Michael66

Hi Mr Tumble

Love, mercy, justice, compassion and beauty are not scientific facts, yet are still truths.

I have spent nearly 30 years in scientific research. I love science - it is both my profession and my hobby, but I do see a problem if the purview of science is not properly understood. If I wish to analyse sound waves I will call a scientist. If I wish to hear the beauty of music I'll call a musician. A modern "myth", it seems, is that truth belongs only to science. The poet, the musician, the artist and the faithful know otherwise

MrTumble

I expect biology can adequately explain love, our drive for reproduction of the species is likely behind our desire to make others happy with music and poetry, much as a peacock plumes his tail feathers

My point being that a higher power is mere speculation, there is no divine right for the rest of us to belive in such a high power, or to use such a concept as the only means we can remain sober...

In a bit of a rush but great to have such a discussion excuse any typos above...

Michael66

I expect when you are in love you'll see that poets have as much to say, if not more than, biologists, Mr Tumble. I would also say that love is not just about reproduction - it is about charity and caring even for those who no longer offer anything advantageous to society. We don't have to reproduce with everyone we love - thank God

I once sought answers in science for everything - but ultimately I found it falls short in lots of areas of 'real life'. It seems to me that to look to science for all things is akin to opening a mechanics manual hoping to learn how to play the violin. Science is great, but if our vision is limited only to science then we'll miss out on so much about what it is to be human. I'd also take issue with your view of scientific 'fact'. Working in science I would say we are much more about developing models (or paradigms as Kuhn called them). Maybe sixty years ago the Big Bang would have been seen as 'fact'. Now we have a somewhat different view - back then the model was of an exploding universe filling more and more space. Now the model is that space itself was expanding outwards - and space is moving from high to low density, from hot to cold, from low to high entropy (until entropy can change no more and time, in essence, stops. Roger Penrose then suggests that recreates the singularity which gives birth to a new universe, so we may have the universe recreating itself). Scientific 'fact' changes - though I would rather say that our paradigms change. The same might be said of spiritual thought as well - like science, the faithful grasp at something that ultimately will always be beyond them. But, as with science, that does not stop us being able to say something of non-material life - love, compassion, mercy, beauty. Perhaps we can be too dogmatic about both science and faith, though we may also be wary of the other extreme in thinking we can never have anything useful to say.

As for Higher Power being speculation. To some extent, yes. But not unreasonable speculation, I would say. Philosophers have used reason and logic (immaterial things themselves of course, unprovable by science as science presupposes them) to suggest that belief in God is reasonable. Have a look here if your are interested in some reasoned arguments for God, though I am more with C.S.Lewis who recognised that all societies have had a sense of the numinous , and it is that personal experience of the sense of the divine that drives most faithful. I know few people who are converted by arguments for God, but I know many people who become aware of their own sense of the presence of God; that seems common across the faiths.

As for sobriety - I totally agree with you. I wouldn't say everyone must be forced down one route. My response to Eco was simply that he(she?) would ultimately resent AA if they wanted AA to be different from what it is. As with all movements there are bound to be a few who see AA as the 'only' way, but I can also understand the strong attachment we all have to what helped us escape the strong clutches of addiction. Thankfully sobriety is not a competitive sport and we can all, hopefully, rejoice in whatever way people have embraced the sober life.

One last thought - I can see both theistic and atheistic paradigms that are internally self-consistent (though I would still be wary of trying to look to science to answer all about what it is to be human, and how we should therefore act). I would say, even, that both have something to offer. I have lived in both paradigms. From within one paradigm it is easy to throw rocks at the other on the basis of the unproven and unprovable presuppositions of our "home" paradigm (other people's presuppositions are always more obvious to us than our own are). Accepting that these different paradigms exist, it is perhaps more profitable to meet each other where we can - the Quakers would say that is in silence (words often divide where silence can unite at a level we experience but cannot always explain; the Quakers unite theists and agnostics), and Pope Francis recently suggested that the atheist and theist meet at the level of helping others - finding something in common in our shared humanity and caring for others.

Anyways, I've rambled on. Sorry if that's taken the thread too far off-topic. As a scientist and a man of faith (and, admittedly, a man of doubt at times) I do enjoy when the two topics come together.

Peace be with you, Mr Tumble. Hope you are having a great day.

ru12

I think the point here isn't if it is a scientific fact that a higher power exists: I think most even ardent believers will concede that they cannot prove a higher power is there: but rather if it is indeed good and decent behavior to go somewhere where people hold dear the higher power concept and to tell them how wrong they are. From my limited and somewhat jaundiced experience with AA, I can say most people there are willing to spend their time trying to help you get sober. And since they got sober via AA and it worked for them, that is what they are going to share.

Soberpotamus

Excellent post, Michael. Thanks for putting that much time and energy into this discussion. It's helped me, as I'm interested very much in the intersection of science and faith as well. This is a timely post.

rAAt

I guess it will take a while to get to the point where "we became willing to listen as only the dying can be' Horrible place to be in a dry drunk eco, and that is heartfelt with no judgment on my behalf. I was told to keep an open mind - no one I know came willingly to AA. and those that do we usualy point them towards alanon - great program 12 steps and you can drink too!

eco

Hi everyone, and thanks for the great suggestions. It's not that I criticized anyone at all. What typically happens is that I would attend a meeting for several weeks and then someone would come up to me any try to hook me up with a sponsor and asked me if I was serious about the steps. Sometimes they would be VERY pushy. I probably seem passive which doesn't help in these situations.

Then I would say I do not want to work the steps and I just want to attend and socialize. And, in a couple of annoying cases they would go on and literally threaten me. "You'll work the steps when the pain gets bad enough, or how do you know you don't believe in god unless you try it."

Other than that, I would never talk, or at least never talk about the steps and people would ask me why. I never criticized anyone, but people criticized me.

I probably just need to deal with a few members better than I had in the past. I see several people at AA think like I do. Only 1 or 2 people made problems, but it was very annoying.

I am also trying the sober meetup groups. I think that was a great idea. I am in Washington, DC, and there are several groups and I am in a counseling program. My first counselor was telling me I should get religious if I really want to get sober, but my new counselor is more tolerant and told me about SMART. I'll see how it goes.

Louise82

Hold the phone. AA have ice cream socials? Not in London they don't. But that's probably because of the "great" British weather.

sugarbear1

Not sure if you can get to Gaithersburg on a Wednesday evening, but there is a SMART meeting up this way around 7:30. Private message me and I'll look into it if you want.

I do go to a yearly ice cream social at a friend's home. It's an open house and it's all home made ice cream.....an ice cream lover like me can't get enough!!

Louise82

And now you're just trying to deliberately make me jealous, aren't you?

Nuudawn

I just wanted to say..I believe in both God and the story of Christ. I also believe people are entitled to their own beliefs, values and principles.In truth, my biggest issue with Christianity, although I resonate with its message, is that I believe that message of love can be found in other faiths...not just Christianity. I am secure in my beliefs therefore I am not threatened or offended by MrT's opinion. I'm glad he has the freedom to state it. I did not feel his position was on of attack....nor really disrespectful. I love a lively discussion and will listen to any even if the opinion differs from mine. Just my two pennies...

Drexo

Hi eco! Welcome to SR

You might find this video interesting:
Secular and Sober: Beating Alcoholism Without AA - YouTube

tomsteve

" I never criticized anyone, but people criticized me. "

but yer criticizing now, aren't you?

" I probably seem passive which doesn't help in these situations."
"I probably just need to deal with a few members better than I had in the past."
the program would help in both instances.

there's 2 reasons why people are approaching you the way they are:
carrying the message of AA to the next alcoholic
its a spiritual program,not dogmatic.

dogmatic:Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles


D.C. has a whole lot of options other that AA for ya,too. dotn be afraid to look into them.

