Alcoholics Anonymous and belief in God

[curiosityandthecat]

Thought I'd throw this in. There's evidence that proves there's nothing about church-going or religion specifically that helps people become adjusted and happy; it's actually the sense of community, and this can be found anywhere, not necessarily through religion. Here's the citation and my annotation.

Good, M. & Willoughby, T.  (2006.)  The Role of Spirituality Versus Religiosity in Adolescent Psychosocial Adjustment.  Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(1), 41-55.

Canadian researchers from Ontario examine the effects religiosity and spirituality have on psychosocial adjustment, specifically using four combinations of the criteria. Looking at religious and spiritual, religious but not spiritual, spiritual but not religious and neither religious nor spiritual adolescents, they found that there were striking differences between the groups. Non-believing adolescents had better parental relationships, but the two church-going groups were better adjusted psychosocially, belief in God notwithstanding. They hypothesize a number of reasons for why this may be, one of which being that high school students are simply busied by other aspects of life, religiousness or God becoming lesser priorities. The authors call for additional research to be done in the area of non-traditional spirituality and religiosity, an appropriate request in an age of increasing pluralism. As a secondary research discovery, it appears that church attendance can be replaced with any community involvement without diminishing psychosocial adjustment or happiness with home life.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Why not just believe in the "higher power" of community? In my experience (both ways) it's friends & family that help you get through bad times.

Kyu

[Loffler]

It was purely coincidence, I suppose,  that they just happened to quit right after coming to church for help and guidance.

Yes, it was coincidence. And confirmation bias. 10 people get better on their own, 10 people show up at church to get better, of which 5 stop showing up, and 5 claim to have gotten better regardless of whether they relapse later or not.

And what do those people at the church see? Why, religion helping recovery of course!

And in case you're still confused about why people argue with you:

"Believing in God does not help with recovery. At all."
"I'm sure there are people who wouldn't have made it except for their religious beliefs."

If you don't see how those go together, no wonder you're frustrated. If religion helps 5 people and hurts 5 people, both my first and second statements are true. The second is true because one person was helped. The first statement is true because you could remove religion from the Earth and the net recovery of humanity will not have changed, thus "belief in God does not help recovery at all."

Understand now?

"It's a major failure of logic to assume two things occurring at the same time have to be connected just because someone claims they are." - No one ever said such a thing. it's a major failure of logic to think that the things people do or beleive to help them overcome addiciton are just "things that are happening by coincidence".

If you can establish the connection, sure.

No one ever tried to make any fantastical claims about optimism and its relation to health, or suggested that arbitrary events that occur during withdrawal must be related to success.

This entire thread is about arbitrary events related to success that people's delusional brains conflate to be connected.

[Miss Anthrope]

It was purely coincidence, I suppose,  that they just happened to quit right after coming to church for help and guidance.

Yes, it was coincidence. And confirmation bias. 10 people get better on their own, 10 people show up at church to get better, of which 5 stop showing up, and 5 claim to have gotten better regardless of whether they relapse later or not.

And what do those people at the church see? Why, religion helping recovery of course!

And in case you're still confused about why people argue with you:

"Believing in God does not help with recovery. At all."
"I'm sure there are people who wouldn't have made it except for their religious beliefs."

If you don't see how those go together, no wonder you're frustrated. If religion helps 5 people and hurts 5 people, both my first and second statements are true. The second is true because one person was helped. The first statement is true because you could remove religion from the Earth and the net recovery of humanity will not have changed, thus "belief in God does not help recovery at all."

Understand now?

"It's a major failure of logic to assume two things occurring at the same time have to be connected just because someone claims they are." - No one ever said such a thing. it's a major failure of logic to think that the things people do or beleive to help them overcome addiciton are just "things that are happening by coincidence".

If you can establish the connection, sure.

No one ever tried to make any fantastical claims about optimism and its relation to health, or suggested that arbitrary events that occur during withdrawal must be related to success.

This entire thread is about arbitrary events related to success that people's delusional brains conflate to be connected.

1)How is it coincidence if the people "show up at church to get better"? Do you see the problem with the way you argue?  Also, anyone can relapse regardless of their recovery method, so if that's part of your criteria then why don't you just say that you don't believe anything can help a person recover?

2)Your statements would have gone together if you had been a little more specific and avoided making declarative statements. At no point did I say anything about religion being better than other methods, nor was I making any claims about net value to humanity. My very first argument in this thread was CLEARLY about not making a declarative statement that isn't true for everyone. Somehow you've twisted it into an argument that I never tried to make in the first place, hence why I claim that you don't even know what you're defending.

You can't admit that there are people who would have not have made it if not for religion AND claim that believing in God does not help with recovery AT ALL.

3)Exercise and psychological distractions are NOT arbitrary. You equated these things to falling trees and paint chips. Exercise has a verifiable impact on endorphin levels and circulation of seratonin and dopamine, and this incredibly beneficial for a person withrawing from drugs or alcohol. Exercise also speeds up metabolization of toxins in the system. Putting something like exercise on the same level as a falling tree is madness.

[VanReal]

Why not just believe in the "higher power" of community? In my experience (both ways) it's friends & family that help you get through bad times.

Kyu

Watch out Kyu - Loffler is going to attack that because you said that friends and family can help and you didn't provide any statistical data or a link to that!  

[Ihateyoumike]

Why not just believe in the "higher power" of community? In my experience (both ways) it's friends & family that help you get through bad times.

Kyu

Watch out Kyu - Loffler is going to attack that because you said that friends and family can help and you didn't provide any statistical data or a link to that!   :hail:

[VanReal]

I'm sorry I went to be early last night but I was plum worn out.

Loffler - you are arguing against what we have posted here because you are not paying attention or listening (reading).  No one said that there was a correlation between religion and recovery.

What we are talking about is how everyone uses different toolsto get through events and that what works for one does not work for another.  We also are not saying that the person is using that one tool and doing nothing else during that period of time.  I think Miss Anthrope was very clear about that when posting on DISTRACTIONS.

When my uncle had a heart bypass years ago he made model war airplanes.  He's got tons of them.  He made them to keep bsy and get out of bed as he was instructed to do by his physician.  Were the airplanes magical and they zapped him back into shape? Of course not.  But they were his constructive tool of something to do, provided him goals, and kept him busy while he wasn't extremely mobile.  They were a toolhe used during his recovery.  When I broke my feet in 2003 I didn't make model ariplanes, I taught myself to cross-stitch.  It kept my mind busy, kept me from getting bored, and kept me off of my feet during their recovery.  

There does not need to be scientific or statistical data to determine that the tools a person uses to get them through a recovery period aided in that recovery.  It didn't create or causethe recovery, it assisted in the person's recovery, it was not a stand alone input.

[Loffler]

Why not just believe in the "higher power" of community? In my experience (both ways) it's friends & family that help you get through bad times.

Kyu

Watch out Kyu - Loffler is going to attack that because you said that friends and family can help and you didn't provide any statistical data or a link to that!   :hail:

I don't attack anything. Why am I being made fun of for advocating skepticism? Am I at Sunday School?

[VanReal]

I don't attack anything. Why am I being made fun of for advocating skepticism? Am I at Sunday School?

Definitely not Sunday School because we are all awake and I haven't been smacked with a ruler yet.

And you weren't attacking anyone's statements in this thread? Hmmmmm, you compared two of us to Christians, you came back with arguments that had nothing to do with anything we said, you renamed ihatemike, instead of responded to legitimate information we posted you simplified our posts to the point of portraying us as complete idoits that have no common sense.  Skepticism?

[Miss Anthrope]

I'm sorry I went to be early last night but I was plum worn out.

Loffler - you are arguing against what we have posted here because you are not paying attention or listening (reading).  No one said that there was a correlation between religion and recovery.

What we are talking about is how everyone uses different toolsto get through events and that what works for one does not work for another.  We also are not saying that the person is using that one tool and doing nothing else during that period of time.  I think Miss Anthrope was very clear about that when posting on DISTRACTIONS.

When my uncle had a heart bypass years ago he made model war airplanes.  He's got tons of them.  He made them to keep bsy and get out of bed as he was instructed to do by his physician.  Were the airplanes magical and they zapped him back into shape? Of course not.  But they were his constructive tool of something to do, provided him goals, and kept him busy while he wasn't extremely mobile.  They were a toolhe used during his recovery.  When I broke my feet in 2003 I didn't make model ariplanes, I taught myself to cross-stitch.  It kept my mind busy, kept me from getting bored, and kept me off of my feet during their recovery.  

There does not need to be scientific or statistical data to determine that the tools a person uses to get them through a recovery period aided in that recovery.  It didn't create or causethe recovery, it assisted in the person's recovery, it was not a stand alone input.

Exactly. Loffler has decided that the things we say are equivalent to "If you're happy all the time you'll never,ever get sick and the power of belief can make anything happen!" Loffler has a habit of fabricating meaning from others' words which are non-existant and not related to the arguments at hand. Like the links he provided which were not relevant in the context of what I was arguing.

Allow me to rephrase: say, is there any science behind the old assumption that superstition helps people recover? Or should I just play along and pretend it's a foregone conclusion?

No one ever said that superstition helps people recover. Not once.

I'm sure there are people who wouldn't have made it except for their religious beliefs. I'm equally sure there are people who were made worse by their religious beliefs. I'd like to see some evidence that the former outnumber the latter.

