The philosophy behind The Twelve Steps

I'm not sure what crashfrog's sources are, but I did hear the same thing recently on Penn & Teller's "Bullshit!" show. Yes, on the surface such a source would not seem reliable, but they did give the straight skinny on the shenanigans of Boy Scouts of America, Inc (though the treatment could have been more complete). It's not a scholarly treatment, but they do cite source documents as they display the document to the TV audience.Other than that, I'm just not up on the literature because I've not looked into it. I did go through the DivorceCare program, which borrows from the 12-step program. The presentations kept emphasizing that we have no hope of recovering except through Jesus. As an atheist, all a 12-step program would do would be to constantly drum in my head that there's no hope for me, that I could never recover. There is nothing positive nor constructive in that approach.Now, I did find a few kernels in that program, but only by winnowing through a mountain of chaff (or, as P&T would say, "B--- s---!" -- well, only Penn would give actual voice). The only way that I was able to get anything out of that program was to ignore all the chaff they kept piling on; ie, I had to keep the program from getting in its own way.Similarly, a pair of Christian therapists run a relationships seminar that my friends would keep urging me to attend -- however, it conflicted with my West Coast Swing class. The times that I did attend, the psychology was sound (and commonly used even by secular counselors), but their main message was that you had to do these things because that's what God wants you to do or because it would help you lead the kind of life that God wants you to lead or because it would protect you from influences that would keep you from being a Godly enough person. They offered no reason for a non-Christian to follow their advice, instead presenting a message (not intentionally, I'm sure) that their advice has nothing to offer to a non-Christian. Again, I had to winnow through their chaff to get at the kernels, though at least the amount of chaff was not as monumental.According to P&T, AA refuses to publish any statitistics to support the claims of their success rates. They claim great success, but they refuse to back up those claims in any way. As I recall, P&T showed an internal AA memo which shows that their actual success rate is about 5%. Which they point out it also the success rate of people conquering their addictions on their own.May I suggest that the proper response is to find published studies that so show the 12-step program to be significantly more successful?Now, the 12-step program may well work for a theist, but I believe I have shown that it can have the opposite effect for a non-theist and actually be very detrimental to his recovery. Any kind of a program that provides an individual with positive support should be beneficial, but one size does not fit all.BTW, the root cause(s) of addition can be many and would vary with each individual. Partly biochemical. Partly psychological.What bearing should that have on the question of whether the 12-step program would be any more effective than individuals conquering their addictions on their own?Edited by dwise1, : Correcting a typo

I have had to play that "God is whatever you believe it is" game with a BSA official. They (Boy Scouts of America, Inc) claim that they do not define what "God" or "Duty to God" means but rather it is up to the individual member's religious tradition to decide that (quite rightly so). And they trot this out every time they go to the public trough for funding, declaring that they are "absolutely nonsectarian". At the same time, they arbitrarily impose their own sectarian religious views by defining God as "a Supreme Being" -- please remember that they officially state that they do not define "God", and yet here we see them insisting on doing it.BTW, they claim to have a "Supreme Being" rule but nobody can find it; even the BSA professional in question, when order by the court to produce that rule that he had kept insisting existed, he had to admit to the judge that it didn't exist. In the case of Paul Trout, a Unitarian scout who was expelled in the mid-80's for not complying with the "Supreme Being" rule, BSA reversed itself and Chief Scout Exec Ben Love stated officially that that rule was a mistake that they were dropping it. Then just 5 years later they expelled the Randalls and several others under the same non-existent rule.OK, so our district exec, the professional who was ordered by the court to produce the rule, called me to expell me. I am a Unitarian, BTW. I asked him what the BSA definition of "God" was:
Him: God is whatever you believe it is.
Me: Well then, God could be ______ .
Him: Oh, no. God isn't that.
Me: Well then, what is your definition of "God"?
Him: God is whatever you believe it is.
Me: Well then, God could be ______ .
Him: Oh, no. God isn't that.
Me: Well then, what is your definition of "God"?
Him: God is whatever you believe it is.etc, etc, etc.There could be a few isolated exceptions, but it's all too obvious that this talk of "God is whatever you believe it is" is nothing but weasel-talk that tries to sneak religion into secular institutions and to obtain public funding for their religious purposes. Like the archetypal weasel-talk which is "creation science", which tries to claim that fundamentalist Christian dogma is purely scientific.AA gets public funding, right? Individuals of any and all religions, including atheists, get ordered by a judge to join AA. It's mandatory for them to participate in this religious program, against their will. And AA says, "Oh no, it's not religious. This 'higher power' doesn't have to be God." Yeah, we've seen that game played far too many times before. I've even been forced to play it myself. The reek of hypocrisy is unmistakable.And in the highly unlikely case that AA is actually sincere in that statement, then it's a pity that they have to suffer because of the abuses of all those other hypocrites.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

