TimmyT

I have always struggled w/religion and spirituality, I suppose I always will....it doesn't mean I won't continue this journey, and look beyond myself for a greater understanding....I guess even though many say it isn't, and there are many catchphrases aimed @ the non-believer....I always viewed AA as religious oriented due to the writings of the BB and 12 & 12 .... there seems to be so many references to GOD as the writers understood him, with the occasional line thrown in for us who just aren't quite sure.....I read this following on an Agnostic AA website, and though I won't stray from traditional AA Recovery, it really hit where I am spirituality wise and gave me a greater understanding beyond what I interpret the BB and 12 & 12 to be saying.....thought I would share in case someone else is in the same situation when it comes to religion & spirituality, maybe it would help them as it has helped me.......



In recent years, the agnostic movement in AA has taken strength. Even though it is a small minority, many people are beginning to realize that AA is essentially an agnostic approach to recovery. What do we mean by agnostic? Any person who rejects a clearly defined notion of God could be termed agnostic. People who believe in a mystical god, people who reject the notion of a punishing God, and even people who do not believe in a higher power orchestrating the happenings of the universe--all these could be called agnostic. There is much diversity in the Agnostic approach. The agnostic movement is essentially a rebellion against authoritative religious beliefs.

AA in its essence is an anarchistic and agnostic group. There are no leaders, no authorities, no one handing down beliefs; you are invited to look at the steps that are suggested as a program for recovery. The fact that God is freely mentioned, in early AA literature should be seen as the writers struggling to name a certain sense they had-of something mystical, something transcendent-that they could appeal to for help.

The agnostic approach explores how such an appeal assists in recovery, without necessarily regarding this as proof of the existence of God. The agnostic approach protects the total freedom of the individual in defining to himself the notion of the transcendent. AA calls this, "a higher power of your own understanding." When AA talks about the necessity of believing in a higher power, the agnostic perspective on this is that connecting to a sense of the transcendent is an essential ingredient of recovery. But it does not imply the existence of any mystical forces in the universe.

Man, has a mind that is constantly chattering. This is the Conscious-Rational-Ego mind. This mind has debated the use of alcohol, has often declared its intention to stop drinking and has also often provided rationalizations for continuing to drink. This mind promises to stop drinking, generates apologies for despicable behavior, strategizes on how to lie to the boss and the family, schemes on how to generate money to continue drinking and so on. It participates in debates on whether we really need to stop drinking or simply to control drinking. It argues that we are not really alcoholic, but we just sometimes drink too much. This Conscious-Rational-Ego mind thinks it makes all the decisions; it thinks it is in charge here. This is what AA refers to as the Ego.

AA realizes that the decision to drink is often coming from much deeper than the Conscious-Rational-Ego mind. A person who had been sober for six months, suddenly finds himself drunk and is asked about it later. "What happened? You were doing so well?" He is at a loss to explain what happened. His Conscious-Rational-Ego mind hastens to come up with an exclamation, "Oh, I just thought I could take one drink. I was with some friends... etc.." This is coming from a person who has acknowledged repeatedly over the last six months that it is impossible for him to control even if it takes one drink.

The obvious conclusion is that the decision to drink came from somewhere deeper or higher than the Conscious-Rational-Ego mind. But this Conscious-Rational-Ego mind cannot accept that it is not in charge. The first step in the AA is the acknowledgment that the Conscious-Rational-Ego mind is powerless over alcohol.

Is there more to us than our Conscious-Rational-Ego mind? Certainly, a little contemplation will convince us that there are many processes and decisions that are made for us without even consulting the Conscious-Rational-Ego mind. An infant knows what to do without the benefit of rational thinking. Our likes and dislikes, our emotions, our fear of public speaking, who we instinctively attracted to (sexually or spiritually), our thirst for water or alcohol, our hunger-these are all governed by a higher level than our Conscious-Rational-Ego mind.

AA was one of the first programs to acknowledge that any human change has to occur at the level much deeper. If our Conscious-Rational-Ego mind was in charge, everyone would be eating exactly the way they wanted to, everyone would be precisely the weight that the Conscious-Rational-Ego mind decided was ideal, and everyone would be scrupulously following the exercise program that they had decided on.

Similarly, if the Conscious-Rational-Ego mind were in charge, nobody would get drunk except specifically in those instances that they set out to. If they decided they should quit alcohol, they would do so without needing any outside help. Experience has shown that the Conscious-Rational-Ego mind is not in charge when it comes to alcohol.

