(May 23, 2015 at 10:13 am)vorlon13 Wrote: In the 12 Step orbit it is generally (but not universally) better if the alcoholic/addict does not attribute success in their continued abstinence to themselves. If/when they do, there is a general (but not universal) tendency to form the destructive idea that since they are developing control over their addiction, they can resume using their drug of choice, and this time, be able to control their usage.
As it turns out, that doesn't work.
So, we have the necessary fiction of a Higher Power, and if not for the serious life/death consequences of addiction, it would be humorous to go over some of the wacky Higher Power concepts I have heard over the years.
I am still of the opinion that some people are better off believing, but is there evidence of that particular claim, or is it one of the AA's own dubious massaged statistics? I don't see how believing that you abstained because of God should be less likely to lead to confidence that you can partake moderately than believing that you did it without God. Wouldn't believers be prone to thinking that God will continue to help them resist excess if they resume moderate use?
"Faith is a state of openness or trust. To have faith is like when you trust yourself to the water. You don't grab hold of the water when you swim, because if you do you will become stiff and tight in the water, and sink. You have to relax, and the attitude of faith is the very opposite of clinging, and holding on. In other words, a person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe becomes a person who has no faith at all. Instead they are holding tight. But the attitude of faith is to let go, and become open to truth, whatever it might turn out to be."
Alan Watts
Alan Watts