The main alternative I am aware of to the faith-based 12-step approach is Rational Recovery, which is described on Wikipedia at Rational Recovery - Wikipedia.In your OP, you refer to 12-step being used by secular programs. Could you please point out some of those secular programs?

It would need to be something very different from the 12-step as it exists. And, contrary to the 12-step as it exists, it would need to be something constructive.Again, what about Rational Recovery? As I recall (from what I had heard of it 1.5 decades ago), it involves realizing that you need to take responsibility for yourself and that you need to work to solve your own problems. Of course you can get advice and guidance and peer support from others, but you are responsible for yourself and nobody's going to do it for you. That is the atheist way. And the fundamental structure of 12-step is contrary to that way.

Not looking for moving any of the action off the floor yet, not for quite a while. Too recently divorced.I'm the most confident with West Coast, Lindy is more fun and open to innovation (yes, as a matter of fact I do swing both ways: east coast and west coast). I've been learning more rhumba lately. I just did my first 3-month course on samba. In another month I'll be doing an advanced class in American tango. Cha-cha I've always faked with salsa, so I tend more towards club cha-cha instead of ballroom, which I have also studied. I'm starting a 3-month waltz class which will be followed by 3 months of foxtrot. Got hustle classes this month as well. And I need to get back to salsa again.Who needs 12-step? I've got a couple 2-steps (Nightclub and Country) and a 10-step (a country dance).It's my social life and very enjoyable. If I were to stay at home, I'd easily go through at least a few shots of tequila, but when I'm out I don't drink -- can't drink and dance; as the leader I'm the designated driver, so to speak. It's good group therapy.'Course, I'm out every single night of the week either with dance classes or with dancing. It's called "social dancing", but I'm probably well into the "problem dancing" aspect. Just don't come anywhere near me with a cure!Relevance to this topic? Just getting the person into a positive social environment, a group activity, does wonders in staving off bad habits that can become problems. And the only higher power here is "The One" (ie, the first beat of the measure that starts the phrase in the music).{PS
Point being, that we are social animals to whom membership in a group, practically any group, is very important. The key to most of these rehabilitation methods is the group, much more important, in my opinion, than any statement of faith regarding one's own helplessness. Of course, if I were expected to be part of a group whose core values (eg, theism) I did not share, then I would not be able to feel a part of that group.I'm sure some of you feel pity, saying "That poor guy; the only social life he has is dance class." Well, what about those for whom AA is their only social life? I'm sure there are some.So why don't we get the AA'ers to go out, learn to dance, and start having a more positive social life?PPS
I could just hear the Baptists wailing and gnashing their teeth at that suggestion. I used to participate in dance classes that a Baptist megachurch's singles ministry were having. Part of the organizer's job was to battle with church management to keep those classes going; non-dancing Baptists can have the weirdest misconceptions about dancing.
}---------------------------------
Dizzy's Desiderata at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/dance/dizzys.html, attributed to Dizzy Gillespie:1. Dance adroitly amidst the flailing limbs and flashing feet, and remember what joy there is in open floor space.
2. As far as possible, without risk of personal injury, accept all invitations to dance.
3. As far as possible, without entanglement, be on kissing terms with all women.
4. Dance your moves with style and grace; observe other dancers, even the clumsy and arrhythmic; they can serve as negative examples.
5. Avoid dancers who over-Charleston; they are dangerous to life and limb.
6. If you compare yourself with others, you may become frustrated or overconfident, for always there will be greater and lesser dancers than yourself.
7. Enjoy the jump blues as well as the slow drags.
8. Keep interested in the basics, they are the fount of all innovation.
9. Exercise caution in your dance floor romances, for the world is full of fickle lotharios and femme fatales.
10. But let this not blind you to the joys of flirting.
11. Exercise caution in your choice of dance instructors, cause the world is full of Arthur Murray Studios.
12. Strive always to develop your own style.
13. Especially remember that you can't fake skill; great skill is often manifested in a simple and elegant style.
14. Neither be easily discouraged for skill only comes with diligence.
15. Listen to your body, you aren't as young as you think; leave the aerials to the young and the foolhardy.
16. Nurture skill in several dances to provide you options on contra nights at Glen Echo.
17. Nurture skill in several dances so you can go dancing and still avoid your ex.
18. Do not distress yourself over the accuracy of your feelings of inadequacy; you are that bad -- just work on it.
19. Many feelings of inadequacy are generated at Steven Mitchell workshops. Therefore always follow-up a Steven Mitchell workshop with one by Frankie Manning.
20. You are a child of the rhythm no less than the planets and the stars; stay within the pocket.
21. And whether or not the rhythm is in your soul, the music does have a beat. Therefore be on time with the music and your partner, even if you have to count.
22. And whatever your natural talent and intentions, in the noisy confusion of the dance, keep your eye on your partner.
23. With all the hamstring pulls, shin splints and occasional bruises, the dance is still beautiful.
24. Smile.
25. Strive to hear the one.
BTW, the Frankie Manning mentioned in 19 was one of Whitey's Lindy Hoppers. He turns 93 this month. He's still dancing and still teaching.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.Edited by dwise1, : postscripts

