Spiritual Addiction: Searching for Love in a Coldly Indifferent World

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Good points are that the disease model is lacking and that much about addiction can come from the collective and problematic social milieu. But these would need much more elaboration if they are the main contentions. The bulky writing -- which assumes too much and puts too many concepts within one sentence -- should be improved because it gets in the way of clarity. It is inadequate research methodology to just depend on one source on addiction, and not the most notable or newer one. An important problem is showing little if any acknowledgement of research in this extensive field. There are too many unexplained concepts, which the early footnote does not help to excuse.

Author Response

I have revised the introduction to my paper in a way intended to address this reviewer’s concerns about overall clarity, and especially how the use of one case, and one primary source on addiction, is being used in a way that does, or can, acknowledge the leading types of contributions in this field.

I have also added a new section to the paper addressing more current and influential sources on addiction, with references, for the same reason.

In response to this reviewer’s concern with unclarified concepts and “bulky writing,” I have attempted to further clarify key concepts throughout the manuscript as a whole.

Reviewer 2 Report

The author presents a lay version of what in Christian theology is called 'original sin' and calls it 'original inheritance.' But he does so from analyzing Mr. Brandon's addictive experience, interpreting it with the addiction theory of Lance Dodes, and criticizing it: addiction also involves beliefs and objects of belief, not only psychological or biological factors. The author is convinced that the 'original inheritance' is a belief about the human condition that makes one believe there is no hope to overcome its negativity. This negativity is something that we all carry, and that is why it is a collective trauma. The author proposes the concept of 'spiritual addiction' to become aware of this trauma and make a positive and constructive decision to overcome this situation with hope for the personal future and the future of humanity. In this sense, everybody should have a 'faith' to have 'hope,' in a religious way or not, but in any case, "the only question s what type of god we will place our faith in - a real one or a displacement, surrogate or idol" (p. 16).
For this reason, it is necessary to draw inspiration from the good examples of those people who have been able to do so. To confirm his position, he cites the example of Mr. Christian.

The author's approach reflects lived experience, making it attractive, but it is also well reasoned. From my point of view, it deserves to be published because it articulates an interpretation of the human condition that, without being religious, is profoundly spiritual, understanding by 'spiritual' the reference to the dimensions that are proper to the human being.

The only observation is that the first nine pages seem too extensive, perhaps can be summarized; too much information does not seem necessary for the article's object. The article focuses better on the subtitle "Four Concerns about Dodes' Model of Addictions" on page 9.

Author Response

In response to this reviewer’s recommendation to change the subtitle, I decided instead to clarify the sense in which Dodes’ model is being used as rhetorical device to point to a deeper root of addiction than both the physical and psychological.

Similarly, I have not substantially reduced the case, but have chosen instead to more clearly elucidated my primary aim of letting the “lived experience” of the patient carry the burden of “proof” more than my own interpretations of it.

Reviewer 3 Report

See attached document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attached pdf for my reply

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Article review

These comments are in the order they come up in the article.

• Interesting that he makes even prejudicial beliefs a potential addiction. While he does elaborate, this is still a very unverifiable claim and spreads the concept of addiction very far. Clearly, that is his point, but it really stretches the concept to infinity. And what is the standard to evaluate by?
• Good fleshing out on Brandon.
• The idea of “human moral freedom” as the goal is good. That does work for the more observable and biological addictions.
• No objection with a close reading of one specific example and one shorter one later in the article. Of course, this would not qualify as “qualitative research” because the pool is so small.
• Good that he wants to raise addiction higher than neurobiology.
• Agree that we all suffer from some degree of spiritual emptiness, but what would fullness look like and where would it come from? It turns out to be a very individualist and only partial answer
• It’s the trend to take away organized religion as source and cure, but you do need to be clear about the replacement. And, of course, religion can be addictive or participate in spiritual emptiness. And non-believers can suffer from the same thing. But be more clear about the alternative.
• While prejudicial beliefs can clearly be harmful, how do you ground and describe non-prejudicial beliefs? The idea of truth as this thing is still vague.
• I don’t think his approach to addiction is unscientific. That doesn’t concern me. But it is ungrounded.
• Comment on the “blind faith of our ancestors” is probably a prejudicial belief in itself!
• Agree that scientists are the new priests.
• It is true and also unfortunate that AA is main option in the US. However, its strength comes from the fact that it is free and widely available.  While I don’t want to champion AA, history shows that the founders -- and current followers -- already took into account that people of different religions and no religions, including atheists, would also need AA. So they worked hard, and still do, to make it widely appealing. They insist that a higher power can be anything “even the lamp-post out there” but often it is the group which people rely on. The founders were not following organized religion – in fact, the founders tried it and found that route very  Instead, they insisted that  a core problem in addiction is over-self-focus. So they  presented a ‘power greater than yourself’ as a way to get out of that bind. Over time they realized that the social support was also very beneficial. I do think this author misrepresents both religion and AA. AA does not want members to give up any form of agency.  Without it, they would never enter recovery.
• Calling AA’s theme a “disease myth” is prejudicial belief. They actually didn’t use the word “disease” but sometimes called it an “illness” or “allergy.” The disease idea came later as a lot of medical and insurance issues were loaded onto treatment and thus somewhat absorbed by AA. And, again, I am not in the business of defending AA, only in analyzing it.
• You could insist that the AA process of ‘starting from zero’ after ‘falling off the wagon” is a problem. But AA has always been very experienced in how addicts think. Many alcoholics pride themselves on being able to stop drinking any time they want. They take that as a form of pride, e.g.  that they have been able to stop from time to time, such as for a family gathering. So the ‘starting from zero’  is part of AA’s recognition of this.  There is plenty that I disagree with in AA, but a better critique would not mis-represent the program.
• I realize the author is discussing one scholar’s approach to addiction, and then does take issue with some of it. But I think he also shows his hand when discussing this scholar.
• I agree that the powerlessness in addiction is moral powerlessness. I agree that false guilt is only one type of guilt. I agree that we don’t need to get rid of all moral judgements. AA has adopted the “illness” or “allergy” perspective to relieve addicts from the social and self moral judgements that keep them in the cycle of addiction. But they do hand proper self-judgement back to them so they can act as agents in their own lives. This is the ambiguity of the program but it does works for a lot of people.
• Author criticizes the scholar for not being able to distinguish true versus false moral judgements, but I think the author fails to do this him/herself.
• Although its awkward, the reigning terminology in the field is not “addicts” but persons suffering from addiction. We all use short-hand, including me above, but in a published article it should be improved.
• Author describes a Hasidic Jew by appearance. What about beliefs and other key things? While he is talking about encountering one on the street, this still seems very limited.
• Toward the end he talks about a “true god” but what does he mean by this. Of course, from a religious perspective, this holds up in that trust in anything else is idolatry.
• Truth is a largely undefined concept and abstract without grounding.

Please also see the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf