Trump doesn't like losing and is not happy being second to Ben Carson all of a sudden. I notice that a lot of pundits love that he is now second. Their schadenfreude couldn't be more unmistakable!
I don't necessarily share their sentiment. I am a Trump Democrat.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-im-trump-democrat.html
What that means basically is that the longer Trump is in the GOP primary the happier I am.
Carson has had a significant Iowa lead in three straight polls, He did lead in a national poll yesterday. The Very Serious Pundit types are really hoping this is the start of the end for Trump. I will just say we'll see. Certainly they have no track record to take their predictions seriously.
Maybe it is the start of the Trump decline the pundits have prophesied for four months and maybe it isn't. We will need to see more national polls to see if this poll was a misnomer or a real trend. As Trump said yesterday, second still isn't so bad, but for him it's terrible and one theory is that if his polls are no longer so impressive, he will quickly wilt and bow out.
I don't know if that's true or not but I hope it's not. I doubt Trump's numbers will go totally in the toilet over night. He still leads in just about every state outside of Iowa which is Ben Carson country in reality with its religious conservatives.
Anyway, Trump has gone after Carson on a number of things. One is that he's even lower energy than Jeb. I don't understand it Trump throws up his hands. Rachel Maddow last night had a great way of putting it: she said to her Ben Carson comes across as being sedated. .
But maybe that's a good thing when you hear he tried to kill a man when he was 14. And he has said some wild stuff about an alleged gun fight he was or wasn't involved in at a Popeye's.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/is-ben-carson-really-psychopath.html
Maybe he's one of these souls who needs sedation so as not to become 'volatile' as he puts it.
Trump also has had some good attacks on Carson like his wanting to eliminate Medicare-Ben has since said that was the old plan. His new plan doesn't do that.
And yes, Trump has gone after Carson on his religious faith. I have a few reactions to that.
1. In principal it's probably cheap and wrong to attack someone on their religious faith-though maybe it can be argued that a faith might seem incommensurate with being able to adequately uphold the laws of the United States Constitution. This is how Dr. Ben himself has argued that Muslims can't be President-and how it was once feared JFK would be more loyal to the laws of the Church than the US government.
Usually going after religion I think is wrong as it smacks of religious discrimination or a religious test. However...
2. I myself in 2012 did have the sense that Mormonism is a kind of unpalatable doctrine in some ways. Not that there's a test. Harry Reid is also a Mormon so this shows that Mormons can certainly be good people!
But it's understandable that some might find Mormonism strange. And this brings us to the faith of Dr. Ben which I can speak to a little. Ben Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist and so is my Mother.
I was raised in the Church. I am emphatically not an Adventist today. Indeed, as I revealed in a conversation with Tom Brown, I'm an atheist much to my Mother's chagrin. For this reason I usually let her think I'm an 'agnostic'-as this sounds like I could get back to God.
In many ways SDA theology strikes outsiders the same way Mormonism does: quite honestly as kind of weird.
I was raised in the faith. As a kid, my parents took me and my brother to church most every week. In high school, my Mother basically forced me to attend SDA schools-I had been in public school until then.
To tell you the truth, I find SDA theology kind of weird which is why I'm not in the church today and never would be. Honestly, if I were tomorrow to wake up and decide I wanted to be a Theist, I still wouldn't be an SDAer. I'd probably be either a Jew, a Catholic, or maybe like Trump a Presbyterian!
Why? Because what I admire in a religion is its social role as an institution. Judaism and Catholicism are two of the most impressive social institutions in humankind's history. Presbyterians-or Unitarians- on the other hand seem very rational. It's kind of like what a rational person would come up with if they wanted a church.
That line about being a Catholic would kill my Mother as Catholics are a big bogeyman in Adventism.
What strikes me is that Adventism is a pretty intense faith. It sees the Saturday Sabbath as a very important distinction between true and false faiths. That most Christians worship on Sunday, Adventists see as a product of the unholy power and influence of that great bugaboo: the Catholic Church.
They read the book of Revelation in a very literal sense as prophesying a coming Armageddon. What will happen in these End Times is very specific.
It will happen in America the land of the secular belief in separation of Church and State. A false prophet will impose a Sunday Law and Adventists will be persecuted. The good news is sometime after this Christ will return!
And this is why there is a similarity between Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists. Both are the products of 19th century American revivalism. It's not surprising that the SDA theology is totally centered around an End Times that happen because of a crack down on SDAers in America.
Adventists always imagine persecution just around the corner.
SDA's blatant anti Catholicism is also not surprising being as it were a product of this 19th century American revivalism.
So is Ben's Seventh Day Adventism an issue? In principle there should be no religious test. But of course, he himself has a religious test: a Muslim cannot be President.
And this position of his might actually be based on his own faith. He does believe that a Muslim would install a theocracy like in Iran-but in his mind he may imagine that this is just to persecute Adventists.
Ironically then, while he argues that a Muslim can't be trusted to follow US law rather than Muslim belief, it might be that this is true of Ben himself. If President would he follow US law or Seventh Day Adventist belief?
P.S. My overall picture of Adventism is not so flattering. I'm not saying that all Adventists are nuts but it might be that it's lethal for nuts to discover Adventism.
Most Adventists in their daily lives are good people and citizens. This of course too has a purpose! LOL. They want to 'witness' to you so that you convert to their faith.
But seriously, like in any religious faith most of the adherents are good and decent people.
As I said above, religions interest me primary as vitally important social institutions. We couldn't have gotten to where we are today without a history of religious faith. Religions also, generally, make for good, upstanding citizens which as a small c conservative I certainly see as highly salutary.
Specifically with Ben though I do think that it's fair to ask how much of his own beliefs about government stem from his Adventist beliefs. I think there might really be something here.
P.S.S. I'm sure that if any practicing Adventists are reading this, they are probably appalled. First because I as someone raised in the Church have become an unbeliever, indeed an atheist.
Second, they probably worry that I am going to turn public opinion against them and they will be persecuted by the state-which is always their fear! LOL.
Nevertheless, I believe it is a fair question to ask regarding Ben Carson. The more I think about it the more convinced I am that this is how you understand his ideology such as it is.
I don't necessarily share their sentiment. I am a Trump Democrat.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-im-trump-democrat.html
What that means basically is that the longer Trump is in the GOP primary the happier I am.
Carson has had a significant Iowa lead in three straight polls, He did lead in a national poll yesterday. The Very Serious Pundit types are really hoping this is the start of the end for Trump. I will just say we'll see. Certainly they have no track record to take their predictions seriously.
Maybe it is the start of the Trump decline the pundits have prophesied for four months and maybe it isn't. We will need to see more national polls to see if this poll was a misnomer or a real trend. As Trump said yesterday, second still isn't so bad, but for him it's terrible and one theory is that if his polls are no longer so impressive, he will quickly wilt and bow out.
I don't know if that's true or not but I hope it's not. I doubt Trump's numbers will go totally in the toilet over night. He still leads in just about every state outside of Iowa which is Ben Carson country in reality with its religious conservatives.
Anyway, Trump has gone after Carson on a number of things. One is that he's even lower energy than Jeb. I don't understand it Trump throws up his hands. Rachel Maddow last night had a great way of putting it: she said to her Ben Carson comes across as being sedated. .
But maybe that's a good thing when you hear he tried to kill a man when he was 14. And he has said some wild stuff about an alleged gun fight he was or wasn't involved in at a Popeye's.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/is-ben-carson-really-psychopath.html
Maybe he's one of these souls who needs sedation so as not to become 'volatile' as he puts it.
Trump also has had some good attacks on Carson like his wanting to eliminate Medicare-Ben has since said that was the old plan. His new plan doesn't do that.
And yes, Trump has gone after Carson on his religious faith. I have a few reactions to that.
1. In principal it's probably cheap and wrong to attack someone on their religious faith-though maybe it can be argued that a faith might seem incommensurate with being able to adequately uphold the laws of the United States Constitution. This is how Dr. Ben himself has argued that Muslims can't be President-and how it was once feared JFK would be more loyal to the laws of the Church than the US government.
Usually going after religion I think is wrong as it smacks of religious discrimination or a religious test. However...
2. I myself in 2012 did have the sense that Mormonism is a kind of unpalatable doctrine in some ways. Not that there's a test. Harry Reid is also a Mormon so this shows that Mormons can certainly be good people!
But it's understandable that some might find Mormonism strange. And this brings us to the faith of Dr. Ben which I can speak to a little. Ben Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist and so is my Mother.
I was raised in the Church. I am emphatically not an Adventist today. Indeed, as I revealed in a conversation with Tom Brown, I'm an atheist much to my Mother's chagrin. For this reason I usually let her think I'm an 'agnostic'-as this sounds like I could get back to God.
In many ways SDA theology strikes outsiders the same way Mormonism does: quite honestly as kind of weird.
I was raised in the faith. As a kid, my parents took me and my brother to church most every week. In high school, my Mother basically forced me to attend SDA schools-I had been in public school until then.
To tell you the truth, I find SDA theology kind of weird which is why I'm not in the church today and never would be. Honestly, if I were tomorrow to wake up and decide I wanted to be a Theist, I still wouldn't be an SDAer. I'd probably be either a Jew, a Catholic, or maybe like Trump a Presbyterian!
Why? Because what I admire in a religion is its social role as an institution. Judaism and Catholicism are two of the most impressive social institutions in humankind's history. Presbyterians-or Unitarians- on the other hand seem very rational. It's kind of like what a rational person would come up with if they wanted a church.
That line about being a Catholic would kill my Mother as Catholics are a big bogeyman in Adventism.
What strikes me is that Adventism is a pretty intense faith. It sees the Saturday Sabbath as a very important distinction between true and false faiths. That most Christians worship on Sunday, Adventists see as a product of the unholy power and influence of that great bugaboo: the Catholic Church.
They read the book of Revelation in a very literal sense as prophesying a coming Armageddon. What will happen in these End Times is very specific.
It will happen in America the land of the secular belief in separation of Church and State. A false prophet will impose a Sunday Law and Adventists will be persecuted. The good news is sometime after this Christ will return!
And this is why there is a similarity between Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists. Both are the products of 19th century American revivalism. It's not surprising that the SDA theology is totally centered around an End Times that happen because of a crack down on SDAers in America.
Adventists always imagine persecution just around the corner.
SDA's blatant anti Catholicism is also not surprising being as it were a product of this 19th century American revivalism.
So is Ben's Seventh Day Adventism an issue? In principle there should be no religious test. But of course, he himself has a religious test: a Muslim cannot be President.
And this position of his might actually be based on his own faith. He does believe that a Muslim would install a theocracy like in Iran-but in his mind he may imagine that this is just to persecute Adventists.
Ironically then, while he argues that a Muslim can't be trusted to follow US law rather than Muslim belief, it might be that this is true of Ben himself. If President would he follow US law or Seventh Day Adventist belief?
P.S. My overall picture of Adventism is not so flattering. I'm not saying that all Adventists are nuts but it might be that it's lethal for nuts to discover Adventism.
Most Adventists in their daily lives are good people and citizens. This of course too has a purpose! LOL. They want to 'witness' to you so that you convert to their faith.
But seriously, like in any religious faith most of the adherents are good and decent people.
As I said above, religions interest me primary as vitally important social institutions. We couldn't have gotten to where we are today without a history of religious faith. Religions also, generally, make for good, upstanding citizens which as a small c conservative I certainly see as highly salutary.
Specifically with Ben though I do think that it's fair to ask how much of his own beliefs about government stem from his Adventist beliefs. I think there might really be something here.
P.S.S. I'm sure that if any practicing Adventists are reading this, they are probably appalled. First because I as someone raised in the Church have become an unbeliever, indeed an atheist.
Second, they probably worry that I am going to turn public opinion against them and they will be persecuted by the state-which is always their fear! LOL.
Nevertheless, I believe it is a fair question to ask regarding Ben Carson. The more I think about it the more convinced I am that this is how you understand his ideology such as it is.
Interesting Mike. I knew you used to be an SDAist and I almost asked you about that in my last comment... so this is great.
ReplyDeleteI'm an ex-Catholic... although I was never a very enthusiastic one.
I have mixed opinions about religion, but only about non-fundamentalist religion. I'm pretty much across the board anti-fundamentalism, anti-Creationist and anti-young Earther and anti-geocentrist of any kind. Yes, geocentrism is again a thing in the US apparently, much to my horror!
I was raised in a unusual community of engineers in scientists in a remote part of the California desert at a government laboratory run by the Navy: a tight knit community. I didn't know any atheists (that I was aware of). There were a couple of Jews a Mormon or two and the rest were Christians. But I wasn't aware of any fundamentalists. We learned evolution and geology and about the Scopes trial in a "normal" way: evolution was true, the Earth was 4.5 billion yeas old, the big bang was true, and the Scopes trial was the fight of truth and science against the fundamentalist ignorance and nonsense. No skipped chapters in our texts. No angry protests from science hating parents.
In the early decades of the base the Navy provided everything for the civilians, including chaplains and churches. I grew up during the last decades of that period.
My half sister (22 years older than me) lived hours away. I never grew up with her or my other two half siblings. She was my dad's kid, and her and her family were fundamentalists and didn't believe in evolution. I recall being filled with anxiety that she rejected science... I always felt like they were part of some fringe cult, even as a little kid. My dad couldn't understand why they didn't believe science. He grew up when mainline churches (he was Methodist) had decided to embrace science... there was a period of time when that was the fashionable thing to do I think.
The Catholics too didn't reject science (as far as I know). In fact they latched onto the big bang and evolution just fine. We were good friends with a Catholic family. The dad was an engineer just like my dad and super interested in geology, etc. If you rode in the car with him on a camping trip you were going to get a lecture about natural history... no way around it!... you have unobstructed views of the geology from the car in the desert! I happened to love it! There's no way they even thought for a second the Earth was only 6000 years old. BTW, "transubstantiation" was never stressed by the Catholics I knew... we were never told that we had to believe that the wafer and the wine actually turned into the body and blood of Christ or we'd go to hell. Nobody ever mentioned anything about that AFAIK (I did go to catechism classes).
From what I learned from my family and friends and school I put creationism and science denial in the same category as racism, slavery, lynchings, massacres of native Americans, and pre-female suffrage: an embarrassing part of our ignorant past that we've thankfully long since moved past... except for pockets of freakish cultists like my half sister and her family.
Later I realized just how wrong I was!!! Lol (it turns out that that half sister is actually the least crazy of my three half siblings... the other two are not only fundies but also right wing conspiracy nuts).
Long after I became an atheist I still harbored fond thoughts of the moderate science loving theists I grew up with. I still have those fond thoughts, especially for my dad and his new wife (the window of one of his colleagues). My mom died years ago.
DeleteAlso I went to school with and worked with moderate Muslims... and so I have a fondness for them too.
However, my view of religion in general is much more negative now. What I considered to be "pro-science" Christians still believed some goofy crap. They didn't let that stuff get in the way of science, but it was definitely not compatible with science if you pressed the issue (which nobody ever did). Pressing the issue in my own mind is precisely why I became an atheist. In a way fundamentalists are right: science and religion really aren't compatible if you think things through all the way. Moderates just compartmentalize. Don't get me wrong: I still think we'd be better off if all fundies turned into moderates, but I think the fundies are right about that one thing.
So despite my personal fondness for some religious moderates, my patience with faith and religion is gone. I don't see faith as any kind of virtue: only as an unreliable way to know things. Yes, there's some value in the social club aspect of religion, but that's it.
However, I agree completely with you that there are some outstanding religious people. That crazy "cultist" half sister I mentioned is actually one. My thought though is that they're great people in spite of their faith, not because of it.
I think the history of man as religious goes back much further and is deeper than might be appreciate though.
DeleteEven our knowledge of science was the result of previous more faith based ages.
" In a way fundamentalists are right: science and religion really aren't compatible if you think things through all the way"
But there are many specialists of various scientific fields that really don't need to think things through all the way.
For instance, I don't see how being a believer or even a fundamentalist takes away from your job.
You are an engineer which to me seems like a very technical profession. I can run a machine without understanding why or how it works.
If I'm a wildeyed Creationist how does this stop em from say building a skyscraper?
I tend to think that theism, like it or not, is mankind's oldest mode of Being in the Wortld-Heidedgger. Even today most of the world still believes, indeed most Americans still believe.
DeleteI doubt this will change anytime soon.
Yes, I agree that theism will be with us a long time. But it's not like it can't be massively attenuated: look at Scandinavia.
DeleteBut what happened there was organic. How do we precede by design?
DeleteSo comparing you and your fundamentalist sister and other siblings-'conspiracy nuts'-is in itself a fascinating social experiment.
ReplyDeleteThere was a time when the Catholic Church was dead set against sicence-of a heliocentric world, etc. But they are a lot older than SDAers and much more shrewd and socially adept.
The Jesuit tradition in Catholicism has always been a fine one that emphasizes scholarship and learning. There have been some great Catholic thinkers about philosophy, science, etc.
In fairness, Ben Carson really is a great surgeon. Just shows you how comparmentalized it's possible to be! LOL
To me Methodists are pretty reasonable folks as well.
Yeah... that's kind of my point: I always thought of the mainline, mainstream, moderate theists (of the kind I knew growing up) as being the reasonable ones, and the fundies as being scary crazy.
DeleteBut now it's not so cut and dried. The moderates do compartmentalize and don't ask too many questions. I'm not sure that's really admirable, though I'm positive I prefer them. And even they have some wacky beliefs. You're absolutely right about the Catholics... they have a very sordid history with this stuff.
I do have one other full older brother whom I did grow up with, and he's more like me, and so are his wife and kids. Whenever we have family get togethers it's fun to compare notes with him afterwards: "What batshit crazy nonsense did you hear?" etc. It's always the conspiracy loon siblings and their spouses we end up talking about. What's weird though, is that kind of thinking doesn't seem to have much to do with raw intelligence... my craziest sibling (my oldest half bro) is very intelligent.
I've become a fan of the "firebrand atheists" though I know I definitely can't classify myself as one. David Silverman is fun to listen to, but so is Peter Boghossian, Sean Carroll, Steven Novella and Jerry Coyne, and of course all the more well known ones as well.
Silverman in particular has the attitude that religion deserves zero respect, but he's adamant that religious people DO deserve respect and that they are NOT stupid: he likes to say they are victims of indoctrination. I would LOVE to have him over at our next family gathering.. I wouldn't want to say a word, but I'd get the popcorn and watch with great interest... and maybe I'd have to leave the room for parts (much like a child might for a scary movie, Lol).
His description of going to CPAC and handing out literature is funny! He says he's going back, and this time he may get to set up a booth.
Sean Carroll is my absolute favorite BTW. His debate with Christian apologist William Lane Craig is one of the best I've ever seen. He's not as "firebrand" as Silverman... he comes across much more calm and friendly, but he's a very strong debater IMO, and he's a self professed "philosophy friendly" scientist (he's a physicist at Cal Tech). Come to think of it, I think I'd prefer him to be invited to the next family gathering. I probably wouldn't have to leave the room from embarrassment.
DeleteSee, I'm an atheist but I don't proselytize. I just don't see the point and after all there are more of them than us!
DeleteNot that this stuff isn't entertaining. One good debate was between Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens for Hitchens' books 'God is not Great.'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPYxA8dYLBY
Sharpton argued yes He is and Hitchens of course was no, He isn't.
Hitchens goes as far as denying Mother Theresa deserves canonizaiton
DeleteI love listening to Hitchens... there's even some video of him talking to William F. Buckley Jr. from the early 1980s that's wonderful. However, Hitchens (to me) is great style and great command of the language, but not as good an argument. I did see that one you linked to.
DeleteSilverman is actually a step down from him in terms of being "in your face." Sean is about 5 steps down... but about 3 steps up in terms of well thought out positions, IMO.
