What's worse than being a drug user? Being an atheist drug user...

I vaguely recall reading an article many years ago on this very problem. It stated that alternative programs did indeed exist, but the media and other programs seem bound and determined to ignore them in favor of AA. I don't know what their success rate is, but if AA isn't working for a person - particularly if the Higher Power issue is what's bugging them - it seems unfortunate that the state won't consider alternative programs.

Secular/Non-Religious Treatment Program info link (About.com Health link)

I have been to thousands of meetings. Thousands.

I can count on one hand the number of times someone has tried to talk to me about Jesus after the meeting -- and usually an old-timer will overhear it, take them gently aside and let them know in the kindest way possible that that's not what we do around here. Yes, a few people get more references to their god into their sharing than other people.

One time, I was talking about my understanding of higher power and my dedication to pagan gods -- and after the meeting, 8 people (out of maybe 100 in the room) came up to me and said that they were pagan too. So we started a recovery coven.

Captcha -- I think it's more like whatever the addict has decided to do in the past clearly hasn't worked. So whether it's self-will or total abdication of responsibility, it's behavior that is self-directed.

I want to add that I'm not trying to talk anyone into joining a 12 step group -- if something else works better for them, then that is awesome. I'm just describing what I've experienced and what I've been told as a caseworker in various trainings I've attended.

As an atheist, I wonder why we have to reference a "higher power". Why not refer to external forces, in which I would include somewhat more mortal powers the person can look to for support? If it's only about convincing you that relying solely on yourself has failed, there are many things besides "yourself" that you could rely on, and only a small portion of those are necessarily some understanding of a "higher power".

Karen Junker said:

Lyv - no one is telling you that you can't do it. What they're suggesting is that you may need to change your ways of thinking.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are. But I do believe they are trying to change atheists' thinking. Yes, I do believe that. That's the problem.


There are more secular programs getting going every year, but the state seems determined to keep steering folks to the religious ones.

Then there's the problem of how to work the steps without a higher power reference -- you'd have to throw out the entire idea and go back to the will or power of the individual -- and that pretty much means there's a good chance they'll go back to using.

Click to expand...

Yeah, just like there's a good chance that those who believe in a higher power will go back to using. I get that you feel passionately about this, but forcing people into treatment that requires a belief in a higher power is wrong. I'm thrilled that Hazle sued and wish him well in his recovery.

Lyv -- I'm not really all that passionate about it. I just get a little OCD about explaining my understanding of stuff. I think it's great that Hazle gets an alternative to the religious programs and I hope it works out for him.

I think there's a lot better chance for success for people who have good support systems -- and there's a pretty organized support system in 12 step groups, so social workers and courts, etc. probably tend to go with what they know.

The original steps and literature for AA was written by someone who observed what seemed to work and wanted to share that with others. It's not surprising it's religious, since an overwhelming majority of people in the US (where it started) are. I have personally worked on committees to rewrite the literature so that it is not so specifically religious in tone.

But I do think there is some merit in the concept of a higher power, where higher power does NOT equal YOU. Call it god, or Fred or the group or whatever -- many atheists do use alternative terms and no one tells them they can't -- but I do think that realizing that your way of doing things has not worked and you need to try a different way is an important part of recovery.

There is also the white-knuckle approach. Whatever works.

Karen Junker said:

But I do think there is some merit in the concept of a higher power, where higher power does NOT equal YOU. Call it god, or Fred or the group or whatever -- many atheists do use alternative terms and no one tells them they can't -- but I do think that realizing that your way of doing things has not worked and you need to try a different way is an important part of recovery.

There is also the white-knuckle approach. Whatever works.

Click to expand...

Or a secular program without a higher power, which are gaining in number. Out of curiosity, I read around a bit on secular twelve step programs and some completely secular version are here.

I just reread the twelve steps and honestly, this "call it what you want" would never jibe for me with what they actually say. Yeah, I could call my higher power my family and friends or my cat or the pumpkin cheesecake cooling on my kitchen counter, but those steps include things like "Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs; were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character. humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings." They tell you to work the steps, and for me, the idea of working steps that tell me to ask family and friends to "remove" my defects of character " or "shortcomings" is against what I believe. Yeah, I could twist and turn that meaning into something I could work with, but the underlying message is against what I believe and that would have some impact on my recovery. It can't be just me, since there is a demand, albeit smaller, for secular options.

Just something I've been noodling as we've been talking: Atheists, like anyone else entering a twelve-step program, bring with them their experiences. And sometimes out atheists are told that we can't be good or moral or strong or successful on our own; that we need God. The similar language and mindset of the programs we're discussing could feel like a version of that. It could make some resistant to the program. Clearly, Hazle had a problem with it, and so does the law.

Karen Junker said:

Lyv -- I'm not really all that passionate about it. I just get a little OCD about explaining my understanding of stuff. I think it's great that Hazle gets an alternative to the religious programs and I hope it works out for him.

I think there's a lot better chance for success for people who have good support systems -- and there's a pretty organized support system in 12 step groups, so social workers and courts, etc. probably tend to go with what they know.

The original steps and literature for AA was written by someone who observed what seemed to work and wanted to share that with others. It's not surprising it's religious, since an overwhelming majority of people in the US (where it started) are. I have personally worked on committees to rewrite the literature so that it is not so specifically religious in tone.

But I do think there is some merit in the concept of a higher power, where higher power does NOT equal YOU. Call it god, or Fred or the group or whatever -- many atheists do use alternative terms and no one tells them they can't -- but I do think that realizing that your way of doing things has not worked and you need to try a different way is an important part of recovery.

There is also the white-knuckle approach. Whatever works.

Click to expand...

Lyv said:

Or a secular program without a higher power, which are gaining in number. Out of curiosity, I read around a bit on secular twelve step programs and some completely secular version are here.

I just reread the twelve steps and honestly, this "call it what you want" would never jibe for me with what they actually say. Yeah, I could call my higher power my family and friends or my cat or the pumpkin cheesecake cooling on my kitchen counter, but those steps include things like "Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs; were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character. humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings." They tell you to work the steps, and for me, the idea of working steps that tell me to ask family and friends to "remove" my defects of character " or "shortcomings" is against what I believe. Yeah, I could twist and turn that meaning into something I could work with, but the underlying message is against what I believe and that would have some impact on my recovery. It can't be just me, since there is a demand, albeit smaller, for secular options.

Just something I've been noodling as we've been talking: Atheists, like anyone else entering a twelve-step program, bring with them their experiences. And sometimes out atheists are told that we can't be good or moral or strong or successful on our own; that we need God. The similar language and mindset of the programs we're discussing could feel like a version of that. It could make some resistant to the program. Clearly, Hazle had a problem with it, and so does the law.

Click to expand...

Insisting on the term "higher power" puts an explicitly religious connotation on the thing. No amount of "your higher power could be 'Fred'" changes that.

And surely some of the religious members of TSPs have tried religion before, on again, there's no logical reason to require reference to a higher power.

As Lyv says, many atheists are often informed that their problems result from a lack of piety and faith in God, so to have this reinforced by AA, especially court-mandated AA, seems to me to be an unequivocable infringement on freedom of religion. Without the court-mandating, it doesn't infringe on our legal rights, but it does represent a certain amount of Christian, and more broadly spiritual/religious(Pagan, Islamic, Hindu), privilege to refuse to accept the viewpoint an individual atheist that the compulsory spiritual language might be harmful to the recovery process.


I can only imagine the stink that would arise if a default atheist mandatory service program demanded Christians or people of other religions pay lip-service to the non-existence of God (or a god or gods) in the way this language forces atheists to pay lip services to the idea of God.

Yeah, Lyv -- as I say, if it works, go for it.

I think you misunderstand the step that talks about removing shortcomings -- it doesn't say you ask family or friends to do that. What it has to do with is acknowledging that the addict may have some character defect or shortcoming that has something to do with why they use -- and to ask for help (from a higher power or the group or whatever) since on one's own, it hasn't worked so far.

I think one thing that all the secular step programs have in common (and in common with the spiritual ones) is a reliance on 'other'. Whether it be a god, a higher power, a doorknob, the group, or collective human consciousness, it is NOT the addict. No one would force anyone to use the word 'god'. It's just a word -- it's basically shorthand for 'the other'.

