wungchow -
Let’s not be ignorant shall we? (and I'm not calling you ignorant) It is a well known custom to refer to some sort of god, as a “higher power”, in a religious belief. No where else. If you are ‘required’ to use a concept of a higher power, then such requirement is coercion. Strictly speaking why is such a concept needed? How is it used? If someone chooses a doorknob as a higher power (something that truly is NOT a higher power than yourself), then how does that help them?
Personally I would think that taking the power which should be arrogated to ones own will, and surrendering it to some unidentified ‘higher power’ that can be anywhere or anything, behind some veil of nature (or ignorance), is teaching one not to rely on their own ability to defeat an addiction. Isn’t that why they are addicted in the first place (since we are in the realm of philosophy here)?... because they surrendered to a power outside of themselves (the drug)?
A theist will not have as much a problem with any concept of a higher power, whereas an atheist will. For an atheist (a minority, I’m sure, in lieu of successful statistics for these programs), the belief in him/her self as possessing the power to overcome an addiction may work better (and quite honestly makes more sense). These programs ARE a coercion of an ideal, a dogma of sorts, with that respect… to teach people to rely on some higher power, outside of themselves. Still, no one is implying that someone will coerce another to believe in anything, the coercion is through being made to attend, at which time the individual is attempted to be transformed by the ideology of another through philosophy, and dare I say, reasoning (the same as any Christian or other religion already does).
Now… if you tell me that the requirement in all of these programs allow picking ones self as the higher power, then I have no further argument on that matter. Otherwise… you can defend something that you claim helped you all you want, but that doesn’t change the nature of the fact.
Let’s not be ignorant shall we? (and I'm not calling you ignorant) It is a well known custom to refer to some sort of god, as a “higher power”, in a religious belief. No where else. If you are ‘required’ to use a concept of a higher power, then such requirement is coercion. Strictly speaking why is such a concept needed? How is it used? If someone chooses a doorknob as a higher power (something that truly is NOT a higher power than yourself), then how does that help them?
Personally I would think that taking the power which should be arrogated to ones own will, and surrendering it to some unidentified ‘higher power’ that can be anywhere or anything, behind some veil of nature (or ignorance), is teaching one not to rely on their own ability to defeat an addiction. Isn’t that why they are addicted in the first place (since we are in the realm of philosophy here)?... because they surrendered to a power outside of themselves (the drug)?
A theist will not have as much a problem with any concept of a higher power, whereas an atheist will. For an atheist (a minority, I’m sure, in lieu of successful statistics for these programs), the belief in him/her self as possessing the power to overcome an addiction may work better (and quite honestly makes more sense). These programs ARE a coercion of an ideal, a dogma of sorts, with that respect… to teach people to rely on some higher power, outside of themselves. Still, no one is implying that someone will coerce another to believe in anything, the coercion is through being made to attend, at which time the individual is attempted to be transformed by the ideology of another through philosophy, and dare I say, reasoning (the same as any Christian or other religion already does).
Now… if you tell me that the requirement in all of these programs allow picking ones self as the higher power, then I have no further argument on that matter. Otherwise… you can defend something that you claim helped you all you want, but that doesn’t change the nature of the fact.
Last edited:
