Roger C's response to Ernie K's "We" article on WAFTIAAC
Guest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 14,636
Roger C's response to Ernie K's "We" article on WAFTIAAC
Here is an interesting article written by Ernie Kurtiz with an excellent response below it by Roger C of AAAgnostica. I love Ernie K's books and ideas... and spend lots of time reading on AAAgnostica. Thought maybe some of you in this part of the forum might get something out of this.
We
July 17, 2014 Authors' Corner, Fellowship
by Ernie K.
Alcoholics Anonymous is fellowship as well as program, and it is significant that the first word on WAFT, as in the Twelve Steps, is “We.”
No One is an Island
“We”: an acknowledgement of our ties with others. “No one is an island,” we all know. But how well do those who are “using” live that? Alcoholism is a lonely disease. Oh, sometimes especially introverts drank to feel more sociable, to feel that they “fit in” rather than standing uncomfortably on the edges of some social gathering. And then? At least in some cases the event would go on too long and one might get sloppy, or eventually retire home for some real “social drinking” and wake up on the floor or worse.
Getting Together
Friends? Pretty much out of necessity choosing those who drank pretty much the same way. Many good conversations, but rarely remembering what was said. Which was all right – you could have the same conversation the next evening, and the next. But so what? After all, “getting together” was not to talk or to listen but to drink. And God help any who tried to “help!” But “God” usually didn’t – unless in some form not very recognizable. More likely the doc or the judge, or sometimes, for the very fortunate, someone who was still able to love.
Spirituality
But then what? How did the drunk get from there to here, to something called “recovery?” According not only to Alcoholics Anonymous but to many serious students of alcoholism, essential to recovery is some form of “spirituality.” But what of those who have difficulty not so much with the term spirituality as with its so frequent association with various forms of religion? Well, for most, the understanding of that “spirituality” – the spirituality that allowed the drunk to become “an alcoholic” – evolved, changed over time. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, spirituality is “that which has a spiritual character” – fair enough, because the same source defines spiritual as “of or relating to, affecting or concerning, the spirit or higher moral qualities.” That, pretty much anyone can live with. Except, for some, for the baggage of their history, the story of a sad and often twisted experience.
Spiritual Experiences
Even before the dawn of Alcoholics Anonymous, many who were troubled by the devastation that some drinkers caused in their own lives as well as those of others thought that some sort of spiritual experience had to happen for an alcoholic to triumph over his (rarely her) drunkenness – only they usually called it a “religious” experience. And especially in the United States, there were just too many religions. Some thoughtful individuals, like the philosopher-psychologist William James, thought such experiences could be generic – not connected with any particular faith but the result of contact with some reality outside of and in some way larger than the self. For most people, that “power greater” or “higher power” is some transcendent being. Others, such as those in the 19th century termed “village atheists” and, more recently, the members of AAAgnostica and WAFT, find that power in some more immanent reality. Most in recent times have fortunately gotten past doorknobs, and find that power in “good orderly direction” or their AA group or the larger reality of Alcoholics Anonymous itself.
Transcendence
Observing all this as a longtime student of American religious/spiritual history, and immersed in it from my own experience with alcoholism and addiction, it seems to me that any/all spirituality can be summed up in two prepositions: beyond and between. Beyond: the first task of any spirituality is to help one escape being wrapped up in self: selfishness – self-centeredness! That, we think, is the root of our troubles.” The first definition of transcendence in the O.E.D. is “the action of surmounting, or rising above.” Fair enough: if we are going to live as fully human, we must escape, transcend, get beyond the narrow prison of self. The same source defines prison as “a place of captivity.” How accurate a description of alcoholism, of any addiction!
Trust and Confidence
Yet how comfortable that prison could be! One can get accustomed to the privations of addiction. The chemical is a faithful friend. Faithful. We can put our trust in it. The alcoholic knows what alcohol can do for her/him, for those feelings of emptiness or unease. Booze can be trusted. And that is what faith is: trust and confidence. We may not like to admit it, but we are all believers. And that belief is always in some kind of a higher power: the term “getting high” has layers of meaning. Belief is defined as “the mental action or habit of trusting or having confidence in a person or thing” – a pretty good description of how the active alcoholic relates to alcohol.