Michael66

Sorry if this is off-topic Nuudawn, but I'd I'd just like to say that Jesus himself taught those that were "his" people were those who did what he taught and exemplified (loving God, loving neighbour) even when they didn't know they were following him. At least, that is how I interpret the Sheep and Goats. People meet 'in Christ' when they love God and neighbour, IMO. I would say Paul echos the same message in his own sermon on Mars Hill, when he proclaimed the fulfillment of their previous worship to a God they did not know. Where both Jesus and Paul seemed to have a big problem was with those who knowing rejected Jesus and all that he stood for. I have often found a great respect and fondness for our Lord in other faiths, though as a Christian I would say "if you like him now, just wait until you fully grasp who he is and what he did for you"

Anyway, just wanted to say that I don't believe Christians need to feel they can't acknowledge where there is truth and love in other faiths.

My own church says "The Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

We are all (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc) made in the image and likeness of God. When we look at another we are looking at a reflection of God, though we're far from perfect in our reflecting. We can't say "he/she has no goodness", IMO, as we would be failing to notice the imago Dei in every human.

Threshold

eco, a few thoughts.

The steps aren't the ideas of one person. They are pretty much the same spiritual wisdom that has been "discovered" by people over and over again through the ages, written down in a 12 step form. People keep returning to it because for many people it works, because many people have the same sort of psychological needs. Just throwing that in so that people don't think Bill W was some sort of guru who is worthy of cult worship. He was a guy who found these age old principles helped him free himself from alcoholism and he wanted to share the gift.

Right from the get go AA announces itself as a spiritual program and that people opposed to spirituality and aren't open minded and willing when it comes to the steps...aren't going to get anywhere with the steps. Not that they can't become sober...but that the 12 steps can't work for them, if they are not open to working them. No harm, no foul.

Anyone is welcome to attend meetings, so it's fine to use it as a support group in that manner, but it is what it is...a group of people using 12 spiritual steps to get free of alcoholism, so yes, it IS going to be what is supported and taught by the group. Again, no harm no foul, but don't expect to learn French in a Spanish class.

Many atheists and agnostics do get clean in AA. I use 12 steps but not AA.

I'm a Pantheist, and my HP is not anything supernatural because I don't work with the concept of supernatural.

There are a LOT of 12 step groups that use the principles but different slants and "language" some that are not "spiritual" at all. It IS hard to find local groups for most of those unless you are in a major metropolitan area, but many have online communities.

If the 12 steps are very bothersome to you, I'd hook up with a different angle to address sobriety. It's way more beneficial if you can put your time and energy into addressing addiction/sobriety than having to swallow down or push past resentments all the time.

I had my own issues with AA...and they were MINE alone (not any failing of AA) that caused me to choose other 12 step versions...because I realized I was constantly arguing language etc in my own head and unable to focus on the steps and principles. Once I found a program that I wasn't fighting with, things went much more smoothly.

Lifewillgetbet

I was not going to AA for the same reasons. I replaced GOD with Good Orderly Direction, and it works.
It took me awhile to find my Higher Power but AA works if you work the steps and work the program.

MrTumble

As a man of science, you should be aware that our understanding of all around us is far from complete, but let me ask you this, if you were sick, and you had a choice of 2 doctors, one who says you will be cured with the help of a higher power, or another who says lets make some tests to diagnose the problem and then treat it accordingly with drugs that have been systematically tested and know to offer a cure... which route will you take and why?

on that same basis, do you think love is the result of a higher power and mystic mumbo-jumbo? or is it possibly something that can eventually be explained through science and possibly reproduced on demand, in something known as an experiment?

Biological basis of love - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael66

Hi Mr Tumble

On your first point you have fallen into the trap of believing in the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy - where you set two non-contradictory and non-exclusive possibilities against each other. It's very simple - if I am ill I go to the doctor, I pray, and I ask other people to pray for me. They are not, in logic, antonymic pairs - which are pairs where only one can be true (such as there being a God or there not being a God). My first instinct if ill, though, is always to pray - but not necessarily for cures; we all age and get ill and maybe even illness has something to teach us.