Some people are so wrapped up in their own ego or sense of identity that they will never be able to entertain this idea. There are probably other ways for those people to recover, but it's probably going to take a while before they gain as much popularity as more established programs.

I think it's great that there are secular options for people -- I think it's great that Hazle prevailed in his suit. Maybe it will begin to pave the way for other people.

Karen Junker said:

Yeah, Lyv -- as I say, if it works, go for it.

I think you misunderstand the step that talks about removing shortcomings -- it doesn't say you ask family or friends to do that. What it has to do with is acknowledging that the addict may have some character defect or shortcoming that has something to do with why they use -- and to ask for help (from a higher power or the group or whatever) since on one's own, it hasn't worked so far.

Click to expand...

I added "help." The steps don't. I quoted three steps, steps that the program tells you to work. Here are those I quoted:

"Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs; were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character. humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings."

So, even if I substituted friends and family as my "higher power," which is what I said, the steps that I am told I must work to tell me to ask that higher power to remove my character defects and shortcomings. So, I think you've just demonstrated the flaw in saying your higher power can be anything.

I think one thing that all the secular step programs have in common (and in common with the spiritual ones) is a reliance on 'other'. Whether it be a god, a higher power, a doorknob, the group, or collective human consciousness, it is NOT the addict. No one would force anyone to use the word 'god'. It's just a word -- it's basically shorthand for 'the other'.

Click to expand...

Not according to the link I gave you.

Some people are so wrapped up in their own ego or sense of identity that they will never be able to entertain this idea. There are probably other ways for those people to recover, but it's probably going to take a while before they gain as much popularity as more established programs.

Click to expand...

Yeah, especially with various government agencies pushing them on folks and others stigmatizing, even unintentionally, those who resist them by suggesting they're just too wrapped up in their own egos or sense of identity.

Liosse -- I think you make a good point that the language smacks of religion. What I think most 12 step groups try to do (there are always exceptions) is make people comfortable with those words and let people know that they are only placeholders for the concept of a power that is greater than oneself -- someone upthread gave the example of gravity, or the sun -- but to insist that there are no powers greater than an individual seems short-sighted to me. In recovery, the power of the support you get from the group is all you really need -- granted there are people who can recover on their own, but if you are court-ordered into treatment, most people comply with that and figure out how to get through it. I'm not saying it's ideal.

I think it's too bad that atheists don't have a stronger voice in government and law. It's really hard to do that when you are a minority group and not particularly organized in any official way. But maybe if people keep suing and winning things will change.

Eh, if you have an atheist worldview, the concept of a "higher power" often does not make sense because "powers" of the universe would not be tiered, particularly if you believe in materialism. It doesn't have to do with shortsightedness or ego.

Karen, I appreciate your voice of experience from all sides of AA. And I'm really glad it works for you!

But as an atheist? There's no way I'd get involved with a program like this. It's not just that it's Christian... I agree that the "higher power" doesn't have to be the Christian god. But the program is steeped in mystical language - I really don't see how substituting "the doorknob" would work in any context I've seen. As a pagan, you probably have a certain level of spiritual faith/interest/belief, and that gives you ways to adapt the "higher power" idea to fit your beliefs. But for someone without that spiritual side, "higher power" is just meaningless.

If the words really ARE so interchangeable, why doesn't AA change them? What would be a good substitute for the places where they currently use "higher power"? Is there something completely non-spiritual that could fit in there and still make sense?

Do we need to go through the entire manual? I think we all agree that there is strong spiritual/religious verbage.

And I think most of us are aware that because of specific passages, this it's not cool to force people into a program that has this type of basis (even if meetings are flexible and recognize/welcome non-spiritual types).

It's sticky, though. I agree that it needs to be looked at and made more clear. Either AA needs to show the spiritual path as one "option" in the 12-step program (with non-spiritual being the other option) to match constitutional law in these court-mandated cases, or, the government needs to come up with an alternative for the individual.

I'm not sure any "fix" is easy. Doable? Yes.

There are tons of websites that address a non-spiritual version of the 12-steps. Here is one example: http://aaagnostica.org/alternative-12-steps/

Another: http://www.sossobriety.org/12steps.htm
http://www.alcoholics12steps.com/atheists-12-steps.php
http://www.aaagnostics.org/agnostic12steps.html

(Over 4 million hits on google. First 10 pages show unique material...)

I've used these sites frequently myself. I've shared some of the lists with my Alanon group. Many of the Christians have also taken interest, especially since most regulars are interested in expanding every dimension of steps in any way that will help them succeed.

Lyv said:

I added "help." The steps don't. I quoted three steps, steps that the program tells you to work. Here are those I quoted:

"Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs; were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character. humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings."

So, even if I substituted friends and family as my "higher power," which is what I said, the steps that I am told I must work to tell me to ask that higher power to remove my character defects and shortcomings. So, I think you've just demonstrated the flaw in saying your higher power can be anything.



Not according to the link I gave you.


Yeah, especially with various government agencies pushing them on folks and others stigmatizing, even unintentionally, those who resist them by suggesting they're just too wrapped up in their own egos or sense of identity.

Click to expand...

Oh, now I get what you're saying -- I really didn't take it literally when you said 'ask family & friends to remove shortcomings' -- okay, so I'll try to picture that. I'm not trying to be flip -- I have a cognitive thing from a brain injury that makes it so that I don't always know when someone is being literal or metaphorical or what.

First, it would be hard for me personally to do that -- because the family & friends I had were not the kind of people who were doing things any better than I was. But if a person could somehow acquire family and friends that weren't total addicts themselves and they trusted those people to give them advice, then I could see asking them for help or their ideas about how to do things differently.

Re: the link -- I only read a few of the different alternative steps -- and the ones I read did make reference to turning elsewhere for help. To me, elsewhere=other. There may be a list that doesn't have that, but I didn't see it.

I want to apologize for my wording -- I can see that I've offended you. I think there must be a better way to say that someone has a strong ego in a way that does not stigmatize that. I'll try to think of something -- I really appreciate you pointing that out. Sometimes I do say things because I've heard them so many times from other people and don't realize how insensitive and downright horrible they are.

Captcha said:

But for someone without that spiritual side, "higher power" is just meaningless.

If the words really ARE so interchangeable, why doesn't AA change them? What would be a good substitute for the places where they currently use "higher power"? Is there something completely non-spiritual that could fit in there and still make sense?

Click to expand...

I really didn't realize that atheists don't believe that anything is stronger than themselves. Is that really true? I mean, I may be pagan but I've been married four times, all to atheists and I had never heard that. I'm being really serious -- what is the explanation for things that are larger or stronger or more powerful than you (you personally -- I am really sincerely interested in hearing your point of view)?

I think AA (I was mostly in NA and worked on the literature committee) doesn't change the words for a couple reasons -- mostly because 70% or more of them ARE religious or at least putatively Christian, at least in the US (I am pretty sure a lot of the people who run the World Service Office are American). So there's little motivation for them to change it -- they're perfectly comfortable with it and it is really hard to get people to change stuff, especially if they think it's the only thing that works. Also, as I've said, I think that most of them do not feel that the words 'higher power' necessarily have a religious meaning, because of the common belief that you can use those words to mean anything that works for you that isn't you. I've already explained my own reaction to those words and the process I've had to go through to reconcile them with my religious upbringing - but I'm sure it's even harder for people who do not have a less than positive reaction to those words to see why they might need to be changed.

Things in NA run on a majority rules kind of way. They call it the 'group conscience'. So as long as the majority thinks it's fine, they probably won't change anything. I know I worked long and hard to get them to change the word 'god' to 'higher power' (which is all they would agree to). To be clear, I didn't work at the leadership level, but on a local committee that had input to the larger body as a whole. I was totally jazzed when they did change it -- not realizing that those words are so emotionally charged for atheists.

Karen Junker said:

Oh, now I get what you're saying -- I really didn't take it literally when you said 'ask family & friends to remove shortcomings' -- okay, so I'll try to picture that. I'm not trying to be flip -- I have a cognitive thing from a brain injury that makes it so that I don't always know when someone is being literal or metaphorical or what.

First, it would be hard for me personally to do that -- because the family & friends I had were not the kind of people who were doing things any better than I was. But if a person could somehow acquire family and friends that weren't total addicts themselves and they trusted those people to give them advice, then I could see asking them for help or their ideas about how to do things differently.

Click to expand...

I'm still not sure I've explained it. You said the higher power can be anything. I used what I felt was most reasonable (though the pumpkin cheesecake I baked is delish). So, if I take the steps I quoted and instead of "God" used "friends and family," it would mean the program would be telling me to ask my friends and family to "remove" my character flaws and shortcomings. I would have no problem asking them to help me, which is not even what the step is telling me to do, but those specific steps (and others) do not work with the "oh, use anything as higher power" approach.

I want to apologize for my wording -- I can see that I've offended you. I think there must be a better way to say that someone has a strong ego in a way that does not stigmatize that.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the apology, but your premise is the problem, not the language.

Plus, that's another great example of what an atheist might hear a lot--that it's our ego or arrogance keeping us from believing in God. And I see that echoed in the AA literature, so again, it could be alienating for some atheists.

I'll try to think of something -- I really appreciate you pointing that out. Sometimes I do say things because I've heard them so many times from other people and don't realize how insensitive and downright horrible they are.

Click to expand...

I'm happy to share my perspective and exchange ideas (which is all I'm doing as I am not personally offended).

We've had this thread, or at least one quite similar to it, before (yes, rugcat remembers correctly):
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180432

I've seen this current story going around in the news the last few days (I follow a few folks on Twitter, Facebook and elsewhere who have critical eyes on 12-step programs, such as the producer of this film). I've seen several such cases, but the thing that makes this new one different (and a little more popular in the news media) is the large amount of money awarded to the defendant.

Lemme see about responding to individual posts.

I don't think that having a strong ego is a bad thing -- but I'm not sure what you mean by 'your premise' -- I understand the thing about hearing it a lot that your arrogance keeps you from believing in a god and why that is offensive and alienating. When I say higher power is interchangeable with 'other', that's just my understanding, or what works for me -- it's definitely based on the experience of other addicts for decades. But again, that's just within the context of the 12 step programs I've been involved in and I do think that it's very possible for there to be other things that work.

I know, for example, that there was a treatment center here for many years that used aversion therapy, etc. (no 12 steps) and they claimed a pretty good success rate. But if other people have success with other methods, I think that's great. I'm not trying to shove 12 steps down anyone's throat -- I'm just talking about what my understanding is and how it's worked for me and other people I know.

To go back to ego preventing you from believing in god -- I only took a couple of classes on psych in college, but my understanding is that the ego is the concept of what keeps you individuated from other people. It's how you tell what makes you who you are, and part of that is what you believe. It is your sense of what you believe. So, some people's ego has a god belief as part of it --and some people's don't. If your particular ego does not include a god part, I think it's reasonable to say that that particular ego excludes god or doesn't allow for a belief in god -- but for me, that's still not a bad thing. I'm sure for some religious people (many of whom don't believe in science, even the soft ones like psychology ) there is much more emotionally-laden value judgment involved.

Karen Junker said:

To go back to ego preventing you from believing in god -- I only took a couple of classes on psych in college, but my understanding is that the ego is the concept of what keeps you individuated from other people. It's how you tell what makes you who you are, and part of that is what you believe. It is your sense of what you believe. So, some people's ego has a god belief as part of it --and some people's don't. If your particular ego does not include a god part, I think it's reasonable to say that that particular ego excludes god or doesn't allow for a belief in god -- but for me, that's still not a bad thing. I'm sure for some religious people (many of whom don't believe in science, even the soft ones like psychology ) there is much more emotionally-laden value judgment involved.

Click to expand...

When people say that "your ego prevents you from believing in God", they mean that "you are so full of yourself you do not have room for God." That you do not believe in god because you are conceited and selfish, and by extension that you do not believe in god because you are a bad person.