Transfer of Belief
In recovery we do not give up belief: we transfer it, and in that transfer is the dawn of spirituality. Most find a capitalized Higher Power, one Who transcends all ordinary reality, one customarily referred to as “God.” Others – may I call them “unconventional believers”? – do not make that discovery. Nor, usually, do they settle on some belief in doorknobs. And here is where the second preposition – between – comes in, for some find sufficient power greater than themselves horizontally, in others with whom they connect not in I-Thou or I-It relationships but as I-You, in a relationship of full equality. There are other such communities, but most find in their AA group, or in the larger reality of Alcoholics Anonymous itself, sufficient power to pull them beyond themselves and into some genuinely higher form of being than “getting high.” I am a conventional believer, but I think that I have some grasp of this in that I do find that my Higher Power seems to speak to me most often through others in my group at various meetings.
Understanding
Others, I know, posit their belief in the grandeur of nature, or the wonders of science, or the magnificence of a universe that so transcends our petty attempts to understand it. How one understands “spirituality” or “recovery” is beside the point. The point is that they are real, and that we live them, and that whatever may happen no one can take them away from us.
A We Program
My admiration for WAFT and AAAgnostica and any other such groupings that may exist of what I prefer to term “unconventional believers” is rooted in this conviction: the future of Alcoholics Anonymous lies with those who do not have an overly rigid understanding of their “Higher Power.” Those who are too sure of themselves, too sure about just about anything, are a plague on serenity. Here as in so many areas concerning our sober lives in the fellowship, the virtue of tolerance suggests that we “live and let live.” The A.A. Big Book suggests, as I recall, that “we have ceased fighting anything or anyone – even alcohol.” It is my hope and even tentative faith that, perhaps inspired by the example of WAFT and AAAgnostica, all members and even camp-followers of Alcoholics Anonymous put this into their daily practice – their daily living of spirituality. For we are a “we” program as well as fellowship.
**********************
Roger A
Jul 21 (22 hours ago)
Interesting article, thanks for posting Linda.
Ernie does seem to be advocating that an "unconventional belief" outside of monotheism can be sufficient for a sober life. This is much further than many in AA go, so I do appreciate that part and my sense is Ernie means well.
What strikes me is that Ernie tries bring together believers and nonbelievers by merging "conventional" and "unconventional" belief. Ernie is clearly referring to a personal god being for conventional belief. For "unconventional" beliefs he mentions beliefs in nature, science and community. Thus, he suggests bringing together beliefs in the supernatural with beliefs in the natural world. Yet, the same "belief" concept cannot be used for both groups. The "Coming to Believe" process is completely different, as are the beliefs themselves. Belief in the supernatural involves a faith in something that lacks justifiable evidence to support the claim - i.e. no demonstrable, reproducible evidence. There is a "leap of faith" from not knowing something to believing it must be a god. Believers quite often talk about how "they just feel it", or that they have been sober since turning it over to god, so god must be helping. Believers often have confirmation bias and see selected events as "god's work", "a miracle", or "a sign". Beliefs in nature, science and reality is a completely different process. Here, there is no leap of faith that involves attributing an unknown to god. As an example: hundreds of years ago, it was a mystery how a new human being is formed. The first microscopes revealed that an egg and sperm were involved, yet the process of early development was unknown. Theists took a "leap of faith" and claimed god put a tiny fully developed person in the sperm and that the egg served to provide nutrients for this tiny person. This was the prevailing view and there were many drawings of miniature people living inside sperm - with fully developed heads, arms, legs etc. There were those that did not believe this claim since it was not based on evidence. They too marveled at the mystery of early development and acknowledged they did not know how it occurred. Rather than taking a leap of faith into the supernatural, they took a systematic approach to gain a better understanding. They developed more sophisticated microscopes with higher resolution and conducted genetic crosses to test various hypotheses of how life begins. Based on demonstrative reproducible data, they came to believe both egg and sperm contribute to the formation of an early embryo. These two approaches are completely different and using the term "belief" for both is misleading.
The author goes on to state: "Others, I know, posit their belief in the grandeur of nature, or the wonders of science, or the magnificence of a universe that so transcends our petty attempts to understand it. " Here, the author uses lack of understanding to suggest an underlying basis for a supernatural Higher Power. That would be an argument from ignorance fallacy. "We Agnostics" in the Big Book is filled with this fallacy. Ernie mentions a belief in the "wonders of science". Does he mean the wonders of scientific discovery? Does he understand the scientific method? It is completely different from the faith-based method. I wonder what Ernie would think of a completely non-supernatural concept such as cause-and-effect for a Higher Power. Oh, and I have dedicated a large portion of my life to science and I have to laugh at his statement of "our petty attempts to understand it". Scientific discovery has made a far greater contribution to understanding the grandeur of nature than myths and superstition.
