Dr. Ben Carson 2016?
I happened to be re-reading “Philosophy: Who needs it” last Thursday, and had just finished “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made”. Remember that essay on the serenity prayer?
“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.”
While Rand makes it perfectly clear that she disagrees with Reinhold Heibuhr’s ideas in every fundamental way, she finds a certain value in the prayer and uses it to introduce the topic of her essay on distinguishing between the metaphysical and the man-made and how to treat each.
So, later in the day (or maybe it was Friday), I hear that this fellow Dr. Ben Carson (who, up until then, I’d never even heard of) is considering a presidential run. Well, that set off a fast and furious google/youtube catch up session, and I’m now in part 2 of Ben Carson’s “One Nation”, and I watched “A Breath of Fresh Air” Sunday.
I found myself (as usual), trying to overlook (and translate) the bits about “If it’s God’s plan for me to run, then I will”, and praying for wisdom (do I want a president who might pray for answers to real problems and use divine revelation to choose the way he leads?).
In keeping with my tradition of “thinking out loud” Gulch posts, I really like this guy. He seems to exude a serenity that is the antithesis of what Rand describes as the men who “spend their lives in futile rebellion against the things they cannot change, in passive resignation to the things they can, and - never attempting to learn the difference - in chronic guilt and self-doubt on both counts”.
So I whipped out my personal decoding toolbox, because this is too important to ignore... a distinguished, “non-politician” actually talking about “serving” in a public office... definitely too important to ignore.
Here is my cheat sheet for translating religious language to rational language:
1. Prayer = meditation = settling extraneous thoughts to allow one’s entire attention to be focused on the topic at hand without making the error of allowing extraneous thoughts interfere with the process of assessing the topic.
2. God = the “spirit” of man = the “essence” of man = the “nature” of man = that part of every man which is common with every other man (that he is a rational animal, if you will).
3. God’s will = (in accordance with the previous translation) that which truly rational men must conclude is in their best interest.
This is no science, to be sure, but it works for me when assessing earnest men on either side. If Mr. Carson says that he is praying for wisdom with respect to running, I’m willing to interpret that to mean that he is settling his mind in order to bring his full attention to bear on the situation he would be placing himself into. Every indication is that he is capable of objectively discerning between the metaphysical and the man-made... how can any good medical doctor not? If Mr. Carson says that he will run if it is God’s will that he run, I’m willing to interpret that to mean that he thinks it is in his best interest as well as the best interest of other rational men for him to run.
I’m wondering how other members of the Gulch feel about him as a presidential candidate.
“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.”
While Rand makes it perfectly clear that she disagrees with Reinhold Heibuhr’s ideas in every fundamental way, she finds a certain value in the prayer and uses it to introduce the topic of her essay on distinguishing between the metaphysical and the man-made and how to treat each.
So, later in the day (or maybe it was Friday), I hear that this fellow Dr. Ben Carson (who, up until then, I’d never even heard of) is considering a presidential run. Well, that set off a fast and furious google/youtube catch up session, and I’m now in part 2 of Ben Carson’s “One Nation”, and I watched “A Breath of Fresh Air” Sunday.
I found myself (as usual), trying to overlook (and translate) the bits about “If it’s God’s plan for me to run, then I will”, and praying for wisdom (do I want a president who might pray for answers to real problems and use divine revelation to choose the way he leads?).
In keeping with my tradition of “thinking out loud” Gulch posts, I really like this guy. He seems to exude a serenity that is the antithesis of what Rand describes as the men who “spend their lives in futile rebellion against the things they cannot change, in passive resignation to the things they can, and - never attempting to learn the difference - in chronic guilt and self-doubt on both counts”.
So I whipped out my personal decoding toolbox, because this is too important to ignore... a distinguished, “non-politician” actually talking about “serving” in a public office... definitely too important to ignore.
Here is my cheat sheet for translating religious language to rational language:
1. Prayer = meditation = settling extraneous thoughts to allow one’s entire attention to be focused on the topic at hand without making the error of allowing extraneous thoughts interfere with the process of assessing the topic.
2. God = the “spirit” of man = the “essence” of man = the “nature” of man = that part of every man which is common with every other man (that he is a rational animal, if you will).
3. God’s will = (in accordance with the previous translation) that which truly rational men must conclude is in their best interest.
This is no science, to be sure, but it works for me when assessing earnest men on either side. If Mr. Carson says that he is praying for wisdom with respect to running, I’m willing to interpret that to mean that he is settling his mind in order to bring his full attention to bear on the situation he would be placing himself into. Every indication is that he is capable of objectively discerning between the metaphysical and the man-made... how can any good medical doctor not? If Mr. Carson says that he will run if it is God’s will that he run, I’m willing to interpret that to mean that he thinks it is in his best interest as well as the best interest of other rational men for him to run.
I’m wondering how other members of the Gulch feel about him as a presidential candidate.
You seem to imply that free will decisions to risk ones life for the safety of ones children or to help a stranger in distress are principles of Christianity. I think that these principles existed well before Christianity. Christianity just adopted them, appropriately, I should say.
It seems for certain that Ayn Rand wanted Christians to be free as much as everybody else. Would you agree?
What bolsters me somewhat is that the National Guards are commanded by the Governors - not the President. I sit within spitting distance of a very large National Guard base with tanks and engineering equipment and a short drive from a major mixed air battalion, with a dual-use combat training/bombing range in between. All I can hope is that there are enough "conscientious objectors" in my neck of the woods that they would ignore the President. I doubt that would happen along the East Coast, however.
30 years -- well derived;;; it's a good way to take
people whose rationality is largely sound "at face value," I think. -- j
While you a good argument for your positions and interpretations, I still believe that there is at least a small lack of understanding of what Christians believe.
While it is often misunderstood that god and Jesus a two different personages, God is the Father and Jesus is his son, non believers often get confused.
The “God” of the Muslims may or may not be the same as the Christian God, but it seems very clear that the present understanding of that God is not the same as what Christians understand their God to represent
Furthermore, in my view that there is also a great misunderstanding about Objectivism and Christianity by many Ayn Rand followers. Objectivism calls for man to be free to live his life for his own benefit and that he owes other no part of his life in any fashion. Does that mean a man wouldn't risk his life for his children's safety?
Does it mean he is not allowed to help a stranger as long as he does so of his own free will? I believe that is where Ayn Rand might have been misunderstood and her own rejection of religion was not necessary a rejection of the principles of Christianity.
Of course my bottom line is that I would rather have a president who in moments of doubt get's down on his knees and asks for God's guidance.
You of course are entitled to not believe in anything at all, but please remember that it's not Christians that want laws passed that prohibits expressions of faith, it is the atheist that most often want government to enforce such prohibitions. It is to Ayn Rand's credit that she never expressed a desire to prohibit religion.
Respectfully yours,
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
And yes, they do occur most often when my mind is free of superfluous thoughts (meditation/prayer state).
The question that any rational and/or religious person has to ask is "which God"? Do any two people believe in exactly the same definition of prayer? Do any two people believe in exactly the same God? Do any two people agree on God’s will?
The bible is a great source of wisdom, but it is non-integrated, and each person may choose to use it to the best of their ability in their personal pursuit of wisdom. Objectivism is an integrated philosophy, but it does not teach Objectivists how to get along with non-Objectivists.
Everyone must take responsibility for interpreting words/concepts they do not understand if they have any desire to get along with people who are not like them.
If you read what you wrote and substitute “the God of the Jihadist Muslims” for “God”, you will see that it does, in fact, require interpretation.
(Admittedly, by default, I assume that you mean the Christian God who is also Jesus, as described by one of the many Protestant religions, and that this is roughly the same thing that Dr. Carson means.)
Respectfully,
-Michael
His inconsistencies (noted below) are much due to his religious beliefs.
You state an interesting premise, however it calls for a response form someone that does believe in God. While I appreciate your interpretations of Dr. Carson's comments regarding God's will in determining his own decisions, I would ask that people refrain from re-phrasing his comments and putting other words in his mouth.
Dr. Carson, I'm sure truly believes in God and his statements need no interpretation.
I certainly appreciate that you didn't attempt to belittle his statements regarding God.
Frankly I would much rather have a president who truly believes in God and looks to him for guidance.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
"Wouldn't it be great to at least once have a non-politician in the White House?" I like the idea... How could it be worse? Considering what the professional politicians have brought us... Given a choice between Mr. Carson and Hillary there really is no choice. He would not be my first choice, but I have never really had that option...
Respectfully,
O.A.
I designed the translations to help myself resist the temptation to make assumptions about many religions and traditions - not just Christianity. I think Ben Carson might actually suggest that you took offense prematurely. I never even said I was atheist.
Load more comments...