Okay, going backwards:

Lyv said:

I'm still not sure I've explained it. You said the higher power can be anything.

Click to expand...

That's "almost" true. The 12-step Higher Power (capitalized in the steps, because they are a pronoun/substitute for God) can be anything but you.
But if you choose something like a doorknob, that's a "starter god" (not a description you'll hear in AA), and your sponsor will eventually tell you you need to find a SPIRITUAL Higher Power.

I used what I felt was most reasonable (though the pumpkin cheesecake I baked is delish). So, if I take the steps I quoted and instead of "God" used "friends and family," it would mean the program would be telling me to ask my friends and family to "remove" my character flaws and shortcomings. I would have no problem asking them to help me, which is not even what the step is telling me to do, but those specific steps (and others) do not work with the "oh, use anything as higher power" approach.


Thanks for the apology, but your premise is the problem, not the language.

Plus, that's another great example of what an atheist might hear a lot--that it's our ego or arrogance keeping us from believing in God. And I see that echoed in the AA literature, so again, it could be alienating for some atheists.

Click to expand...

The ego is a Bad Thing in AA. Google AA slogans, and you're bound to find one that says "EGO is Easing [or Edging] God Out," and of course putting God out of your life will get you drunk, because He is the only one who can keep you sober.

This (that God is the only entity that can keep an alcoholic sober) is spelled out in the readings at every AA meeting. One reading is the first three pages of Chapter 5 (through the three "pertinent ideas" on the third page of the chapter) of the AA "big book" (the formal name of the book is Alcoholics Anonymous, and the group took its name from the book). The book is conveniently available online here, one PDF file per chapter:
http://www.aa.org/pages/en_US/alcoholics-anonymous

I get it -- but that's not what I mean when I say it. I'm not saying that anyone with a strong ego is bad, or that atheism is bad. But I do get that it must be very tiresome to hear.

Brightdreamer said:

I vaguely recall reading an article many years ago on this very problem. It stated that alternative programs did indeed exist, but the media and other programs seem bound and determined to ignore them in favor of AA. I don't know what their success rate is, but if AA isn't working for a person - particularly if the Higher Power issue is what's bugging them - it seems unfortunate that the state won't consider alternative programs.

Click to expand...

I agree. I think the religion aspect is the most serious part, but really, in general, not everyone finds all types of treatment or therapy equally effective. I understand that a lot of addicts are resistant to treatment in the first place, but I think that makes it all the more important to help court-ordered treatment seekers play an active role in their recovery and maintain some agency. Being in a program that's a poor fit is just likely to make people more defensive and resistant.

CrastersBabies said:

Also, I've worked in jails and prisons. 95% of ALL PROGRAMS are religious-based. And very few are non-Christian. (I'm not sure about yoga--some people might consider that a spiritual connection of some kind, but I'm kind of putting that into the other 5% here.)

For the gigantic lefty democrat I am, I gotta give credit to Christians in jails and prisons because they make up the majority of volunteers. And they bust ass in these facilities. So, until the left decides to get busy volunteering with the underserved on a regular basis, we're going to get religious-heavy inmate programs. Hands-down, Christians lead the way in volunteering in these places.

Click to expand...

I really have mixed feelings about that. I think it's wonderful that there are Christian groups that want to help, and certainly, some help is better than none.

But I hate that there are so few secular programs to help inmates and ex-cons. At the very least, I wish more of the Christian groups were willing to create secular programs with religion as an optional extra.

I feel like there can be a self-perpetuating cycle, too. I would love to volunteer with inmates and ex-cons. I believe really strongly in helping those people, and I've looked into local organizations. But I've been really put off by finding out that the organizations are Christian, and that makes me hesitant to get involved.

I agree -- I've only been to a few AA meetings and there is much more insistence on the spiritual or god thing in their meetings.

Lyx, I forgot to mention, I do know a few people who say they actually pray to a doorknob (in a manner of speaking -- they talk to it, I'm not sure how much of it is like most people's concept of prayer, but in my view, if you talk to something and ask for its help, it's a form of supplication or prayer). So you could totally use a pumpkin cheesecake -- and like most gods, it probably won't say anything back to you.