On a personal note, I spent many years deeply resentful of my father. I worked with a psychologist and read several self-help books with little progress. For me, the 4th, 5th and 9th steps led to a complete change of perception for me about my father and we have developed a close relationship. I had avoided doing amends to him for months, then one day he calls to tell me he is flying to Dallas and has a very long layover in Denver and perhaps we could meet. Was it "odd or god"?. The AA consensus was the god was working in my life and gave me this opportunity - although my Dad did travel around the country quite a bit on business. My father and I spoke openly for a couple hours. I spoke about the harms I caused the family and how I did not want to be that type of son going forward. My dad said he had some amends for me as well. . . After that, all the resentment, anger, regret was completely gone overnight. Many in AA said that "god was doing for me what I could not do for myself" and removed this from me. . . My change in perspective was a major paradigm shift for me and, to be honest, I did wonder how decades of deep-seeded anger and resentment vanished within hours - when all other efforts failed. I don't understand the physical basis of the change - perhaps my brain chemistry was altered after this experience. Yet, why go to a supernatural underlying cause? Why believe that a supernatural being coordinated my Dad's trip with my 9th step? Why believe that a supernatural being decided to remove that anger and resentment from within me? There is no evidence for that. Why not believe that certain actions and processes can lead to certain results? Having open/honest communication with someone, and being willing and interested in understanding their position, can lead to a change in perspective and greater empathy. Being evasive, dishonest and convinced someone else is wrong will led to a different outcome.
Ernie also states: How one understands “spirituality” or “recovery” is beside the point. The point is that they are real, and that we live them, and that whatever may happen no one can take them away from us. Not quite. The term "spirituality" is a vague term used in many different contexts. I have no idea what Ernie means by "spirituality". I really don't. It seems most people would consider "spirituality" to suggest the supernatural. In that case, it is not real, although the term and concepts of "spirituality" is very much real. I see people use the term nearly everyday. But, the underlying supernatural basis that "spirituality" suggests is not part of physical reality. Perhaps by real he is referring to the "well you just kinda intuitively know or feel it" type of real. He says our understanding of "spirituality" is beside the point, that living this "spirituality" is the whole point. Yet it seems to me that how one understands this "spirituality" is the point. Someone's beliefs/non beliefs regarding "spirituality" has a dramatic influence on how they view and live life. A person who believes in a vengeful god and heaven/hell will live a different life experience that an atheist. And how far can someone stretch the "spirituality" concept? I've started a new garden and I am in awe watching the plants grow, blossom and interact with insects. Is this sense of awe and appreciation a "spiritual" experience? I don't have belief in any supernatural influences on my garden. Based on the evidence, it seems like natural processes are occurring - there is no evidence of supernatural forces acting on my garden. So is my feeling of awe and appreciation for nature "spiritual"? Why not just leave it at awe and appreciation - why add in "spiritual" or the supernatural? If a support group helps a person through a difficult situation, why not leave it at that? Why add in that a god is working through the group?
Ernie also states: I think that I have some grasp of this in that I do find that my Higher Power seems to speak to me most often through others in my group at various meetings. Well, at least who wrote seems to speak. . . I know many people who casually attribute events to god without much thought "thank god, we missed hitting that deer in the road!, god is working in my life, let go let god, I was running late for a job interview and there was only one parking spot left . . ." Yet, if pressed I don't think many people would believe that an invisible being directly intervened and kept that parking spot open so Jack could make his interview on time". Yet, Ernie has thought through his beliefs about god and wrote a thoughtful article. He stated that he believes in a personal god that seems to talk to him through people at meetings. Is Ernie just saying this figuratively or literally? If so, believing that an imaginary friend speaks to you through other people is a psychosis. Really, an invisible being that alters people's minds and facial musculature to communicate ideas to you? I'm fine with someone who has delusional thoughts as long as they aren't hurting anyone. It's when these delusional thoughts move into politics, laws and raising children that I get concerned.
We
July 17, 2014 Authors' Corner, Fellowship
by Ernie K.
Alcoholics Anonymous is fellowship as well as program, and it is significant that the first word on WAFT, as in the Twelve Steps, is “We.”
No One is an Island
“We”: an acknowledgement of our ties with others. “No one is an island,” we all know. But how well do those who are “using” live that? Alcoholism is a lonely disease. Oh, sometimes especially introverts drank to feel more sociable, to feel that they “fit in” rather than standing uncomfortably on the edges of some social gathering. And then? At least in some cases the event would go on too long and one might get sloppy, or eventually retire home for some real “social drinking” and wake up on the floor or worse.