On the second, no - science is objective and not subjective, and it will always miss being able to communicate love in the same way as music, literature, art or poetry which explore love from the subjective angle. But again you may be trying to force another false dichotomy - I am very happy that science will be able to inform us about love, but I am not a believer that science tells us everything about love. Such scientism misses out on on so many ways of knowing that fall outside of the purview of science. I have found a much richer experience embracing both scientific and non-scientific epistimologies, and in fact I don't know anyone who really believes they can rely only on science for everything (you'd have a devil of a job setting up a legal system or a government based only on what is known by science, for example).

Our understanding through science will always be incomplete - we have, after all, finite intelligence. It will also be changing as paradigms change. If you think today's science is absolute truth then you've almost certainly embraced error. Science provides useful models; science is not truth itself. As is said in science, all models are wrong, but some may be useful. Did you know that Ptolomy's model of the solar system actually had better predictive power than Copernicus's, which is why Ptolomy's model persisted for so long. Then Copernicus's model was refined with Newtonian understanding and became the standard model of the solar system. Then in 1919 Arthur Eddington confirmed Einstein's model of cosmology. Ptolomy, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein - four paradigms. I imagine only a brave person would think that we won't have another paradigm shift in understanding planetary motion. The Kuhnian view is that each paradigm is opposed, then welcomed, and then slowly little bits of evidence chip away at the new paradigm, not quite fitting, until someone comes up with another model, and so the paradigms change. None "truth" itself, all models of truth. That, in my experience, is the best way to understand science. Physics has gone through multiple paradigm shifts - which is why few physicists are dogmatic. Biology has really only gone through one major one so far which may well explain why biologists (and I am one of them) can tend to be more dogmatic and polemical than their physicist brothers and sisters.

But why try to force all knowing and understanding into science? Why not accept science for what it is - great for exploring many aspects of natural life, but absolutely rubbish for determining what is the right way to live, or determining what it outside the realm of the natural (few scientists, for example, believe science can tell us what caused the universe; as the cause must logically be outside of the universe). In all my scientific work I have never come across anyone who really thinks science can explore whether God exists or not - the science is the same with or without a God. I do my science with faith in God. An atheist will do science believing there is no God. Our science is the same. Indeed, as I'm sure you'll know, the first scientists were driven by a desire to understand God's creation better. Science looks at nature and not the author, though there is a field of "natural theology" which looks to see if we can learn anything about the creator from the creation.

wiscsober

I am agnostic...I do not pray the serenity prayer, step prayers, nor Lord's prayer.

My HP is what is shared among the members, hope, happiness, love, kindness, sobriety, goodwill, etc.

The AA fellowship is the member(s)

The AA program is the steps and traditions

The only requirement is a willingness to stop drinking....there is no requirement to work the steps nor obey the traditions...all suggested...but highly suggested

A simplified format of the steps is what Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob Smith worked together in a day or two...and AA soon started

Many many people attend AA some for a very long time without working the steps.

But just attending meetings doesn't guarantee sobriety...maybe being a dry drunk

For me only by working all of the steps and continually try to carry the message to the alcoholic who still suffers do I live a completely and wholly sober life.

awuh1

I am not threatened nor offended by MrT’s opinion either. It’s not his opinion that is objectionable; it is his use of language that denigrates the beliefs of others.

It is when he uses language such as “mystic mumbo-jumbo” and says "higher power" falls into the same category (as) the Jedi "Force" that he becomes disrespectful to those whose beliefs are at odds with his own. I do find this disrespectful.

I think there is a common thread between the views of people the OP referred to in his original post (the ones who told him he was “doomed to fail” if his beliefs were at odds with theirs) and MrT’s. What they both have in common is a lack of tolerance for the views of others.

It is at odds with the spirit of AA, and reminds me of a quote by one of the AA founders who stated ” Tolerance furnishes, as a by-product, a greater freedom from the tendency to cling to preconceived ideas and stubbornly adhered-to opinions. In other words, it often promotes an open-mindedness that is vastly important – is, in fact, a prerequisite to the successful termination of any line of search, whether it be scientific or spiritual.”