The article is question-begging with multiple quotes like this: "Her multiple relapses, according to recent science, are no ethical or moral failing – no failu

The article is question-begging with multiple quotes like this: "Her multiple relapses, according to recent science, are no ethical or moral failing – no failure of will. Instead, they are the brain reigniting the neurological and chemical pathways of addiction." Why the assumption that the will is made irrelevant by the fact that brain chemistry exists? Are they really suggesting that AA never realized there was a "mind over matter" struggle in recovering from addiction, just because the "matter" wasn't as well understood when AA started? Author seems to take for granted that all readers share his radically materialistic metaphysics in which "mind is matter". But that's not the real problem. The real problem with this article is his arrogant implication that the reason the AA doesn't agree with him because it's simply never heard about his self-evidently superior, childish modern philosophy.