Getting Together
Friends? Pretty much out of necessity choosing those who drank pretty much the same way. Many good conversations, but rarely remembering what was said. Which was all right – you could have the same conversation the next evening, and the next. But so what? After all, “getting together” was not to talk or to listen but to drink. And God help any who tried to “help!” But “God” usually didn’t – unless in some form not very recognizable. More likely the doc or the judge, or sometimes, for the very fortunate, someone who was still able to love.
Spirituality
But then what? How did the drunk get from there to here, to something called “recovery?” According not only to Alcoholics Anonymous but to many serious students of alcoholism, essential to recovery is some form of “spirituality.” But what of those who have difficulty not so much with the term spirituality as with its so frequent association with various forms of religion? Well, for most, the understanding of that “spirituality” – the spirituality that allowed the drunk to become “an alcoholic” – evolved, changed over time. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, spirituality is “that which has a spiritual character” – fair enough, because the same source defines spiritual as “of or relating to, affecting or concerning, the spirit or higher moral qualities.” That, pretty much anyone can live with. Except, for some, for the baggage of their history, the story of a sad and often twisted experience.
Spiritual Experiences
Even before the dawn of Alcoholics Anonymous, many who were troubled by the devastation that some drinkers caused in their own lives as well as those of others thought that some sort of spiritual experience had to happen for an alcoholic to triumph over his (rarely her) drunkenness – only they usually called it a “religious” experience. And especially in the United States, there were just too many religions. Some thoughtful individuals, like the philosopher-psychologist William James, thought such experiences could be generic – not connected with any particular faith but the result of contact with some reality outside of and in some way larger than the self. For most people, that “power greater” or “higher power” is some transcendent being. Others, such as those in the 19th century termed “village atheists” and, more recently, the members of AAAgnostica and WAFT, find that power in some more immanent reality. Most in recent times have fortunately gotten past doorknobs, and find that power in “good orderly direction” or their AA group or the larger reality of Alcoholics Anonymous itself.
Transcendence
Observing all this as a longtime student of American religious/spiritual history, and immersed in it from my own experience with alcoholism and addiction, it seems to me that any/all spirituality can be summed up in two prepositions: beyond and between. Beyond: the first task of any spirituality is to help one escape being wrapped up in self: selfishness – self-centeredness! That, we think, is the root of our troubles.” The first definition of transcendence in the O.E.D. is “the action of surmounting, or rising above.” Fair enough: if we are going to live as fully human, we must escape, transcend, get beyond the narrow prison of self. The same source defines prison as “a place of captivity.” How accurate a description of alcoholism, of any addiction!
Trust and Confidence
Yet how comfortable that prison could be! One can get accustomed to the privations of addiction. The chemical is a faithful friend. Faithful. We can put our trust in it. The alcoholic knows what alcohol can do for her/him, for those feelings of emptiness or unease. Booze can be trusted. And that is what faith is: trust and confidence. We may not like to admit it, but we are all believers. And that belief is always in some kind of a higher power: the term “getting high” has layers of meaning. Belief is defined as “the mental action or habit of trusting or having confidence in a person or thing” – a pretty good description of how the active alcoholic relates to alcohol.
Transfer of Belief
In recovery we do not give up belief: we transfer it, and in that transfer is the dawn of spirituality. Most find a capitalized Higher Power, one Who transcends all ordinary reality, one customarily referred to as “God.” Others – may I call them “unconventional believers”? – do not make that discovery. Nor, usually, do they settle on some belief in doorknobs. And here is where the second preposition – between – comes in, for some find sufficient power greater than themselves horizontally, in others with whom they connect not in I-Thou or I-It relationships but as I-You, in a relationship of full equality. There are other such communities, but most find in their AA group, or in the larger reality of Alcoholics Anonymous itself, sufficient power to pull them beyond themselves and into some genuinely higher form of being than “getting high.” I am a conventional believer, but I think that I have some grasp of this in that I do find that my Higher Power seems to speak to me most often through others in my group at various meetings.
Understanding
Others, I know, posit their belief in the grandeur of nature, or the wonders of science, or the magnificence of a universe that so transcends our petty attempts to understand it. How one understands “spirituality” or “recovery” is beside the point. The point is that they are real, and that we live them, and that whatever may happen no one can take them away from us.
