That is, I don't believe it is possible that you've had real world experience with alcoholics, because if you had, it would be obvious why it doesn't work the way you are asking about. Some addictions are just too powerful. It is not a matter of having failed to treat the root cause. It's a matter of acknowledging that, for some people, the only solution to alcohol is not to consume any. It doesn't mean they don't also try to treat and understand deeper emotional reasons for their drinking.
[1]: https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2025/08/addiction-sci...
[2]: https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/35742-newly-discovered-brai...
This is where religion reflects cultural technology that gets lost in the secular translation.
Secularists vastly overestimate man’s control over himself and his world. Most people lack the impulse control to partake in their vices responsibly. That’s why most Americans are fat. We have a world surrounded by temptation—snacks available everywhere—and we tell people to partake responsibly but they can’t do that. Most people don’t have that same relationship with alcohol or cigarettes, but for the many people who do it’s unrealistic for them to think they can just drink responsibly.
I'd prefer if you didn't generalize here, especially since there is no "secularist bible" that lays out what "secularists" believe (or do not believe).
“X believes Y ” almost invariably just means “I think most X I’ve come across seem to believe something like Y”. Read it as such.
There are also other books written by both lay authors and those with theological credentials that seek to describe what a "good" Christian should believe and do, though to be fair, none of them are universal across the Christian faith (*).
No such work exists for "secularists".
(*) though fair enough, even "The Bible" doesn't entirely meet that standard given disagreements between both the high level denominations (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) and the subdivisions within each.
Because the Bible is not a single book but a complex arrangement of at least 66 books (Roman Catholic Bibles include another seven books that Protestants do not recognize) written over many years by multiple authors, the question concerning versions can be complicated.
One major division is stems from Old Testament versions; Roman Catholic Bibles are all derived from the Septuagint version (3rd Century BC translation of original Hebrew scriptures into Koine Greek) of the Old Testament, whereas Protestant Bibles returned to the original Hebrew texts.
There are over 450 known versions of the Bible in English alone.
While there are estimates of several thousand distinct christian dennominations, the *major* categories are Catholic (50.1%), Protestant (36.7%), Orthodox, including Eastern and Oriental communions (11.9%), Other (1.30%).
I don't mean to nitpick, I grew up in one of the last "remote areas" of the planet and we were inundated with missionaries (when listed (now not) we had at least a hundred different types of christian mission here) that all had beliefs that only superficially appeared similar.
One wing of my larger extended family is fractured by a run of Christian brothers and sisters all raised catholic, all with military service, and all progressing to different barely compatible denominations and scarcely talking since.
> No such work exists for "secularists".
Secularists also have at least 66 books to draw on for morals, ethics, and common human values. It's debatable whether a book is even required to act with cooperation and respect with most others.
That’s about all you can say about the accuracy of the bible in describing what Christians believe.
For instance saying “Christians believe in killing men that have sex with menstruating women” is pretty ridiculous.
Most American denominations do not treat food as sinful, so the prevalence of fat religious Americans isn't a rebuttal to my point. If you look at denomations that do, the statistics are quite remarkable. Mormonism, for example, is a remarkable cultural technology: https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves....
Another example would be New England congregationalists, who have an ethos that "food is for fuel, not for enjoyment." We have many retirees from that demographic in my town and they're all unusually thin and healthy.
Utah is also ranked #1 in upward mobility in the country: https://www.archbridgeinstitute.org/social-mobility-in-the-5....
So healthier, happier, and with more economic opportunities. All from a group of religious minorities who live in a desert with no natural resources. Quite remarkable.
Almost as remarkable as your ability to completely invent something, and then present as a fact. It is similar to how you claimed Trump has a concrete policy of abandoning unfounded foreign policy engagements 2 weeks before he invaded Venezuela on charges the DOJ now admits were fake [0].
The state itself debunks your claim, from geology.utah.gov: "Utah has abundant and diverse energy resources including conventional fossil fuels, unconventional oil shale and oil sand resources, and areas suitable for renewable resource development" [1].
Site selection magazine also disagrees [2].
Utah Business disagrees, too, specifically: "Utah is blessed with abundant natural resources, many of which have played a critical role in shaping our economy" [3].
Another one: "In 2019, Utah remained one of the top 10 U.S. states for metals and industrial minerals production, with continued active exploration" [4].
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/05/us/trump-venezuela-drug-c...
[1] https://geology.utah.gov/energy-minerals/
[2] https://siteselection.com/got-minerals/
[3] https://www.utahbusiness.com/thought-leadership/2023/07/17/u...
[4] https://naturalresources.utah.gov/dnr-newsfeed/utah-one-of-t...
eg. and on the record
* https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/02/child-migran...
* https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-studies/ca...
* https://kelsolawyers.com/au/paedophile_offenders/brother-kea...
Still, I concede your point that buggery and physical child abuse at an industrial scale isn't especially creative and just the usual dull grind played out again and again.
I would imagine that if there was a drug that removed the addictive desire for alcohol (and/or some other drugs, perhaps), all of us would know its name.
We certainly have drugs that can almost immediately terminate the effect of, for example, opiates, but that has nothing to do with ending addiction to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disulfiram
I learned about it on Reddit while clicking the (now removed) "random subreddit" button. I believe it was this subreddit:
Life is hard. People fall back on bad habits and many won’t even realize that it’s happening until it their life is in ruins. If that has happened to you there are often no more second chances.
So for some they may be able to recover and have a drink every now and then. However, if your life has become upside down enough to enter a 12-step program, it’s often because there were no other options.
You say that as if it's obviously true. Not even a hint at an argument for it. Nor a mention of what you consider the actual root issue.
For some people the root problem is simply that their biological reward/motivation system with regards to a substance is just too much. If they drink they can't stop drinking and there's no deeper issue to solve and no cure besides abstinence.
Very few people can get high on heroin or meth and not have it be a permanent problem. When you do it you get addicted and when you get addicted there's no deeper problem than using the substance and needing to stop. The only advice for people is to never touch these things.
Different people have different reactions to different substances. For many, they just need to never do things and that's that. Alcohol is a "never touch" substance for some people.
Why do you think that's true?
Medical literature and talking with people who have done these things and knowing about their usage afterwards. Particularly people who have done lots of different drugs and isolate a few things as just different.
One of the disservices done to young people being taught about drugs is the misrepresentation of the addictive quality of various drugs and lumping everything together.
In short, my key takeaway (as an outsider) is that with AA it’s helpful to get people sober and there’s value and comfort in that. Unfortunately that comfort has diminishing return. People (e.g., my ex) put in the time (in a comfortable sorta way), but then don’t put in the work (read: progress to address the root problem).
Finally, as an unrelated / random side note, my theory is that if you evaluated late in life alcoholics (read: 30 yo and up) most would test positive for NPD. In the hands of someone suffering from NPD, alcoholism is one hell of a weapon (e.g., manipulation, avoid accountability, etc). Also, within the context of The Program you will never be encouraged to seek help for your NPD.
NPD = Narcissistic Personality Disorder ?
>> overblown levels of self-importance, arrogance, and selfishness, as well as a lack of empathy for others.
Googled the term, but couldn't exactly see the connection. Fortunately, I currently only interact with a few people I consider alcoholics. AA definitely addressed the lack of empathy, at least.
Do we just not yet understand addiction enough to treat it properly? Are we able to treat addiction (so, for example, someone could successfully limit themselves to low levels of social drinking that don't cause them harm), but doing so is so difficult and hit-or-miss, that we give up and only promote full abstinence as the solution?
I also wonder if abstaining from alcohol can have negative affects on life for some people. Some people use alcohol as a social lubricant; abstaining might mean (detrimentally) less social interaction. In some cultures/environments, not drinking can be career-limiting (I think this is toxic, but fixing that can take generations). I think it's fair to say that, on balance, the pros of not drinking to excess all the time will (nearly?) always outweigh any cons of abstinence, but can we do better than either extreme?
I poked around at some studies, and what I found was interesting. It does seem that 12-step programs tend to outperform things like cognitive behavioral therapy (though there is some disagreement here). But also many of these studies are about whether or not a given treatment achieves abstinence from alcohol, not if it treats the underlying disorder. So I'm not sure what conclusions (if any) can be drawn.
(Ultimately, though, if the 12-step program worked for you, and you're happy with the results and with your life now, that's all that matters! I don't mean to demean what you've accomplished or throw shade on the life you have now. I just think this is a very high-profile societal/health issue that we seem to deal with in a very different way than we deal with others, and that seems strange to me.)