BTW, one of the most well done (in terms of production values, etc) personal "deconversion" narratives I've ever seen on youtube was done by an SDAist. You might enjoy it... I ended up watching the whole thing (it's quite long for a youtube video). 9/10 of what I know about SDA is from that video! Here it is:
... shoot, I can't find it! Searching for "deconversion story" on youtube now brings back so many hits, I can't find it anymore! ... I'll look for it later... I'd like to know how to find it myself.
You might enjoy Peter Boghossian. Boghossian doesn't debate or argue facts with people... he's all about the process of knowing things. He's interested in the epistemology. He is quite "in your face" about it though, and that's what makes him entertaining.
Hitchens & Mother Theresa: ... you know he might be right, but that's where I suspect his arguments. He was adamant about the Iraq invasion being the right thing to do as well... and he really despises Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger too. As a quick wit and a wordsmith, you can't beat him, but I'm slightly suspicious of some of his argumentation. He does get quite emotional.. I guess I appreciate him mostly for the entertainment value.
In fact the other day I was thinking that Hitchens pro-Iraq war arguments were perhaps an example of the dark side of empathy that psychologist Paul Bloom talks about. I think Hitchens was so adamant about it because he'd come to know and love the Kurds, and he thought we were turning our backs on them. All thought of destabilizing the region was absent from his argument.
Tom you should have seen me on Twitter. I gave Trump a pep talk. I said 'Buck up Mr. Trump, it's a marathon not a sprint. You have to expect a few polls not to go your way, it's the nature of a long campaign. Don't worry about Ben Carson, he has no legs beyond Iowa.'
ReplyDeleteLol... super funny.
DeleteI am curious about that one point I raised. What difference does it make whether or not an engineer knows about evolution or is a raving Creationist? Isn't this type of job technical so that you can be a practitioner and be wholly clueless about what you are doing?
ReplyDeleteI use my computer copiously yet know nothing about cyber programming or anything.
I'm curious about your perspective here.
You can be an excellent engineer and also be a creationist. I worked with a guy like that. That's some heavy compartmentalization though.
DeleteTo me, being a creationist is really like thinking the sun revolves around the Earth (being a geocentrist) or thinking the Earth is flat. You could be a good electrical, chemical, control, system engineer, or computer scientists and think that... but it would be odd. You shouldn't work for NASA, but you could have made a living working for GM or IBM... although there have been some kooks who have worked for NASA. And now that GPS is everywhere, that's probably becoming more difficult.
It's just general knowledge. It's like thinking babies come from storks. It's so odd that I don't see how you can claim you're really paying attention to reality and think that way. And it's so arbitrary... The bible clearly describes a world that's flat with a hard dome over it... with waters above the dome and waters below the Earth (which stands on pillars). Like this:
http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2013/10/jtot_genesis_cosmology.jpg
If you're going to be a stickler for Biblical literalism, why not accept that? Well, in fact people did... right up into the middle 20th century. Some fundamentalists insisted the Earth was flat. Really. It must have been the photos from space that turned that position into a joke (finally!). Look up the Zetetic societies... they even had their own schools!
Here's a couple of kooks who worked for NASA:
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_C._Whisenant
You can still buy Edgars book on Amazon!:
http://www.amazon.com/reasons-Why-Rapture-Will-1988/dp/B00073BM8O
And then this guy, who thinks he disproved Einstein:
http://www.extinctionshift.com/
You dig around in that guys writings and you will find some very bizarre stuff:
http://www.scienceinthebible.net/KNOWLEDGE_BIBLE/menue.htm
I spent a little time digging in because he came up in an online debate I had with a guy who claimed Einstein had been proven wrong. He said his deceased brother had a PhD in physics and he had one in physiology or some such. I played along with the guy saying that he was sure to get the Nobel prize for disproving Einstein... and he said, no, he didn't deserve the credit... his brother had pointed to Dowdye's work on the subject.
I was fascinated that I didn't see much on Dowdye who's an obvious crank... I did see one little blurb on a site called "crackpotwatch" but that's it.
https://crackpotwatch.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/religious-maniac/
I emailed a guy who keeps tabs on physics cranks in particular and asked him why he didn't have anything on Dowdye... he wrote back and said he's got his eye on him, but there's such a huge backlog of cranks to write about he probably won't get to him for a while... I don't know whether to laugh or cry!