A We Program
My admiration for WAFT and AAAgnostica and any other such groupings that may exist of what I prefer to term “unconventional believers” is rooted in this conviction: the future of Alcoholics Anonymous lies with those who do not have an overly rigid understanding of their “Higher Power.” Those who are too sure of themselves, too sure about just about anything, are a plague on serenity. Here as in so many areas concerning our sober lives in the fellowship, the virtue of tolerance suggests that we “live and let live.” The A.A. Big Book suggests, as I recall, that “we have ceased fighting anything or anyone – even alcohol.” It is my hope and even tentative faith that, perhaps inspired by the example of WAFT and AAAgnostica, all members and even camp-followers of Alcoholics Anonymous put this into their daily practice – their daily living of spirituality. For we are a “we” program as well as fellowship.
**********************
Roger A
Jul 21 (22 hours ago)
Interesting article, thanks for posting Linda.
Ernie does seem to be advocating that an "unconventional belief" outside of monotheism can be sufficient for a sober life. This is much further than many in AA go, so I do appreciate that part and my sense is Ernie means well.
What strikes me is that Ernie tries bring together believers and nonbelievers by merging "conventional" and "unconventional" belief. Ernie is clearly referring to a personal god being for conventional belief. For "unconventional" beliefs he mentions beliefs in nature, science and community. Thus, he suggests bringing together beliefs in the supernatural with beliefs in the natural world. Yet, the same "belief" concept cannot be used for both groups. The "Coming to Believe" process is completely different, as are the beliefs themselves. Belief in the supernatural involves a faith in something that lacks justifiable evidence to support the claim - i.e. no demonstrable, reproducible evidence. There is a "leap of faith" from not knowing something to believing it must be a god. Believers quite often talk about how "they just feel it", or that they have been sober since turning it over to god, so god must be helping. Believers often have confirmation bias and see selected events as "god's work", "a miracle", or "a sign". Beliefs in nature, science and reality is a completely different process. Here, there is no leap of faith that involves attributing an unknown to god. As an example: hundreds of years ago, it was a mystery how a new human being is formed. The first microscopes revealed that an egg and sperm were involved, yet the process of early development was unknown. Theists took a "leap of faith" and claimed god put a tiny fully developed person in the sperm and that the egg served to provide nutrients for this tiny person. This was the prevailing view and there were many drawings of miniature people living inside sperm - with fully developed heads, arms, legs etc. There were those that did not believe this claim since it was not based on evidence. They too marveled at the mystery of early development and acknowledged they did not know how it occurred. Rather than taking a leap of faith into the supernatural, they took a systematic approach to gain a better understanding. They developed more sophisticated microscopes with higher resolution and conducted genetic crosses to test various hypotheses of how life begins. Based on demonstrative reproducible data, they came to believe both egg and sperm contribute to the formation of an early embryo. These two approaches are completely different and using the term "belief" for both is misleading.
The author goes on to state: "Others, I know, posit their belief in the grandeur of nature, or the wonders of science, or the magnificence of a universe that so transcends our petty attempts to understand it. " Here, the author uses lack of understanding to suggest an underlying basis for a supernatural Higher Power. That would be an argument from ignorance fallacy. "We Agnostics" in the Big Book is filled with this fallacy. Ernie mentions a belief in the "wonders of science". Does he mean the wonders of scientific discovery? Does he understand the scientific method? It is completely different from the faith-based method. I wonder what Ernie would think of a completely non-supernatural concept such as cause-and-effect for a Higher Power. Oh, and I have dedicated a large portion of my life to science and I have to laugh at his statement of "our petty attempts to understand it". Scientific discovery has made a far greater contribution to understanding the grandeur of nature than myths and superstition.
On a personal note, I spent many years deeply resentful of my father. I worked with a psychologist and read several self-help books with little progress. For me, the 4th, 5th and 9th steps led to a complete change of perception for me about my father and we have developed a close relationship. I had avoided doing amends to him for months, then one day he calls to tell me he is flying to Dallas and has a very long layover in Denver and perhaps we could meet. Was it "odd or god"?. The AA consensus was the god was working in my life and gave me this opportunity - although my Dad did travel around the country quite a bit on business. My father and I spoke openly for a couple hours. I spoke about the harms I caused the family and how I did not want to be that type of son going forward. My dad said he had some amends for me as well. . . After that, all the resentment, anger, regret was completely gone overnight. Many in AA said that "god was doing for me what I could not do for myself" and removed this from me. . . My change in perspective was a major paradigm shift for me and, to be honest, I did wonder how decades of deep-seeded anger and resentment vanished within hours - when all other efforts failed. I don't understand the physical basis of the change - perhaps my brain chemistry was altered after this experience. Yet, why go to a supernatural underlying cause? Why believe that a supernatural being coordinated my Dad's trip with my 9th step? Why believe that a supernatural being decided to remove that anger and resentment from within me? There is no evidence for that. Why not believe that certain actions and processes can lead to certain results? Having open/honest communication with someone, and being willing and interested in understanding their position, can lead to a change in perspective and greater empathy. Being evasive, dishonest and convinced someone else is wrong will led to a different outcome.
Ernie also states: How one understands “spirituality” or “recovery” is beside the point. The point is that they are real, and that we live them, and that whatever may happen no one can take them away from us. Not quite. The term "spirituality" is a vague term used in many different contexts. I have no idea what Ernie means by "spirituality". I really don't. It seems most people would consider "spirituality" to suggest the supernatural. In that case, it is not real, although the term and concepts of "spirituality" is very much real. I see people use the term nearly everyday. But, the underlying supernatural basis that "spirituality" suggests is not part of physical reality. Perhaps by real he is referring to the "well you just kinda intuitively know or feel it" type of real. He says our understanding of "spirituality" is beside the point, that living this "spirituality" is the whole point. Yet it seems to me that how one understands this "spirituality" is the point. Someone's beliefs/non beliefs regarding "spirituality" has a dramatic influence on how they view and live life. A person who believes in a vengeful god and heaven/hell will live a different life experience that an atheist. And how far can someone stretch the "spirituality" concept? I've started a new garden and I am in awe watching the plants grow, blossom and interact with insects. Is this sense of awe and appreciation a "spiritual" experience? I don't have belief in any supernatural influences on my garden. Based on the evidence, it seems like natural processes are occurring - there is no evidence of supernatural forces acting on my garden. So is my feeling of awe and appreciation for nature "spiritual"? Why not just leave it at awe and appreciation - why add in "spiritual" or the supernatural? If a support group helps a person through a difficult situation, why not leave it at that? Why add in that a god is working through the group?
Ernie also states: I think that I have some grasp of this in that I do find that my Higher Power seems to speak to me most often through others in my group at various meetings. Well, at least who wrote seems to speak. . . I know many people who casually attribute events to god without much thought "thank god, we missed hitting that deer in the road!, god is working in my life, let go let god, I was running late for a job interview and there was only one parking spot left . . ." Yet, if pressed I don't think many people would believe that an invisible being directly intervened and kept that parking spot open so Jack could make his interview on time". Yet, Ernie has thought through his beliefs about god and wrote a thoughtful article. He stated that he believes in a personal god that seems to talk to him through people at meetings. Is Ernie just saying this figuratively or literally? If so, believing that an imaginary friend speaks to you through other people is a psychosis. Really, an invisible being that alters people's minds and facial musculature to communicate ideas to you? I'm fine with someone who has delusional thoughts as long as they aren't hurting anyone. It's when these delusional thoughts move into politics, laws and raising children that I get concerned.
Laozi Old Man
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 6,665
Originally Posted by SoberJennie 
Roger A
"Yet, if pressed I don't think many people would believe that an invisible being directly intervened and kept that parking spot open so Jack could make his interview on time". Yet, Ernie has thought through his beliefs about god and wrote a thoughtful article. He stated that he believes in a personal god that seems to talk to him through people at meetings. Is Ernie just saying this figuratively or literally? If so, believing that an imaginary friend speaks to you through other people is a psychosis. Really, an invisible being that alters people's minds and facial musculature to communicate ideas to you? I'm fine with someone who has delusional thoughts as long as they aren't hurting anyone. It's when these delusional thoughts move into politics, laws and raising children that I get concerned.
Roger is speculating about an "experience" that he has never had. Ernie is sharing about an "experience" that he has lived through. The two shall not meet till both have had the same "experience".
Guest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 14,636
Or... perhaps Roger is sharing about his experience as well, Boleo.
Because I've not had an experience that someone else has had, does that mean my own experiences are any less authentic?
Roger sees that Ernie is making some generalizations and assumptions about the secular twelve steps community that he disagrees with, based on his own experience. And that is why he's bothered to reply.
Because I've not had an experience that someone else has had, does that mean my own experiences are any less authentic?
Roger sees that Ernie is making some generalizations and assumptions about the secular twelve steps community that he disagrees with, based on his own experience. And that is why he's bothered to reply.
