Month: May 2008

Father Knows Best

Free will is overrated, at least as framed by Christianity. It’s not that I want to feel compelled to do this or that, but I’m willing to give up certain “freedoms” for the betterment of humanity.

Take the freedom to kill or torture children, for example. According to the Christian notion of free will, we must have the ability to do such an awful thing else we’d be robots.

This ability to torture the innocent wouldn’t really be a theological/philosophical problem were it not for the insistence that the Christian God is, among other things,

  1. completely good,
  2. all knowing, and
  3. all powerful.

Put those three together with the world’s suffering and we have a problem. In order to explain the suffering, we have to compromise. Maybe God isn’t all knowing, and isn’t aware of the suffering. Maybe God isn’t completely benevolent and doesn’t want to do something about the suffering. Or perhaps God knows about the suffering and wants to alleviate it, but being limited, there’s nothing he can do about it.

Since none of these alternatives are acceptable to most believers, Christians explain suffering by invoking free will and saying that it couldn’t be any other way if humans are to be more than robots.

But free will doesn’t fly, especially considering the patriarchal God we see in the Bible.

God is seen, among other things, as the perfect father. “Our Father who art in heaven” pray Christians every Sunday; Jesus, in the Gospel narratives, cries out to “Abba” — “Papa” — while being crucified. God is the ultimate father.

This post was inspired by Thud’s “The Org Chart God.”

I too am a father, and if I imagine treating my child (eventually children) like the Christian God treats his children, I shudder.

A thought experiment: in the future, my wife and I have a second child. At some point, our first-born daughter gets the notion that it would be a pretty good idea to see if rocks can bounce off little brother’s head. If I’m standing by and do nothing about it, what kind of father am I? That kind of behavior would rightly be labeled child abuse.

“But, Your Honor,” I protest before the judge, “I was just giving my daughter the ability to practice her free will.”

In the real world, “free will” doesn’t cut it. We might have the Twinkie legal defense and any number of other, bizarre explanations/excuses for behavior, but I don’t know that any lawyer has ever tried the “free will” defense, and for good reason: it’s absurd.

And yet Christians use the free will defense daily to get their God acquitted.

A correlative defense is the “God’s ways are not our ways” defense. This raises just as many questions as it is supposed to answer, but suffice it to say that any being whose ways include non-intervention when children are suffering is not a being I have much respect for.

The bottom line is that there really is no adequate answer for the problem of evil. Indeed, some of the more traditional answers seem quite outdated, as John Hagee discovered recently when he suggested that God allowed, even directed, the Holocaust through Hitler. Yet this was nothing new. Jewish theologians have been saying similar things for centuries.

Pastor Hagee’s view that an omnipotent God must sanction the evil in our world actually has deep roots in Jewish thought. To cite just one example, the Talmud teaches us that the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed because of “sinat hinam,” or baseless hatred. In other words, our own Talmud teaches that God used the Romans to perpetrate the greatest tragedy in the history of the Jewish people (until the Holocaust) because of Jewish sins. (haaretz.com)

The defense of God’s actions — or apparent lack thereof — is a distasteful activity to begin with, so it’s not surprising that we can so mangle ideas that they come out sounding offensive to casual listeners. Then again, why should finite humans get stuck defending an infinite being?

The problem of evil is what ultimately led me away from theism, but that’s somewhat surprising considering how theists frame the question in relation to their faith: there is no answer, but I have faith that there is a reason, that it will all make sense. Yet it seldom does make sense during our Earthly lives.

Cleaning Up Others’ Messes

I now fully understand why plumbers charge the fees they do. I mean, if you had to go into strangers’ homes and deal with this stuff, wouldn’t you?

DSC_4983

And this drain was only for our kitchen sink, dishwasher, and washing machine. Forty years’ of grime — not to mention what appears to be straight-out mud.

DSC_4991

How do drains get this nasty?

Suffice it to say, it’s a good thing there is no way to digitize odors, because ladies and gentlemen, you would almost literally be up a particular creek…

In and Out of the Closet

We’re in the midst of re-doing (I hesitate to use the term “remodeling” since it’s such a small job) our closet.

Before:
DSC_4886DSC_4891
After:
DSC_4899DSC_4903

After — well, sort of after. The door frame width is a wonderfully-irregular 40 1/8 inches, so we’ll have to buy custom doors for it.

Forty and an eighth?! Where do they come up with sizes like that?

BoM 7: First Book of Nephi, Chapter 1

The Book of Mormon opens with something called “The First Book of Nephi.” I sit down to begin reading, and I feel I’m reading Tolkien: I’m wondering when all these names will be explained. People? Places? Creatures? If only Gandolf were here to explain.

Nephi is, obviously enough, the author, and he begins his book by explaining his lineage:

  • “born of goodly parents”
  • “taught the learning of [his] father”
  • lived a life filled with its fair share of trouble but still close to God, and
  • “having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God.”

He is something of a Gandolf: keeper of long-lost knowledge.

Nephi goes on to explain that his chronicle, written in “the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians,” is true: “I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.” Evidently it has never cross Nephi’s mind that his knowledge could be flawed.

It’s a strange statement, though, because this is supposed to be a book divinely inspired. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to argue that the book is true because it comes from God? I suppose he’s simply stating here that this is firsthand knowledge, but we immediately see it’s not, for he starts talking about his father’s experiences:

For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed.

Finally, we get a known name: Zedekiah. Zedekiah was the successor to Jehoiachin, and the prophet Jeremiah was his adviser.

2 Kings 24.18 explains, “Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eleven years. His mother’s name was Hamutal daughter of Jeremiah; she was from Libnah.”

In Jeremiah we read

He did evil in the eyes of the LORD, just as Jehoiakim had done. It was because of the LORD’s anger that all this happened to Jerusalem and Judah, and in the end he thrust them from his presence. Now Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon.

Zedekiah basically stood up to Nebuchadnezzar, who then came down to Jerusalem and destroyed it. With this mention of Zedekiah, we get more than a known name; we get a possible date: between 597 and 586 BCE. This means we get a time frame for the events of the Book of Mormon, a time frame we could use to get archaeological verification.

The first chapter concludes with Lehi, Nephi’s father, getting a visit from God, in the familiar pillar of fire. God warns Lehi what’s coming by giving him a book of prophecy. There is an obvious parallel with Smith here, and if the Book of Mormon is not of divine origin, it’s a smart stroke on Smith’s part to start legitimizing his book within the book itself.

Suddenly, Nephi stops discussing his father’s story:

And now I, Nephi, do not make a full account of the things which my father hath written, for he hath written many things which he saw in visions and in dreams; and he also hath written many things which he prophesied and spake unto his children, of which I shall not make a full account.

It seems like more legitimizing: “this is not the first time we’ve seen books that are critical aspects of God’s revelation to humanity simply disappear,” Smith can argue.

The first chapter concludes by explaining that, after God’s revelations, Lehi did what Smith himself would do later: prophecy. And the result was the same:

And when the Jews heard these things they were angry with him; yea, even as with the prophets of old, whom they had cast out, and stoned, and slain; and they also sought his life, that they might take it away. But behold, I, Nephi, will show unto you that the tender mercies of the Lord are over all those whom he hath chosen, because of their faith, to make them mighty even unto the power of deliverance.

A cliffhanger! Brilliant — I can’t wait to see how Lehi got out of this pickle…

Words

L has begun talking. Single words, mixing Polish and English, but words all the time.

“More” is “ma,” often with the accompanying baby sign.

“Shoes” is “shas.” We discovered only yesterday that she’d learned that word when she was walking about with one of her shoes in her hand, trying to get one of us to put it back on.

“Ba” or “baba” can be a number of things. First it was banana. Then it became her name for our cat. It’s become so ubiquitous that, when in doubt, we refer to something as “ba.”

Of course, “dac” has been around for some time now.

Most of the words she speaks are English, but she understands both English and Polish. The dominance of English is an obvious function of living in the States, but I could help the matter by speaking more Polish at home.

Pilgrimage

David Heinmann, a pastoral associate of Chicago’s St. Ignatius parish church, took a trip around the world in 365 days, each day celebrating Mass in a different location. An intriguing idea, but as I read it, I kept thinking, “What a waste of resources.” It sounds like nothing more than a glorified field trip. Toward the end of the article, though, Heinmann is quoted as saying,

America doesn’t do pilgrimage because we think we’ve already arrived[ … .] We Think this is the Holy Land. In doing so we’ve lost that sense that there’s another journey that we must make, one to the center that lives in the heart of every human being.

I believe that says more about American Christianity than anything I’ve read in a long time.

Thrill is Gone

I had no idea they’d made a video of this.

Guido on Forgiveness

A friend recently wrote,

[A]t an early age I started to become a little suspicious of the golden glow of forgiveness. I often noticed how people used forgiveness as a tool to make themselves appear superior to others. Many felt their ability to forgive their enemies made them a better person. It was like they were saying, “the fact that I can find it in my heart to forgive your horrible behavior shows that I’m a bigger and better person than you”.

By the time I got to seventh and eighth grade I began to notice how often people forgave others for something they didn’t even do maliciously. At times they were being forgiven for something that they probably should have been thanked for or praised.

It was about this time that I realized that before you could forgive someone you first had to blame them.

Read it all: GuidoWorld » The Darker Side of Forgiveness (Link no longer valid)

In the Yard, at the Desk

DSC_4827
Soon to be replaced

Yard work is much like paperwork — it tends to pile up and overwhelm. Unlike paperwork, though, I can’t just toss yard work into some draw to make it go away for a while.

Yesterday, I played catch-up.

  • I finished digging out our antiquated, slow-draining, often-overflowing drain.
  • I mowed.
  • I trimmed.
  • I changed the oil in the car (for a change of pace, I guess).
  • I raked.

And then the oddest thing: I was filled with energy. That’s another crucial difference between yard work and paperwork: working outside energizes; working inside drains.

DSC_4831
Before trimming

Tomorrow, at school, I dig into the pile of work that awaits — some of which I’d promised myself I’d do this weekend.

  • Make-up work to grade.
  • Reports to fill out.
  • APS plans to finalize.
  • Final exams to create.

And you’ll find it, at 2:45 in the afternoon, when my last class has padded out, sitting at my computer, hardly able to hold my eyes open, dreaming of a shovel.

Billy Collins

I have not been “into” poetry for some years now. I once thought I might be a poet at heart, but I can’t even write compelling blog entries, so that is a dream long lost.

I do have to teach poetry, though, and I discovered, while teaching a unit on imagery, my new favorite poet: Billy Collins. Poet Laureate from 2001 to 2003, he is accessible, witty, and charming.

The poem we read in class was “The Country.” While searching for an online version, I found an animated version of the poem. Then, I discovered “Forgetfulness.” It has all the elements of a poem of genius: enlightening observations, a uncommonly commonplace topic, perhaps even a cliche turned inside out.

There are several more animated poems available here.

False Start

Perhaps trying to ride the coattails of Expelled, the Restored Church of God sect — one of many predicting the end of the world in “a few short years” — has begun publishing a series on evolution at its sister site, The Real Truth. In an article entitled “Evolution Exposed: Deconstructing False Science“, Bradford G. Schleifer attempts to explain all the rational faults in the theory of evolution, deconstructing it in one blow. Rather, a series of them, for this is only part one.

We might begin by asking about Schleifer’s scientific creditials, but that would probably be going against the spirit of the article:

Review the evidence with an open mind. Do not allow any existing bias to blind you to this crucial understanding. The implications are much greater than you probably realize.

An open mind means a couple of things. For some readers, it means that Schleifer wants us to set aside any prejudices we might have against creationism. But why should this be the case? I have a prejudice against voodoo, but I think Schleifer would agree with me on that one. I have a prejudice against phrenology. What do voodoo and phrenology have in common, with each other and creationism? They’re not science. But I doubt Schleifer — as most creationists — understands what that means.

“An open mind” also means an empty mind — empty of all understanding of evolution. That way, Schliefer can create an evolutionary straw man (most creationists already have one firmly in place for evolution) that he can then demolish.

Schliefer quickly shows his ignorance, asking “Why is evolution cemented in the minds of many as fact, when it is nothing more than theory?”

Apparently, Schliefer either had awful science teachers in high school or didn’t pay attention in science class. To begin an article asking why it’s called a theory is to expose a depth of ignorance that is simply stunning. Gravity exists, but there is such a thing as gravitational theory, but that doesn’t mean that gravity is not a fact. This is a favorite straw man of creationists, though: create a false dichotomy between “fact” and “theory.”

Schliefer continues in the same, uneducated manner:

Certain aspects of evolution may be confusing and difficult to understand. Do not be surprised! The rationale invented to support evolution is bewildering and complicated. It is tiresome and boring. Certain facts are conveniently left behind, and tedious scholarly language is used to stop most people from examining the subject in detail. Left frustrated, most assume evolution to be fact.

Each sentence in this short passage is loaded beyond belief. What’s he really saying?

  • Certain aspects of evolution may be confusing and difficult to understand.
    “I’m assuming you’re a complete idiot and can’t understand ‘complicated’ things. Don’t worry — I’ll explain them all.”
  • The rationale invented to support evolution is bewildering and complicated.
    “Your small mind might be unable to understand these deep, convoluted secrets, but don’t worry — it doesn’t mean you’re stupid. It just means you’re stupid.”
  • It is tiresome and boring.
    “I slept through biology.”
  • Certain facts are conveniently left behind, and tedious scholarly language is used to stop most people from examining the subject in detail.
    “When I flipped through a few issues of Scientific American as part of the ‘research’ I did on this article, I didn’t understand much of what I read. Therefore, the authors must be conspiring to deceive me.”
  • Left frustrated, most assume evolution to be fact.
    “Unless you haven’t taken my advice — you haven’t approached the subject with an openness to be wrong — and you’ve been convinced for any period of time about creationism; then you’ll just assume evolution is wrong.”

Treating the reader with condescension is not the rhetorical technique I’ve ever seen, and usually, it makes it difficult to continue reading. However, I read this and I’m hooked, just like the old SNL skit where everyone’s tasting the rancid milk and rubbing Chris Farley’s sweaty belly: just how bad can this get?

Schliefer increases the level of dolt rhetoric in the very next passage:

This series will demystify the subject. You will know if evolution is science fact or science fiction. Convoluted and illogical theories will be simplified in a way never before presented. While some sections are technical, the more detail given, the better you will be able to see through the theory’s “smoke and mirrors.” Clear and simple logic always destroys ill-conceived suppositions.

“Smoke and mirrors” — I’m immediately wondering if they’re going to be dealing with anything of any substance. For example, will he mention chromosomal fusion? Will he deal with comparative biology and embryology and how they provide evidence for evolution?

The old fact/theory “proof” is not the only worn out argument that Schliefer uses. He goes for the obvious: the Law of Entropy disproves evolution argument:

Linking cause and effect with another set of scientific laws–thermodynamics–makes the picture sharper. The word “thermodynamics” comes from the Greek words therme, meaning “heat or energy,” and dunamis, meaning “power.”

What the Greek roots have to do with anything is anyone’s guess. Could it be an attempt to seem erudite? Nah — that’s too blazingly obvious.

The entropy argument goes like this: all things are in a state of decay, based on the law of entropy. Therefore, if life had been evolving for billions of years, eventually entropy would have taken over and wound down everything that evolution wound up.

But it’s not so simple:

it is only the over-all entropy of a complete, or closed system that must increase when spontaneous change occurs. In the case of spontaneously interacting sub-systems of a closed system, some may gain entropy, while others may lose entropy. For example, it is a fundamental axiom of thermodynamics that when heat flows from subsystem A to subsystem B, the entropy of A decreases and the entropy of B increases. The statement that an increase in order can only occur as the result of a directional mechanism, program, or code is misleading. Any process that can be demonstrated to take place with an increase in order/decrease in entropy is arbitrarily deemed to be the consequence of an undefined “directional mechanism.” (TalkOrigins.org)

But that’s science. Schliefer is only interested in science insofar as it seems to back up creationism, such as a non-creationist expressing doubts about evolution, which proves that even the scientists themselves don’t believe it but go on with the great conspiracy of evolution.

I can’t wait to see what “Part 2” includes.

Evolution Exposed: Deconstructing False Science–Part 1

Co Powie Tata?

L loves music. One of her favorite albums is a CD of Natalia Kukulska’s childhood songs. When I listen to them, I feel like I’m at a Polish wedding, for the music has that ’80’s, canned-music sound in which wedding bands tend to specialize. I’m not to crazy about it, but L loves it — and that’s all that matters.

