One conversation-stopper we hear time and again goes like this, “I don’t need science and evidence. I know what I know.” It’s  hard for me to believe that, when dealing with a condition that A.A. considers an actual disease, they wouldn’t have the slightest interest in scientific research which could benefit them, improve their program, advance treatment options and save lives. What they feel is all the proof they need. Statistics are bunk because they know a couple guys… Here is an excellent post addressing this kind of thinking:

An excerpt from P.Z. Myers:

Building An Argument on Emotional Biases Happens, But That Doesn’t Make It True

There’s that cartoon again. The atheists are not convinced of the purity of their reasoning — we know the human mind is flawed and easily twisted askew from reality. That’s precisely why we demand verifiable, empirical evidence for truth claims. It is not enough to simply say you know the answer and it is right, we expect you to show your work, and we’re going to reject claims, like those of faith, that insist on an unwarranted certainty of the possession of knowledge. The idea that humans are emotional and make choices on weak grounds is not at all antithetical to our goals, but instead explains why it is more important that we critically self-analyze and inspect all of these religious arguments with more skepticism.