Sober Alcoholic
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,539
I think that a large part of the difficulty that Roger has with Ernie's article centers around a word Roger introduces at the outset of his response to Ernie (but which Ernie never uses). It is the word 'supernatural'. He says that Kurtz "suggests bringing together beliefs in the supernatural with beliefs in the natural world".
It's hard to know exactly what Roger means by supernatural. At one point he uses the phrase "myths and superstition", but lets give him a little more credit, and lets assume he means 'outside of the natural order'. He says that "the same belief concept cannot be used for both groups". I wholeheartedly disagree. Just because we do not understand how something has happened does not mean that the event is outside the natural order of things. The word 'Supernatural' often becomes just a synonym for 'unbelievable'. In other words, an almost de facto justification for the dismissal of an idea.
Perhaps an example will help to illustrate. What would Roger say of the assertion that something can exist in two places at the same time? What would he say of the idea that we can make physical matter appear or disappear just by observing it, or not? If he has some basic scientific background in physics he might confirm that these things have been scientifically proven. Does that make these phenomenon fully explainable? No. Does that make them supernatural? Again, no.
Right now I'm sure a majority of people reading this are saying to themselves "two places at the same time? Sounds supernatural to me". The idea here is, just because something does not fit with how you see the world, or fit how you explain your world, does not make that phenomenon 'supernatural'.
If events (like a spiritual experience) don't fit with your theory of how things operate, then perhaps a more expansive model is in order, rather than the wholesale denial of the phenomenon.
It's hard to know exactly what Roger means by supernatural. At one point he uses the phrase "myths and superstition", but lets give him a little more credit, and lets assume he means 'outside of the natural order'. He says that "the same belief concept cannot be used for both groups". I wholeheartedly disagree. Just because we do not understand how something has happened does not mean that the event is outside the natural order of things. The word 'Supernatural' often becomes just a synonym for 'unbelievable'. In other words, an almost de facto justification for the dismissal of an idea.
Perhaps an example will help to illustrate. What would Roger say of the assertion that something can exist in two places at the same time? What would he say of the idea that we can make physical matter appear or disappear just by observing it, or not? If he has some basic scientific background in physics he might confirm that these things have been scientifically proven. Does that make these phenomenon fully explainable? No. Does that make them supernatural? Again, no.
Right now I'm sure a majority of people reading this are saying to themselves "two places at the same time? Sounds supernatural to me". The idea here is, just because something does not fit with how you see the world, or fit how you explain your world, does not make that phenomenon 'supernatural'.
If events (like a spiritual experience) don't fit with your theory of how things operate, then perhaps a more expansive model is in order, rather than the wholesale denial of the phenomenon.
Guest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 14,636
Boleo & Awuh: I'm always going to feel that your motives for posting in the secular part of the forum are suspect, since you're both openly spiritual. And you both push that agenda. That's fine. But, I wanted to say that for the benefit of anyone new coming into the secular forum.
My post wasn't intended to spark debate between spirituals and seculars. You've misunderstood, if you think that is the case.
I posted these articles for seculars. To help secular twelve steppers in their recovery. Reading secular interpretations of the spiritual always helps me when dealing with twelve steps based recovery.
My post wasn't intended to spark debate between spirituals and seculars. You've misunderstood, if you think that is the case.
I posted these articles for seculars. To help secular twelve steppers in their recovery. Reading secular interpretations of the spiritual always helps me when dealing with twelve steps based recovery.
Sober Alcoholic
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,539
I like what Maxwell Maltz had to say about motives. "Always assume that people have the best of intentions unless proven otherwise"
Your post made me examine mine, and, I'm pleased to report that I feel good about them. I do not 'push a spiritual agenda' i.e. any specific set of beliefs. My motives for posting are not to change anyone's mind about anything. They are simply to have people examine their beliefs. IMO someone who stays open minded, and is not too attached to "their" beliefs, can make adaptive adjustments in their life. When these adaptations are biased on a more accurate understanding of reality, they are quintessentially helpful.
I don't make it a secret that my beliefs have changed. Because of this I can relate quite a lot to what both Ernie and Rodger are saying. I have (more or less) held both of these two points of view.
An OP that introduces a topic which involves spiritual experiences, should not (IMO) have those same experiences off limits in a discussion. After all, both Ernie and Rodger mention them.