One of the songs on the album is “Co Powie Tata?” — “What Will Daddy Say?”. (The English version of the song translates it “Please Tell Me, Daddy,” but that’s really only to make it fit the melody — literary license and all that.) It’s a song about all the questions a little girl has about ladybugs and whether it’s possible to love a snail. Cute lyrics, like all most children’s songs.

K tells me that today, when they got home, L was listening to that and recognized one word: “tata.” She looked at K, asked quizzically “Tata?”, then began the search. She looked in the bathroom, peeked in the shower, and generally wandered about the house looking for me.

Before we know it, she’s going to be demanding to know where I was when she finally sees me after such a search…

(As an aside, this is what Natalia’s up to these days.)

BoM 6: Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Part 3

We ended the last installment with Smith passed out in a field, which leads to obvious questions: Was Smith mentally ill? Did he have hallucinations?

A quick search shows suggests several possibilities.

That he was bipolar:

Joseph Smith’s life reads like the DSM IV-TR criteria for manic episodes of bipolar disorder.

  1. Risk Taking – he took so many risks that he was killed in jail by a mob
  2. Hypersexuality – 51 wives
  3. Hyperreligiousity – founded a new religion
  4. Delusions of Granduer
  5. Flight of ideas / racing thoughts
  6. Prolific production of work in a short period – Book of Mormon
  7. Calls friends in the middle of the night – 116 pages
  8. Audible hallucinations – revelations
  9. Anger management issues
  10. Talkativeness / pressured speech

This would indicate that “god” did not reveal anything to Joseph Smith, he was experiencing manic and mixed bipolar episodes. If this is true, the Book of Mormon and the First Vision are simply delusions of someone with bipolar in a manic episode. (Source)

That he had temporal lobe epilepsy:

I cannot find anything in your website about the idea that Joseph Smith suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy. The symptoms of such attacks include visions of strange beings, an apparent loss of time, a feeling of insight into profound matters, and an urge to spread the word. His revelations seem to me to be classic examples of such attacks, and thus it would be unscientific to resort to claims of the supernatural, violating the principle of Occam’s razor. I would be interested to hear your thought on this theory.

One might even make an argument for other disorders.

This does not deter Mormons, though. A Mormon apologist replies to accusations of mental illness thusly:

Joseph Smith had real spiritual experiences and the things he claimed happened really did occur. It’s obvious that you do not believe that God exists and communicates with man. However, I know of absolute surety that he does. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught:

“This principle ought (in its proper place) to be taught, for God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what He will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them, for the day must come when no man need say to his neighbor, Know ye that Lord; for all shall know Him (who remain) from the least to the greatest.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Three 1838—39, p.149)

I have had many spiritual experiences that are very similar to those of Joseph Smith and no doctor in the world would claim I suffered from “temporal lobe epilepsy.” It is possible for every man to know for himself that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. (Source)

In the end, it comes down to interpretation of one’s own experience, this apologist argues. He’s wrong, though. We could, though, observe this apologist to determine if he exhibits any symptoms of temporal lobe epilepsy, and we could even do a brain scan to determine whether or not he suffers from the condition.

We, however, are only left with Smith’s written testimony.

I don’t know what the use of historical diagnosis is, and that’s really not the point of my comment.

Smith continues his testimony by describing what happens while unconscious. A voice from above reveals “the same messenger” from earlier, who commands Smith to go tell his father what’s been going on.

“I obeyed; I returned to my father in the field, and rehearsed the whole matter to him. He replied to me that it was of God, and told me to go and do as commanded by the messenger.”

I wonder how that conversation sounded.

“Dad, I’m hearing voices and seeing bright, white beings.”

Smith, Senior stands, scratching his head for a moment, the responds: “Oh — that must be from God. Better do what the voices say.”

Smith then follows the messenger’s instructions and goes to the location of the plates

Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth.

The Book of Mormon invites — practically begs — for archeology to take a look at its claims, and here’s one that even armchair archaeologists could take on: the mysterious location of the plates.

The name of the hill is Cumorah, known now (and forever, I guess) as Hill Cumorah — gives it a more regal ring, I suppose.

These days, it’s a Mormon holy place, with a monument commemorating the discovery and an elaborate stage area for outdoor events.

Perhaps there’s some way we could test the soil to determine whether or not anything foreign had been buried there, but that would require the site to have been largely undisturbed over the years — not likely for a holy site.

Once Smith finds the site, he digs around a bit and finds a stone container.

Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them.

Smith wants to take them out, but the messenger forbids him, explaining that he will be allowed to do so in four years. The messenger further explains that Smith is to come to the site several times over the next four years.

Accordingly, as I had been commanded, I went at the end of each year, and at each time I found the same messenger there, and received instruction and intelligence from him at each of our interviews, respecting what the Lord was going to do, and how and in what manner His kingdom was to be conducted in the last days.

Once a year, Smith went back to the hill and spoke with the angel. The necessity of conversing at that particular location is odd, for he was not to touch the plates for four years. Why not just keep meeting in Smith’s bedroom? What is the importance of the location?

Finally, “[o]n the twenty-second day of September, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven,” Smith is allowed to dig everything up: “the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate” and he’s instructed that he will be “cut off” if he lets anything happen to them.

The reason for the messenger’s warning soon becomes evident: everyone is eager to get his little hands on the plates:

Every stratagem that could be invented was resorted to for that purpose. The persecution became more bitter and severe than before, and multitudes were on the alert continually to get them from me if possible. But by the wisdom of God, they remained safe in my hands, until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand.

Smith completes his work, and the messenger comes down and takes the plates from him.

Thus ends Smith’s testimony proper. The document in the Book of Mormon concludes,

For the complete record, see Joseph Smith–History, in the Pearl of Great Price, and History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, volume 1, chapters 1 through 6.

The ancient record thus brought forth from the earth as the voice of a people speaking from the dust, and translated into modern speech by the gift and power of God as attested by Divine affirmation, was first published to the world in the year 1830 as The Book of Mormon.

And finally, we might get to the Book of Mormon itself.

Image of Hill Cumorah by Flickr user bbytheway; image of replica by mhwolk

Photo by versionz

Free Will and the Middle School Soul

“You can’t make me do that! You can’t make me do anything!”

I’ve heard this only a few times, from students who don’t particularly want to do something and resent the fact that I’m trying to “make” them.

“You’re right. I can’t make you do that,” I respond, and then explain what the student’s choices will influence my choices. Sometimes that motivates, sometimes it doesn’t.

Free will is a tricky thing in the middle schooler. It exists — rather, it flames — and then it disappears in a whimper — rather, in flash. Suddenly, I am making students do all sorts of things.

They shout out rude things because I made them: I unjustly accused them, you see.

They lash out at me because I made them: I asked them to do something they didn’t want to do, you see.

One has even threatened me because I made him: I told him to get up and leave his group of friends because of excessive talking.

If only I could figure out a way to make them do what I want them to do…

Goodbye, Soren

I have no idea how many of my students are on medication, but the number is certainly significant. We live in a medicated society, yet we’ve never heard the stories of those who grew up taking medications.

“I’ve grown up on medication,” my patient Julie told me recently. “I don’t have a sense of who I really am without it.”

At 31, she had been on one antidepressant or another nearly continuously since she was 14. There was little question that she had very serious depression and had survived several suicide attempts. In fact, she credited the medication with saving her life.

But now she was raising an equally fundamental question: how the drugs might have affected her psychological development and core identity. (Coming of Age on Antidepressants)

During my brief stint in graduate school, I had a brief discussion with my adviser about the metaphysical connotations of such medications. These substances change the very core of what we think of as the soul, I said, adding that it brings up once again that old chestnut of the mind-body problem: what exactly is the connection between the “I” that I think of as GS and the brain/body? How can something physical change something we tend to think of as non-physical. If we throw out the idea of a soul, it’s an easy question to answer; if we want to cling to that idea, it’s somewhat more difficult.

Our discussion continued along these lines, moving to a discussion of how these medications tend to change things we used to think were personality traits. “How many Kierkegaards have we destroyed with Prozac?”

Indeed — think of all the creative geniuses in history and it’s almost shocking how many of them displayed characteristics that would now be labeled bipolar, for instance: Mahler, Van Gogh, and Kierkegaard all come to mind.

The possibility of changing personality through medication seems more likely when we think of people taking medication from age fourteen, before a solid “I” has formed. Who would these people have been without medication? In many cases, the answers is no one — they would have ended up as suicide statistics. But tweak the question a bit: who would they been if they had begun medication a few years later?

We’ll never know.

Nor will they.