I know it's facile. I know that it comes from pop psychology ("Psycho-Cybernetics", if that's still around -- amazon.com says it is).If you spend all your time talking and thinking about not doing drugs, then all the time you're thinking about doing drugs. Therefore, instead of living a life thinking about drugs, think about something positive to do. Rather than have your life revolve around drugs (even though the emphasis is on not doing it, you're still revolving your life around drug use), redirect your attention to something else to do with your life. Rather than concentrating on what not to do (which is counter-productive), concentrate on what you need to do. It's like Lord Baden-Powell (founder of Scouting in the UK) saying that the Scout Law being better than (without naming it explicitly) the Ten Commandments because the Scout Law tells you what to do instead of what to not do.Now, I have no training in psychology nor in therapy nor in counselling. But it just seems to make so much sense that you would want to direct an addict to a positive way of life. To give the person a more positive and constructive outlet for the drives and feelings that are driving them towards the addictive behavior.Yes, I know that my own dancing could be seen as addictive behavior. At the very least, it's escapist (it's much more than just the divorce experience, but I don't want to burden anyone unnecessarily). Once when I described my dance schedule (before I expanded it to almost every single night of the week), a man who had been divorced longer than I commented, "Yeah, that sounds about right, until you drop from exhaustion." Well, I'm trying to pace myself so I can keep this up as long as possible.Now, maybe the real problem is that most people would not know what passion to follow. For over 25 years, my ex had been brainwashing me that I could not possibly ever learn to dance. Indeed, although I started learning 7 years ago, it's only been in the past couple years that I could even begin to think that I could learn to dance or that I could possibly be considered a good dancer (even though from the very first lesson the women were complimenting me on my strong and smooth lead). Seven years (or fewer) ago if I had been an addict and a counsellor had tried to find something positive for me and had suggested dancing, I would have said what I knew for a "fact", that I could not ever possibly learn it.And perhaps that's the real barrier. Therapists cannot find those positive lifestyles because the patients have unrealistically low expectations of their own abilities. So they work on the only things that they do know, the problems.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

OK, so the Twelve Steps are explicitly Christian. Fine. If Christians want to use then they can use it.Just don't foist it off on the rest of us. For whom it is not only useless and meaningless, but also would be counter-productive.Former fundamentalist minister Dan Barker, who had been born and raised in the faith (and whose mother would always sing in tongues as she did the housework), described the situation of a fundamentalist's "theology becoming his psychology". In another thread, evangelical Christian Mark described those on his side as viewing the world very differently than the rest of the population does. I think that what he was describing ties in with Barker's statement. And the nonsensical [to the rest of us] aspects of DivorceCare and Celebrate Recovery and Christian therapists also tie into their "theology having become their psychology".For people conditioned to think in terms of sin and their relationship to God, then therapy would need to address those concerns and be cast in that psychology. But for those who instead think in terms of right and wrong and what it's doing to themselves and to others, sin and God don't mean anything and belaboring sin and God doesn't make any sense.And I think that this 12-step business