Your post made me examine mine, and, I'm pleased to report that I feel good about them. I do not 'push a spiritual agenda' i.e. any specific set of beliefs. My motives for posting are not to change anyone's mind about anything. They are simply to have people examine their beliefs. IMO someone who stays open minded, and is not too attached to "their" beliefs, can make adaptive adjustments in their life. When these adaptations are biased on a more accurate understanding of reality, they are quintessentially helpful.
I don't make it a secret that my beliefs have changed. Because of this I can relate quite a lot to what both Ernie and Rodger are saying. I have (more or less) held both of these two points of view.
An OP that introduces a topic which involves spiritual experiences, should not (IMO) have those same experiences off limits in a discussion. After all, both Ernie and Rodger mention them.
Laozi Old Man
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 6,665
Originally Posted by SoberJennie
Or... perhaps Roger is sharing about his experience as well, Boleo.
Because I've not had an experience that someone else has had, does that mean my own experiences are any less authentic?
Because I've not had an experience that someone else has had, does that mean my own experiences are any less authentic?
I assumed that my failure to have such experience was proof that such experiences were the result of peoples delusions. After living through several such spiritual experiences myself, I realized it was I who was delusional.
As far as my posting in the secular-12-step-forum goes, I am still looking for alternative 12-step ideas. My mind is not closed to alternate methods of recovery. My definition of secular is closer to wide-open beliefs.
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: canada
Posts: 7,242
Roger's response sounds to me like he's not understood or heard what Ernie is saying.
at all.
i see R arguing against something that hasn't been argued.
and i'm saying that with no stake in this.
Reading secular interpretations of the spiritual always helps me when dealing with twelve steps based recovery.
this is where, for me, the pretzel-twisting is. the original 12 steps are a spiritual path, which is different from a secular one. therefore, any secular 12 steps are by design different in and of themselves, and not a secular interpretation.
the spiritual cannot be interpreted in a secular way.
at all.
i see R arguing against something that hasn't been argued.
and i'm saying that with no stake in this.
Reading secular interpretations of the spiritual always helps me when dealing with twelve steps based recovery.
this is where, for me, the pretzel-twisting is. the original 12 steps are a spiritual path, which is different from a secular one. therefore, any secular 12 steps are by design different in and of themselves, and not a secular interpretation.
the spiritual cannot be interpreted in a secular way.
Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by fini
the original 12 steps are a spiritual path, which is different from a secular one. therefore, any secular 12 steps are by design different in and of themselves, and not a secular interpretation.
the spiritual cannot be interpreted in a secular way.
the spiritual cannot be interpreted in a secular way.
I think secular 12 step is it's own thing. AA is spiritual, and that is good. Secular 12 step is not AA lite or AA neutered. They are different.
This is why I don't go to AA forum and try to make like we work the same program.
When some AA people say "you can't do AA secular" I agree. I am not trying to do AA secular. I am doing a secular program.
When people say I can't do a secular 12 step, I say my years of sobriety disagree.
I am not trying to change AA.
Like you say, pretzel twisting. I find that a big waste of energy. Alcoholism is the issue, not which recovery program one uses.
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: canada
Posts: 7,242
Archelon,
yes, i see it the same way you do. but that took me years to get to.
secular 12 steps are fine, and are a program, of course, but not AA.
Jennie,
there are of course many definitions of 'spiritual', and i'm not into finetuning it. suffice it to say that for me spiritual and secular are qualitatively (not in the sense of better or worse) different dimensions. hm, ja, that's a concept which works for me. spiritual is (like) a dimension, the fifth i guess, and Roger's response is on a different level from Ernie's.
did you ever read "Flatland"?
i stumbled across it in a bookstore last year; never heard of it before.
you can read it here:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...71667212,d.cGE
yes, i see it the same way you do. but that took me years to get to.
secular 12 steps are fine, and are a program, of course, but not AA.
Jennie,
there are of course many definitions of 'spiritual', and i'm not into finetuning it. suffice it to say that for me spiritual and secular are qualitatively (not in the sense of better or worse) different dimensions. hm, ja, that's a concept which works for me. spiritual is (like) a dimension, the fifth i guess, and Roger's response is on a different level from Ernie's.
did you ever read "Flatland"?
i stumbled across it in a bookstore last year; never heard of it before.
you can read it here:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...71667212,d.cGE
Guest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 14,636
Requesting the thread be closed. Thanks. This obviously isn't reaching anyone who needs it and attracting those who want to argue. I'm disgusted by the secular forum here. I'll keep these thoughts to myself from now on.
Sent from my iPhone using SoberRecovery
Sent from my iPhone using SoberRecovery
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
