recover, and church can help people recover, and it's "different for everybody," then these different aids to recovery should aid recovery at different rates of success and different recovery speeds. Furthermore, if it truly is "different for everyone," then many people would be using the wrong method for themselves and not realize it: someone who could recover with a little help from exercise or church but not playing guitar wouldn't experience the same recovery if they picked the wrong recovery method for themselves. If everyone has different "right" recovery aids, everyone also has different wrong recovery aids.


I feel the need to add twenty footnotes in order to cover all the bases of how you two could possibly misread one of my statements or dislike my word choice, but so far I've been incapable of guessing what you're going to misread next. So I wouldn't know where to begin. I'll just have to keep playing it by ear.

[Loffler]

Do you understand that this was not a statistics based argument at ANY point?

That would be peculiar, considering my original statement you took issue with was statistics-based.

[Loffler]

I VERY CLEARLY FROM THE OUTSET OF THIS ARGUMENT IMPLIED THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE HELPED BY THEIR BELIEF IN GOD.

Then you should stop taking issue with my original statement. You can do so anytime you'd like.

[Loffler]

It seems like you take the stance that everything that happens is a coincidence and the connections we make are ALL just within our minds.

No, demonstrable evidence is not in our minds. For example, the evidence curiosityandthecat provided about community, or your pending evidence linking religion and recovery. Those would not be within our minds.

One guy getting better who also happened to believe in God and believe God helped him, until it's studied, that connection exists in our heads.

[Miss Anthrope]

Do you understand that this was not a statistics based argument at ANY point?

That would be peculiar, considering my original statement you took issue with was statistics-based.

Something you didn't make clear until quite aways into the argument, and a perspective I was clearly not arguing from. So you really are just trying to screw with people.