Translating the steps for a secular audience.

I can't claim to be an expert, so by no means is my opinion an authority, but after a little research, a secular version of the step I found was "Were ready to accept help in letting go of all our defects of character." Hence, to me it fits in by finding an outside authority for support and accountability. Perhaps, that's a misinterpretation due to my lack of knowledge about the 12 steps.

That said, as an agnostic and person with an interest in the field of counseling, the 12 steps simply don't resonate with me. I'd be interested to see how you translate them for a secular audience, but from my perspective, the steps seem to put too much focus on a higher power, and if you don't believe in a divine power, it requires you to put a lot of faith into a program. I know that program is effective for some people, but outside studies question its effectiveness, and even an effective program doesn't merit the faith one would put into a higher power.

However, I think it's important to remember that the insight and experiences you provide on here don't have to cater to everyone. While I think it's considerate that you are trying to do so, the 12 step program won't work for everyone, someone will pick it apart, and others might be outright offended by it. That doesn't mean it's not helpful or that you shouldn't share. It's a tool that might help some people and not help others. I don't think it will translate well to those with atheist or agnostic beliefs, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't put it out there for those it might help.

I think recovery has to be based around a person's motivation, experiences, and strengths. One program isn't going to do that, but it can't hurt to put it out there for those it might help. The policy doesn't forbid religious content for those it might help; it's just not the official stance of the website.

 

Have you ever hoped for something to happen? What were you calling upon to make that thing happen? Did you actually think hoping for something would affect the outcome? If yes, how?

I have done this step. Would comment on the religious part, but keeping it secular.

 

I'm always surprised when I see this issue come up. I don't intend to make this a debate about spiritual beliefs, so please don't feel like I'm bashing anyone here. I just think that there needs to be a higher power for life to have transcendent meaning. If life had no meaning, there would be no point in trying to recover ... if life has no meaning, I'd just as soon live a hedonistic life and enjoy as much pleasure as possible before I die and cease to exist, you know? I believe life does have transcendent meaning, but I also believe that's due to a higher power who gave it meaning.

Anyway ...

If I were to describe the 6th step to an atheist/agnostic, I'd probably talk about the importance of being willing to 'let go' of character defects, instead of asking God to remove them. Even as a Christian, I know that God tends not to remove things we're holding on tightly to--so I have to open my hand surrender my bitterness, my entitlement, my envy, etc. etc. An atheist can surrender those things as well.

I could never directly remove any mention of God in a direct translation. Far be it from me to remove the name of God from anything. But if I were describing it in person, I'd say, "were entirely ready to surrender these defects of character." And then Step 7 would be, "humbly surrendered our shortcomings." Of course, the question would then become, "okay, so how do I surrender them?"--which is a fair question, and one I don't really know how to answer. Addicts who have a higher power have a less abstract 7th step.

 

David Foster Wallace puts forward some interesting perspectives on this issue in his novel 'Infinite Jest' that deals at great length (and depth) with addiction in many forms. Well worth a read, and with all that time freed up from no more PMO, there should be enough time for fapstronaughts to really get stuck into it.

 

I'm no expert either but as an agnostic myself I think of "God" as the higher consciousness within. I have had the experience of a higher wisdom inside myself. For some people that may be "God" or "the Holy Ghost" or "the soul" or something else. For me it's based in neuroscience. There are areas of the brain associated with wisdom.

 

You could read this, to a secular audience, as a breaking out of the ego. A lot of the time, it's the insecurities and anxieties of our own ego that entangles us in addictive behavior [near all modern society is based on fear and addictive behavior]. The ego protects itself from the greater reality, by insulating itself in an illusory one it constructs.

Philosophy and poetry can provide a 'halfway house' of sorts which people of various beliefs can agree on in virtue of a common humanity. As for science, not so sure for it is tied up in the ego game - it is the obvious illusion that paints itself as reality.

I wonder if we need a program of mass re-education, as most people are hardly coping these days. But mass education is an oxymoron - education involves being led out of the mass.

 

I agree. It's not just the 6th step, it's the whole thing. I continue to break my bad habits one by one because I choose not to be powerless. Because I believe that I am powerful, I managed to stop both my video game addiction and nicotine addiction. If someone made me admit that I'm powerless, I wouldn't be able to do that.

 

There seems to be a sense in which this is both true and not true. I mean, yes, we need to gain a sense of power over our baser instincts, a sense of self-mastery. And yet, this most often comes, if you read the literature, from the recognition of a moral sphere where some things are thought to be worthy, good , just, etc in themselves. Like a great chain of being or something. Sadly, the resources of a whole superstructure of thought seems to be unavailable to the contemporary mind today - it's like there's a conspiracy against it or something.

Given the cultural and moral holocaust we are facing, expect to see the masses falling further victim to all manner of addictions.

 

I wasn't going to make comment on it, but since Lupus S and Buzz Lightyear made comments, I think it really is worth examining that the entire 12 step process isn't going to be too effective for a lot of secular people. As mentioned, some secular people may have the belief that some things are innately moral or immoral, and it may be helpful for them, but I would speculate that this doesn't apply to a majority of secular individuals who are here.

Without going into each of my personal grievances with the program, I think the steps are very much a combination of a motivation and a method. If you subscribe to the motivation, the method might be great, but if you don't, it all seems superficial. I think for it to be effective, you have to believe that PMO is some moral shortcoming. However, I'd imagine most secular individuals are seeking a prudent path as opposed to a moral one. The only steps that don't mention morality or a higher power are the ones about making amends. In some cases amends might be a prudent step to take, but in others they will bring about more pain for other parties just to bring a clean conscious to the offender. Hence, when I look at those steps, I don't see how they could be remotely useful for me.

However, circling back around to my original point, there are a lot of people who's ideas about PMO might make this system work for them, so please share. I wouldn't worry too much about reaching those with different systems of thought because they can always find a different way.