Is Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) self-delusional?

Is Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) self-delusional?

1. AA asserts that “alcoholics are people who can’t drink in moderation.” Then, when the federal government and others report overwhelming evidence for decades that many alcoholics do drink in moderation, AA members retort that they couldn’t have been alcoholics because “alcoholics are people who can’t drink in moderation.” That’s an illogical tautology; the definition determines the conclusion.

Let’s say I define the earth as a relatively flat rectangular object on which billions of people live and that revolves around the sun. You then provide evidence that the earth is relatively spherical. I then insist that’s impossible because “the earth as a relatively flat rectangular object on which billions of people live and that revolves around the sun.” You’re clearly wrong about that spherical foolishness.

As further evidence that alcoholics can’t ever drink in moderation, AA argues that “a pickle can never become a cucumber.” If you’re looking for a serious discussion about AA, the last person to consult would appear to be a member.

2. Alcoholics Anonymous World Services reports data indicating that AA’s success rate is “up to 5%.” When researchers report that AA’s success rate is low, members insist that “AA works for everyone who really wants to stop drinking and who follows the program.”

So AA is 100% successful. It’s the 95% of members who fail—- its their fault!

AA tells members to “work the program, don’t analyze it.” Teaching mindless acceptance of AA ideology helps protect its doctrine from open minded analysis. This ploy is used to discourage any questioning of the ideology.

And the list goes on.

So is AA largely self-delusional? If not, how do we explain members’ apparently blind adherence to an ideology that has not withstood scientific scrutiny and their intolerance and attacks on anyone who dares raise reasonable questions?