Has Ben Carson made a mockery of NS?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Why are people defending Carson with the whole "you can be religious AND a doctor". Ok fine. But that's not the issue with Carson. If you think the only issue that rational people have with Carson is his religion, then you clearly haven't been following what the man has been saying the past year. Maybe Carson excels at certain technical skills required for surgery. And his faulty logic and reasoning do not hinder him in the same way it would hinder an actual scientist.
 
LouSkuntzMD said:
Calling Ben Carson an idiot and saying things like "he's made a mockery of neurosurgery" is such an absurd statement. He is a man of faith. Faith doesn't base itself in reason or analytical thinking. However one can posses both faith and reasoning, they are not mutually exclusive. Clearly a man smart enough to graduate from yale, be accepted to UM, John Hopkins Neurosurgery resident and become the youngest person to ever head a Pediatric Neurosrugery department posses the ability to scientifically reason. Are some of his beliefs grounded is faith a little out there? Sure, I personally do not necessarily agree with everything he believes. However to belittle a man who is clearly brilliant in his own right because of his religious faith is Ignorant as well. Why is that people do not believe that you can be both religious and intelligence.
Click to expand...

A lot of the time religion promotes willful ignorance. A lot of religious folk take pride in being ignorant of science and I cant get down with that.
 
I don't think you can be religious and truly intelligent. Religion is based on faith and faith is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking (i.e. believing something without the evidence) so I don't see how those two things can be compatible.
 
atomi said:
Only took a couple of posts for the vaccine bullies to show their faces. You know, the crowd who is convinced by "data" (which they have not personally evaluated critically) that every single vaccine is harmless and beneficial and anything other than 100% acceptance is to demonstrate utter idiocy and is quick to jump on the intelligence-shaming bandwagon whenever the word vaccine comes up in anything other than a glowing positive light by trying to make it a binary issue. I.e., ironically dumbing down a complex topic to try and criticize people for being intellectually lazy. "You're not automatically accepting that every vaccine is anything other than perfect for everybody, what are you, some ******ed commoner who learns science from Jenny McCarthy?" I learned everything I need to know about every vaccine to cast this judgement in the first week of medical school!"

E.g., Every premed and medical student.
Click to expand...

I'll accept that vaccines do have side effects.

What's harder to believe is that those side effects, at the rate that they occur, are worse than the side effects and mortality rate of the diseases that they present. The people with vaccine phobia are essentially saying that they'd rather have more dead kids than a few autistic kids (ignoring for a minute that vaccines don't cause autism).
 
Merely said:
I don't think you can be religious and truly intelligent. Religion is based on faith and faith is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking (i.e. believing something without the evidence) so I don't see how those two things can be compatible.
Click to expand...
You do realize the head of the Human Genome Project wrote a book about his conversion to Christianity after extensive research in genetics. I'm not necessarily religious myself but to completely dismiss someones intelligence because they may hold a certain set of beliefs or faiths is just completely ignorant.
 
psychMDhopefully said:
A lot of the time religion promotes willful ignorance. A lot of religious folk take pride in being ignorant of science and I cant get down with that.
Click to expand...

Plenty of non- or anti-religious people who are also rather selective about which scientific discoveries they consider important, or even valid.
 
WilliamofOckham said:
I guess it's convenient to ignore the fact that the birth certificate issue was started by Hillary Clinton supporters.
Click to expand...
Even if he was born in Kenya, he would still be qualified... Rafael was born in Canada and only Trump questions his qualification. Where are the teapots questioning Rafael's qualification?
 
psychMDhopefully said:
A lot of the time religion promotes willful ignorance. A lot of religious folk take pride in being ignorant of science and I cant get down with that.
Click to expand...

Merely said:
I don't think you can be religious and truly intelligent. Religion is based on faith and faith is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking (i.e. believing something without the evidence) so I don't see how those two things can be compatible.
Click to expand...

You do realize many of the greatest minds in history (Einstein, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Pascal, Mendel, etc I could go on) were devoutly religious and/or acknowledged intelligent design during and after their discoveries, right? There are obviously extremes and many levels in between when it comes to the interaction of science and religion in forming any given person's values, but it's simply ignorant to question someone's intelligence, let alone ability as a physician or surgeon, because of his/her religious beliefs without any concrete observations or examples of any hindrance.
 
Last edited:
witzelsucht said:
I think the absolute craziest thing about him is saying Harriet Tubman shouldn't kick A. Jackson off the $20. I mean, the dude is BLACK. And, he's not even in the race anymore. How could you not support a figure like Tubman over someone who basically was a genocider??
Click to expand...
Because Jackson enabled a lot of the expansion that occurred in America, which many religious people view to be "God's country" for whatever reason. He likely thinks Jackson's actions were justified by divinity, a fairly commonly held view amongst evangelicals which believe America is some kind of last great hope for the world and that every terrible action we have taken as a country is justified on those grounds so long as it made the nation stronger.

Of course, those people are idiots, but hey, that's how they think.
 
Merely said:
I don't think you can be religious and truly intelligent. Religion is based on faith and faith is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking (i.e. believing something without the evidence) so I don't see how those two things can be compatible.
Click to expand...
So you're basically writing off 84% of the global population as being incapable of intelligence?

Such arrogance is astounding.
 
Mad Jack said:
So you're basically writing off 84% of the global population as being incapable of intelligence?

Such arrogance is astounding.
Click to expand...

Much more than 85 percent of the world is certainly not smart/bright/thinking minds. If you haven't figured that out by now then you're probably one of them. Look around you...Trump has 50 percent in the polls.
 
Merely said:
I don't think you can be religious and truly intelligent. Religion is based on faith and faith is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking (i.e. believing something without the evidence) so I don't see how those two things can be compatible.
Click to expand...

lol very much disagree
 
Merely said:
Much more than 85 percent of the world is certainly not smart/bright/thinking minds. If you haven't figured that out by now then you're probably one of them. Look around you...Trump has 50 percent in the polls.
Click to expand...
:eyebrow: Actually I'm someone that is pretty optimistic about society and humanity in general, because, despite their flaws, humans are pretty fantastic. As to how religion can be believed by intelligent people, humans are pretty hardwired to be religious or spiritual- regardless of how smart you are, overcoming inherent evolutionary programming is fairly difficult. It's the same reason some of the more brilliant politicians can be stupid enough to say, knock up a staffer. Or that some brilliant scientists can be so drawn to illicit drugs, despite the penalty that they would pay for being caught with them. Or any number of other things- human cognition and intelligence is a collection of traits and abilities, not a singular entity that is either intelligent or lacking. You are, no doubt, stupid in your own ways, even if you choose to be blissfully ignorant of that fact.
 
Merely said:
I don't think you can be religious and truly intelligent. Religion is based on faith and faith is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking (i.e. believing something without the evidence) so I don't see how those two things can be compatible.
Click to expand...

Couple things.

First off, I'm not religious at all, never was brought up religious. As you keenly observed throughout college, most professors and scientists are not religious. No argument against that. I'll even go so far as to say I used to think like you and think people who actually believe an invisible man was living in the sky (to quote George carlin) were idiots. However, religion isn't necessarily used as a replacement for scientific proof and logic. It's more something to fall back on when you've lost faith in everything. For some people who stoop so low in life to the point where they may as well just kill themselves because all odds are against them, they can utilize religion to believe that there is hope and that someone is looking out for them and guiding them down a path. Ultimately, (assuming you've taken psych in medical school) the mind and body connection could flourish from this faith and give people optimistic outlooks, lowering chronic stress whatnot. This is a pretty down and dirty opinion from an atheist/agnostic on why religion still exists in all intellectual echelons.

Second, if we want to start a thread on people ruining the image for doctors due to stupidity, dude there are way worse examples than Ben Carson to bring up. Way worse.
 
chipwhitley said:
If 'monkey' was a racial slur against whites, then it would be a problem there too.
Click to expand...

pitman said:
Yeah, that's representative of black conservatives. Yep. Just like how progressive blacks go around preaching, "Death to Israel!"

Implying that Carson -- any black man -- is an Uncle Tom is offensive racialization. It's obviously closer to racism than using the benign old saying that even a monkey can be trained to do x, in a discussion about the lack of apparent common sense in someone who happens to be black (while reflexive responses calling for the author to check himself, er, his privilege, is itself unhelpful racialization).
Click to expand...

You 2 are bonkers. If someone is offended, they can pipe up. Let's not act like statements are somehow objectively offensive. If I need you to defend me, I'll let you know. (Nobody does. Stop it.) There's no "problem", and I don't even know what an "offensive" or "unhelpful racialization" is. Offensive to who? Unhelpful to what end?

This is politics now in the US: "Let me demonstrate how not-racist I am, and while I do that, let me indicate that the other party is racist." Whoever is less racist wins!

Pro tip: If someone calls something you said racist, offensive, problematic, etc ... ignore them. They're just trying to score cheap points.
 
Mad Jack said:
:eyebrow: Actually I'm someone that is pretty optimistic about society and humanity in general, because, despite their flaws, humans are pretty fantastic. As to how religion can be believed by intelligent people, humans are pretty hardwired to be religious or spiritual- regardless of how smart you are, overcoming inherent evolutionary programming is fairly difficult. It's the same reason some of the more brilliant politicians can be stupid enough to say, knock up a staffer. Or that some brilliant scientists can be so drawn to illicit drugs, despite the penalty that they would pay for being caught with them. Or any number of other things- human cognition and intelligence is a collection of traits and abilities, not a singular entity that is either intelligent or lacking. You are, no doubt, stupid in your own ways, even if you choose to be blissfully ignorant of that fact.
Click to expand...

Anicetus said:
Couple things.

First off, I'm not religious at all, never was brought up religious. As you keenly observed throughout college, most professors and scientists are not religious. No argument against that. I'll even go so far as to say I used to think like you and think people who actually believe an invisible man was living in the sky (to quote George carlin) were idiots. However, religion isn't necessarily used as a replacement for scientific proof and logic. It's more something to fall back on when you've lost faith in everything. For some people who stoop so low in life to the point where they may as well just kill themselves because all odds are against them, they can utilize religion to believe that there is hope and that someone is looking out for them and guiding them down a path. Ultimately, (assuming you've taken psych in medical school) the mind and body connection could flourish from this faith and give people optimistic outlooks, lowering chronic stress whatnot. This is a pretty down and dirty opinion from an atheist/agnostic on why religion still exists in all intellectual echelons.

Second, if we want to start a thread on people ruining the image for doctors due to stupidity, dude there are way worse examples than Ben Carson to bring up. Way worse.
Click to expand...

Agree with both of these
 
Merely said:
I don't think you can be religious and truly intelligent. Religion is based on faith and faith is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking (i.e. believing something without the evidence) so I don't see how those two things can be compatible.
Click to expand...
43051169c7a7b8517db99fba709b618506ced2b1fdca827c2ef3b49916592071.jpg
 
Pacna said:
You 2 are bonkers. If someone is offended, they can pipe up. Let's not act like statements are somehow objectively offensive. If I need you to defend me, I'll let you know. (Nobody does. Stop it.) There's no "problem", and I don't even know what an "offensive" or "unhelpful racialization" is. Offensive to who? Unhelpful to what end?

This is politics now in the US: "Let me demonstrate how not-racist I am, and while I do that, let me indicate that the other party is racist." Whoever is less racist wins!

Pro tip: If someone calls something you said racist, offensive, problematic, etc ... ignore them. They're just trying to score cheap points.
Click to expand...
You missed the entire point of that discussion. I am not concerned with whether you are offended (actually, fundamentally my argument is that someone taking offense to something said has no bearing in and of itself on whether it should have been said).

My comments were a direct retort to the reflexive dismissiveness of the use of the word 'monkey' in a non-racial characterization of a neurosurgeon who publicly made idiotic claims (health-related and not) while happening to be black -- if such is a priori to be considered offensive or racist (with the implication that it should be censored), then it should be far more so to call Carson an Uncle Tom (due to the derogatory stereotyped presumptions inherent to the latter).

Obviously in a discussion about whether someone is smart, or has done neurosurgery a disservice with his idiotic comments, racialization is not helpful. Not everything is or needs to be about race, as not every discussion of every issue is helped by bringing race into it.

I'm one of the least PC people I know, but one thing I don't put up with is hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
Siggy said:
I'll accept that vaccines do have side effects.

What's harder to believe is that those side effects, at the rate that they occur, are worse than the side effects and mortality rate of the diseases that they present. The people with vaccine phobia are essentially saying that they'd rather have more dead kids than a few autistic kids (ignoring for a minute that vaccines don't cause autism).
Click to expand...
Hm. I'm far from anti-vaccination but would have to disagree that there is some absolute measure to say the side effects of vaccines generally are smaller than the benefits. Do you mean to society? According to some quantification of net side effects (say by, arbitrarily, QALY, factoring in economic cost)?

To the individual, it is sometimes more beneficial not to vaccinate. The cost-benefit analysis at the individual or population level must also include ethical considerations like any negatives of encroaching on autonomy, particularly when vaccines are virtually forced (which used to be considered a far more important issue as a result of the Nazis, while Americans in particular tend to find important due to the philosophical underpinnings of its liberal democracy), and particularly when the argument to strengthen enforcement relies on the falsehood that, say, the pertussis epidemics seen in various countries (such as Australia, where I am) have been caused by conscientious objectors of vaccination. Weighing autonomy is not something science can do, and weighing relative benefit of increased enforcement is dubious when relying on disinformation (e.g., how much to punish parents in order to decrease objection from 5% to, say, 4%, when no health benefit to the rest of the population would be expected due to pertussis's ~80% partial resistance to the vaccine that has most likely resulted from govts switching from whole-cell to acellular?...so despite the general idea and practice of having pertussis vaccine available is a plus, the argument for practical net benefit for, say, incremental increases in uptake, or for making it required, is not cut-and-dry).

As another example, while HPV vaccine is predicted to be very good at lowering cervical CA rates, its efficacy was completely unknown at the time intense lobbying by pharma got it fast-tracked for US approval and put onto schedules (due to vaccine-targeted HPV being responsible for only ~70% of cervical CAs, and the use of proxies to test its efficacy against CA, anything less than vaccine's ~100% efficacy against targeted HPV makes its effiacy against CA unquantifiable -- it only more recently was found that vaccine is nearly 100% efficacious against targeted HPV strains). Fast-tracking was also a stupid idea (it's meant for public health emergencies like for HIV/AIDS). The push for swine flu vaccine (albeit flu vaccines aren't required, yet) was also scandalous, and justification for its coverage is dubious.
 
Last edited:
pitman said:
Hm. I'm far from anti-vaccination but would have to disagree that there is some absolute measure to say the side effects of vaccination are smaller than the benefits. Do you mean to society? To the individual, it is sometimes more beneficial not to vaccinate. The cost-benefit analysis at the individual or population level must also include any negatives of encroaching on autonomy, particularly when vaccines are virtually forced, and particularly when the argument to strengthen enforcement relies on the falsehood that, say, the pertussis epidemics seen in various countries (such as Australia, where I am) have been caused by conscientious objectors of vaccination. Weighing autonomy is not something science can do, and weighing relative benefit of increased enforcement is dubious when relying on disinformation (e.g., how much to punish parents in order to decrease objection from 5% to, say, 4%, when no health benefit to the rest of the population would be expected due to pertussis resistance to the vaccine that's resulted from govts switching from whole-cell to acellular?...so despite the general idea and practice of having pertussis vaccine available is a plus, the argument for practical net benefit for, say, incremental increases in uptake, or for making it required, is not cut-and-dry).
Click to expand...

I'm talking about historically. I'm talking about taking the infection rate and mortality rate of measles prior to the vaccine being offered and compare it to the complication rate of the vaccine. This doesn't even count the fact that the MMR vaccine includes protection from 2 other diseases. That alone makes vaccination the rational choice. Relying on herd immunity (ignoring people who are unable to receive the vaccine because of medical reasons) is stupid because it isn't reliable because that protection decreases as fewer people are vaccinated. Unless there's a medical condition preventing vaccination, it is never more beneficial to not get vaccinated.