This understanding is what is behind the first two steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. The notion of powerlessness and the concept of a higher power should both be taken simply as statements about the power limitations of the Conscious-Rational-Ego mind. Nothing mysterious or magical needs to be read into this.

The agnostic approach is simply one that is rational and scientific and rejects mysterious and magical concepts. However, we will try and understand the role that belief in mysterious and magical forces may play in recovery from alcoholism. And we will explore how to tap into these without necessarily accepting that recovery involves magic.


Thanks,

TimmyT

Dee74

Welcome to the posting side of things Timmy

D

Threshold

Thanks for sharing this. Some food for thought.

The definition of the term agnostic used by the writer of this article is different from my understanding of the term.

I have never understood agnosticism as a movement, or a rebellion or a rejection.

I am glad the writer does define what their understanding of the term is.

Kensho

For me, an agnostic is just someone who says, "I don't know." But there are variations. A "strong agnostic" will say that it is impossible to know.

I have seen this breakdown as well:

Gnostic theism: the claim to know there is a god(s).

Agnostic theism: belief that there is a god(s), but without a claim of knowing so.

Agnostic atheism: belief that there are no gods, but without the claim of knowing so.

Gnostic atheism: the claim to know there are no gods.

Belief without claiming to know implies at least some subjective notion of probability.

There is also that tricky word "god". Conventionally, it refers to some supernatural being. But, the ancient stoics, for example, were pantheists, for whom "theos" referred to nature itself as a coherent, generative whole.

Johnston

As an agnostic, I simply reject atheism and faith, until either offer me concrete evidence. Even then I'll likely remain skeptical. As a geologist once remarked, "I believe nothing that I hear and only half of what I see".

Imabuleva

Agnosticism is not a middle ground between atheism and theism.

Theism deals with belief.

Gnosticism deals with knowledge.

Most theists are gnostic theists. Most atheists are agnostic atheists.

I don't drink because I'm an alcoholic. Similarly, most people that are allergic to peanuts don't eat peanuts.

wpainterw

TimmyT:
Your suggestion that a substantial amount of human behavior originates in, or is influenced by, portions of the brain which are more "primitive" than the cerebral cortex seem to be in accordance with much of current scientific thinking. I believe that it forms the basis of the Rational Recovery (AVRT) movement. Although that movement seems to reject AA and its notion of a "higher power", I am not convinced that the two approaches are entirely antithetical. Addiction results in delegating many behavior choices to the primitive or "lizard" brain. Recovery seeks to restore the balance and return behavior choices to the cerebral cortex. The usual meaning of "agnostic" is merely "I don't know". Atheism seems philosophically suspect in its attempt to prove a negative (i.e. "There is no God."). A more rational form of atheism is merely "I won't believe in a God unless someone convinces me that there is one."

W.

NoelleR

I've always liked these definitions of theist, agnostic, atheist.............:

A theist says, "God exists, and His existence can be proved."
An agnostic says, "God exists, but 'I don't know' if His existence can be proved."
An atheist says, "There is no god, and one can't prove a negative."

(o:
NoelleR

wpainterw

This definition of an "agnostic" seems to me controversial. I doubt that an agnostic says "God exists". He may say "It is possible that God exists but I don't know whether this is so."
Another problem is what is meant by the term "God". For example, is the Tao of Lao Tzu "God"? The Tao is more like a flow, a process, a force.
Finally, the concept of "exists" has been the topic of intense philosophical discussion. What is meant by saying that something "exists"? Does this mean that it is part of the "phenomenal" world (what we can see it, touch it, feel it, etc.)? Must our concept of god be as "existing" in such a world? Are there other possibilities?

W.

RobbyRobot

As an agnostic I know intelligently God's existence and power can't be proven or disproven. As a person of faith, I do believe a spiritual existence is workable as long as faith is the gatekeeper to that spiritual experience. There is nothing in the material world which can be used as proof of the existence of a spiritual world. Only faith can bridge past what our normal senses are able to work with in the physical world. Ironically, my faith in my faith proves itself, and this is a unique function of faith. Of course all proofs are entirely subjective, and this is reasonable since my faith originates subjectively anyways.

Interesting discussion.

Zencat

As a freethinker I have no problem working the AA program. I know I do not need to believe as the authors of the BB believed to work the steps through. "as I understand Him" can mean literally anything. I choose no conception of God and that works.

sugarbear1

maybe just stop insisting there is no god

Ncognito13

I'm agnostic. I believe in God, but don't feel he has any specific religion. He's past that. Just my opinion, he does not want praises or songs, he simply is.