4 ms·
Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. And if the burn-in-hell model was demonstrably more effective than a medical model I would endorse it. Wouldn't you? What's
by giraffe_lady 5y ago
Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. And if the burn-in-hell model was demonstrably more effective than a medical model I would endorse it. Wouldn't you? What's the value in pushing a scientific model if it isn't actually more practically effective at helping the people who are asking for help?
And look, I'm not saying the medical model isn't more effective. But "new evidence" isn't always easy to apply even when it is clear, and with addiction it very often is not. AA's method despite its serious serious flaws has worked for a lot of people over many decades, so yes there is some natural conservatism about updating it every decade to keep up with new research.
You're on the right track though with the dogma thing. If you're familiar with the sociological study of religions, looking at it through that lens can be very valuable. It has a cultus of belief and ritual, it has a community of believers, and yes a dogma. It doesn't never change, but it is slow to.
To understand this thing you need to try to understand what value it has to people. If you want them to switch to another approach you need to demonstrate the actual practical value of that approach to people. This is literally life and death shit, people aren't going to part with it just because some le atheist engineers don't like that they call it an allergy and ask god for help.
- photochemsyn 5y agoWhat I object to is religious types trying to use bad science to back up their agenda. Science is not a matter of faith, and it's a complete perversion of the basic concept of scientific inquiry to promote false claims simply because of their claimed utility. That's a dishonest and manipulative strategy at best, and I doubt any good will come of it. Of course, science provides no ultimate answers of the type religious fundamentalists (a group which includes the dogmatic atheist IMO) seem to be seeking. For example, it's impossible to use science to test the 'simulation hypothesis', i.e. the notion that we're all living in a perfect VR sim.
- giraffe_lady 5y agoWell, in this case "their agenda" is helping people out of deep addiction. What do you gain by opposing that? We aren't disinterested third parties here pushing an agenda on other people, this is US, working for ourselves. Who are you? Expecting people to abandon a belief that they can plausibly claim has saved their life because it isn't scientifically true is a radical ideology. Very much good has come from it, true or not. If you think you can do better then pick up a shovel man, and get to work. Because one of the other things AA provides is practical advice on how to work with people you don't understand or like, towards the shared goal of healing and sobriety.
- photochemsyn 5y agoCould it be that one of AA's goals is the creation of a population of donors to keep their organization funded, just like any other organized religious group? This would explain the reluctance to admit that alcohol addiction is not a 'lifelong disease' that requires lifetime committment to AA, wouldn't it? Regardless, promoting bogus scientific claims in the name of social good does actual harm to people. It's one of the reasons for the whole anti-vax thing, and the resulting measles outbreaks, for example.
- gitfan86 5y agoI think it is a stretch to think that this is a money making endeavor. Scams to make money like MLMs and Scientology prioritize payment over adherence to the tenants of the organization. And the leaders are paid millions of dollars and live luxurious lives. AA is more like the Salvation Army. It is a group that clearly believes things that are not scientifically true, but most people join with good intentions.
- as_bntd 5y agoI don't know much about the Salvation Army beyond hearing their name in passing, but what are their scientifically false beliefs? I looked at the "Beliefs" section of their Wikipedia page but couldn't find, after 1 min or so of looking, a clearly stated scientifically false belief. Are you referring to this, which sounds similar to AA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#Adult_Rehabilitation_Centres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#Adult_Rehab...
- gitfan86 5y agoFrom Wikipedia: "In November 2013 it was made known that the Salvation Army was referring LGBT individuals to one of several conversion therapy groups." The American Medical Association has never suggested there is scientific data proving this therapy to be successful at changing sexual orientation, in fact the scientific data proves the opposite, it is harmful.
- Spooky23 5y agoThere’s shades of grey with many things. Plenty of drugs are effective at rates marginally higher than placebo.
- tanseydavid 5y ago> and I doubt any good will come of it. You seem to express contempt without prior investigation. I can assure you that much good has come of it.