This isn't an issue of autonomy. It's an issue of people being stupid. If someone doesn't want to be vaccinated, then fine... they shouldn't have to be vaccinated. However I'm not going to shed a tear when they get a preventable infection, suffer preventable mortality and morbidity from that infection, and are treated by a leaper by society because people would rather support people who are physically unable to get vaccinated than those who refuse vaccination (i.e. pediatricians who refuse to see the anti-vax crowd). I support people being able to make their own bed... and I support forcing people to lay down in that bed. I don't support people being able to make their own bed and then bitch about how unfair the bed they made for themselves was so unfair.
 
I was responding to the general claim that there are net benefits for vaccines, keeping in mind that many objectors (most that I come across in practice) are not so black-and-white and are selective in what vaccines they object to, rationally, or not (as is the case for MMR-autism). But I haven't heard anti-vaxxers complain when their kids get the diseases they opted not to have them vaccinated for.
 
Merely said:
Much more than 85 percent of the world is certainly not smart/bright/thinking minds. If you haven't figured that out by now then you're probably one of them. Look around you...Trump has 50 percent in the polls.
Click to expand...
These numbers aren't far off for med school either, despite med students beliefs. #medschool #blessed #futuredoctor

I thought when I left the military I wouldn't have to deal with stupid people giving me orders. I was wrong. Intelligence is a burden, not a gift. I wish I had that ability to believe in God. Or OMM. I'd be a lot better off and optimistic.

Being stupid wins in today's world. I've been born 40 years too early.
 
pitman said:
You missed the entire point of that discussion.
Click to expand...

Probably. I only read a few posts.

pitman said:
I am not concerned with whether you are offended (actually, fundamentally my argument is that someone taking offense to something said has no bearing in and of itself on whether it should have been said).
Click to expand...

Glad we agree!

pitman said:
My comments were a direct retort to the reflexive dismissiveness of the use of the word 'monkey' in a non-racial characterization of a neurosurgeon who publicly made idiotic claims (health-related and not) while happening to be black -- if such is a priori to be considered offensive or racist (with the implication that it should be censored), then it should be far more so to call Carson an Uncle Tom (due to the derogatory stereotyped presumptions inherent to the latter).

Obviously in a discussion about whether someone is smart, or has done neurosurgery a disservice with his idiotic comments, racialization is not helpful. Not everything is or needs to be about race, as not every discussion of every issue is helped by bringing race into it.

I'm one of the least PC people I know, but one thing I don't put up with is hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I see no issue with your logic here. I guess what I was replying to was the phrase "unhelpful racialization". After this clarification, I agree with you 100%. I'm sorry I called you bonkers. 🙂

Also, I would honestly prefer SDN (and our culture in general) to allow people to make racist statements without fear of censorship. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for poor ideas.
 
pitman said:
I was responding to the general claim that there are net benefits for vaccines, keeping in mind that many objectors (most that I come across in practice) are not so black-and-white and are selective in what vaccines they object to, rationally, or not (as is the case for MMR-autism). But I haven't heard anti-vaxxers complain when their kids get the diseases they opted not to have them vaccinated for.
Click to expand...
You haven't seen them complain when a physician chooses to protect the rest of his patients from a walking unvaccinated disease incubator? Protecting some of the patients who may to too young or have contraindications to vaccines?

You haven't seen them complain when they are quarantined following an exposure?
 
Siggy said:
You haven't seen them complain when a physician chooses to protect the rest of his patients from a walking unvaccinated disease incubator? Protecting some of the patients who may to too young or have contraindications to vaccines?

You haven't seen them complain when they are quarantined following an exposure?
Click to expand...
Nope, my anti-vaccine patients know not to complain. But I see your point, I was thinking too narrowly (having said that, I have had the parents of vaccinated patients ask why their kid should be quarantined with the whooping cough, or that surprising case of measles).
 
Merely said:
Much more than 85 percent of the world is certainly not smart/bright/thinking minds. Look around you...Trump has 50 percent in the polls.
Click to expand...
You are correct on your first point. Your second point is pure irony.
 