Not only was the first part of this sentence an argument AGAINST his former claims, he made clear that he was arguing about statistics, as if one of us had made any kind of claim about beleif in God being more effective in recovery. What I find especially interesting is that he is indirectly conceding that he doesn't know if one outnumbers the other, yet still stands by his "at all" statement as if it is something which cannot be argued against. He also said "People used to say optimism helped the sick, that turned to be feel-good hogwash." Even putting aside the vagueness of the word "sick", he stated this as if science has completely put any connection between optimism and health into the realm of fantasy. Then he later claimed to be taking an agnostic POV about the issue! needless to say, I was unable to find any information to support his hard assertion. Oh, I found plenty of information about too much optimism being potentially harmful and studies which have proven that optimism isn't some miracle cure-all (not that I needed proof for that, anyway), but nothing to support his belief that optimism never helps the "sick".

As you say, VanReal, Loffler either does not carefully read what other people write or has an impairment when it comes to understanding what people are saying. He did the same thing on my Joker thread, assuming that my desire to include the make the character the subject of my musings was a proclamation that the Joker introduced new philosophies to the world and cinema, and also expressing a desire for proof that people I spoke with (despite the fact I was clearly referring to forums I viewed) were essentially villain worshippers. He used the phrase "in my world", implying that he did not believe what I said simply becasue the people he knows did not idolize the Joker (uh, selection bias?). All the evidence points to column A and B: Loffler does not carefully read what people write and he does not understand.

And no Loffler, you are not being made fun of for advocating skepticism. I don't think anyone on this thread would beleive if someone said "Today I stopped drinking and then I saw on the news that a puppy with two heads was born. The birth of the two headed puppy must have made me stop drinking!" What we're NOT skeptical about is the connection between exercise and psychological crutches aiding in recovery. You put words in our mouths about prayer being effective at healing and you argue against perspectives that you project on other people (again, when did anyone make claims about net value to humanity, we were talking FROM THE OUTSET about blanket statemetns not applying to everybody; seriously, go back read and everything from your "at all" statement up until now). We're very skeptical people, hence why we argue against your blanket statements.

[Loffler]

1)How is it coincidence if the people "show up at church to get better"? Do you see the problem with the way you argue?  Also, anyone can relapse regardless of their recovery method, so if that's part of your criteria then why don't you just say that you don't believe anything can help a person recover?

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!

2)Your statements would have gone together if you had been a little more specific and avoided making declarative statements. At no point did I say anything about religion being better than other methods,

Or no method at all.

nor was I making any claims about net value to humanity. My very first argument in this thread was CLEARLY about not making a declarative statement that isn't true for everyone. Somehow you've twisted it into an argument that I never tried to make in the first place, hence why I claim that you don't even know what you're defending.

You can't admit that there are people who would have not have made it if not for religion AND claim that believing in God does not help with recovery AT ALL.

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.

3)Exercise and psychological distractions are NOT arbitrary. You equated these things to falling trees and paint chips.Exercise has a verifiable impact on endorphin levels and circulation of seratonin and dopamine, and this incredibly beneficial for a person withrawing from drugs or alcohol.

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.

And before anybody comes running back with proof no one used the word tautology till now, spare me. I know it sounds crazy, but sometimes words have meanings beyond just that one word itself. So sometimes people are saying more than they mean to say. Imagine that.

[Loffler]

I don't attack anything. Why am I being made fun of for advocating skepticism? Am I at Sunday School?

Definitely not Sunday School because we are all awake and I haven't been smacked with a ruler yet.

And you weren't attacking anyone's statements in this thread? Hmmmmm, you compared two of us to Christians, you came back with arguments that had nothing to do with anything we said, you renamed ihatemike, instead of responded to legitimate information we posted you simplified our posts to the point of portraying us as complete idoits that have no common sense.  Skepticism?

I'm sorry. I didn't know yall were taking that so personally. I wasn't trying to imply ihatemike doesn't read at all, I was trying to find a funnier way of saying he's not reading my posts carefully. And I compared him to a Christian because I really am more accustomed to seeing that line of reasoning from people of faith -- and by the very nature of the difference in faith reasoning versus secular reasoning. 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?

[Loffler]

K, blank slate: What do either of you believe is the relationship between recovery and:
faith or religion or church or superstition or horoscopes or exercise or optimism or teddy bears or trees falling in the yard?

Answer whichever ones you wish, and definitely do not leap at the assumption that I'm implying they're all the same, they're not. I just want to cast as wide a net possible to allow for the most expressive answer.


And a footnote that apparently also should have been on my first post on this thread: there will be a followup question.

[VanReal]

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.  

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.

[VanReal]

I'm sorry. I didn't know yall were taking that so personally. I wasn't trying to imply ihatemike doesn't read at all, I was trying to find a funnier way of saying he's not reading my posts carefully. And I compared him to a Christian because I really am more accustomed to seeing that line of reasoning from people of faith -- and by design. 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?

I'm all for lightening up, a good debate is a good debate.  Please know that when you say things like "Do I need to pll out the puppets" and "can you not understand simple" blah, blah that is not actally constructive debate tactic and tends to put people on the defensive.  Hell you might as well sayyou are going to pause for a while to allow us to drool in our cups.

I'm going to put on my comfy slippers and try to start fresh.