Carson is a legend, I knew about him before the whole political stuff
He was an inspirational figure to me, and still is..
Was the stupid kid, and a trouble maker.. Illiterate mother set him straight, did better than his white peers who looked down upon him, got into yale.. Then got into med school, and went on to become on of the best pediatric neurosurgeons to ever exist.
That's one heck of a journey, and very admirable.

He obviously is a very intelligent man, and obviously far more intelligent than those who call him stupid.
 
Merely said:
I don't think you can be religious and truly intelligent. Religion is based on faith and faith is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking (i.e. believing something without the evidence) so I don't see how those two things can be compatible.
Click to expand...
You need a lethal dose of humbleness...

Religion was essential to the development of society, without religion we would be barking like savages at each other. Further, you are a product of a religious society, you love to hate on said society but you hold all values of such a society to be true.
 
Dr.Sticks said:
Carson is a legend, I knew about him before the whole political stuff
He was an inspirational figure to me, and still is..
Was the stupid kid, and a trouble maker.. Illiterate mother set him straight, did better than his white peers who looked down upon him, got into yale.. Then got into med school, and went on to become on of the best pediatric neurosurgeons to ever exist.
That's one heck of a journey, and very admirable.

He obviously is a very intelligent man, and obviously far more intelligent than those who call him stupid.
Click to expand...

Smart people with critical thinking skills do not belive in creationism.
 
Dr.Sticks said:
You need a lethal dose of humbleness...

Religion was essential to the development of society, without religion we would be barking like savages at each other. Further, you are a product of a religious society, you love to hate on said society but you hold all values of such a society to be true.
Click to expand...
Absence of religion is not absence of morals. If you can't understand this there is not much I can say that you will understand.
 
Im glad to say i know him personally, and at times he may say some dumb things, but so do we all. If you were to spend some quality time with him (not in a pressure filled area like a POTUS candidate debate) you will find he is extremely intelligent.

I dont see what the point of the OP was? I guess its just another example of "haters gonna hate".


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Dr.Sticks said:
You need a lethal dose of humbleness...

Religion was essential to the development of society, without religion we would be barking like savages at each other. Further, you are a product of a religious society, you love to hate on said society but you hold all values of such a society to be true.
Click to expand...

I hold all the values of a religious society? The problem is you think you are smart with your comments but you have really no clue what you're talking about. I would advise you to take some philosophy classes before you graduate.
 
Merely said:
I don't think you can be religious and truly intelligent. Religion is based on faith and faith is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking (i.e. believing something without the evidence) so I don't see how those two things can be compatible.
Click to expand...

Every perspective relies on belief in something that is not personally perceived. Ben Carson has said 1 or 2 idiotic things, but other than that the guy has pissed excellence. I think he would have been a better president than crooked hillary. Hillary for prison 2016!
 
Merely said:
I hold all the values of a religious society? The problem is you think you are smart with your comments but you have really no clue what you're talking about. I would advise you to take some philosophy classes before you graduate.
Click to expand...
You didn't arrive at your own conclusions about what is wrong, and what isn't
you were indoctrinated from birth about right and wrong
 
giantswing said:
Absence of religion is not absence of morals. If you can't understand this there is not much I can say that you will understand.
Click to expand...
Except that the whole basis of liberal humanism (and the notion that humans are individually special w/ immutable rights) is monotheism. Not that social humanists (today's socialist-leaning Left) -- the most rabid anti-religious ideological group IMO -- respect liberal humanism or individual rights anyway.

To discount something is to discount its heritage in entirety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Only 1/5 letter writers has uploaded. Am I cooked?
Replies
9
Views
841
NotAProgDirector
NotAProgDirector
ecobio
Bench research... Worth it as a med student?
Replies
9
Views
835
Tenk
Tenk
F
Elective rotation still has not sent out a schedule--is it unprofessional if I don't reach out?
Replies
1
Views
759
LucidSplash
LucidSplash
L
SDN Article: Ten years ago, academics in the NEJM disagreed about a looming shortage of residency positions. After 10 years of data, we now have the a
Replies
12
Views
1K
Med Ed
Med Ed
T
UPDATE!! Made a huge mistake while submitting ERAS application.
Replies
30
Views
8K
Fluffyone
Fluffyone
Top