As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Chuck Todd Asks Ben Carson How a Doctor Could be Religious

Really? Now candidates are being asked to justify their belief in God? Is that where this nation, founded as a God-fearing entity, has gotten to?

NBC’s Meet the Press host Chuck Todd wanted to know from Ben Carson how a man of science could also be a man of faith.

You’re a famed neurosurgeon, some say the best pediatric neurosurgeon living in the world today. You’re a man of deep faith. Explain how science and religion in your mind coexist.

This is insulting. Carson is way too nice. He should have shut Todd right down.

25 Responses to Chuck Todd Asks Ben Carson How a Doctor Could be Religious

  1. The so called “journalists” of the so called “main stream media” are neither journalists nor main stream.
    They are, for all practical purposes vessels of perpetual stupidity whose sole mission is to instill ignorance into the minds of an apathetic America more interested in their free stuff and fake causes.
    If Todd et al actually did his job as Founders intended there would be no Obama Presidency. No President has ever been elected with a weaker resume and no other candidate has ever been given such a pass as did Todd and crew regarding Obama.
    Ben Carson has more intellect in the tip of one finger than Todd and crew will ever have.

  2. Ben Carson is hardly the only educated person in the world to hold the Christian faith. The reality is that as science progresses and continues to increase its understanding of how the universe operates, it becomes more and more apparent that there is no conflict, that the history set forth in the Bible is correct as to the order of creation, and that the chances that this world simply appeared in all its wonder, complexity and precision are just vanishingly small. It takes far more faith to believe in accidental creation than it takes to believe in a Creator God.

    • All the great universities in our western civilization were established in the past by people of faith (including Harvard). Many of them have been destroyed by current day lefty mad men. If you look at the early charters of these schools, you will see they were purposely established not only to pursue science and other areas of knowledge and understanding, but to give honor and instruction in matters of religious faith.

  3. You kind of can’t blame Chuck for asking such a stupid question. He is after all, a Left Wing Liberal.
    And being Left Wing Liberal, and believing in his own super powers, he has no conception that there is a Creator who controls all He has created and that includes science.
    No Chuck, there is no Science God. There is only God.
    And a man like Ben Carson, in his chosen field, must have seen some pretty unexplainable, supernaturel events occur.
    Religion seems to be the meme that the Liberals are leaning toward for the 2016 elections. They have queried Scott Walker, now Ben Carson. Who is next?
    And why should religion play into politics anyway? Aren’t we supposed to have separation of church and state?

    • This is from Cath News on FB:

      In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?”

      The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”

      “Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”

      The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”

      The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”

      The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”

      The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”

      “Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”

      The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”

      The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”

      Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”

      To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.

  4. He didn’t ask him how he could be religious. He asked him how science and religion can co-exist which is a great question and one people have been pondering since Galileo.

    • Todd’s premise: you can either be an intelligent scientist or a believer. False, but that’s what HE believes. The historical truth is that science and religion Have coexisted since the beginning.The earliest men of science were believers. The honest ones still are.

        • OK, not since the beginning, but at least since the 1200’s men of faith were the leading scientific thinkers. Early scientific exploration was encouraged and supported by the church. The premise that if one is a scientist, then one may not/should not be a person of faith is false.

          • Many books were banned from the “common people” by the church and the ones that were able to access these books were targeted as individuals that could be of concern.

    • Focus on the assumption behind Todd’s question. It’s a gotcha question, and has been answered by serious scientists, theologians and philosophers long ago. Obviously, the question came up during the Enlightenment, and still comes up today (as we see). There is NO conflict between faith and science, and they do not cancel each other out, in spite of what has been taught in the secular academies and by the progressive atheists. Look it up. It’s a very interesting field of study.

      • I’m not going to focus on any assumptions. That would require me getting inside the head of someone I don’t know. I’ll just focus on the question that was actually asked.

    • Rob, the Galileo controversy is more complicated than that, although it is true that he wound up mixing theology and science in a way that suggested he thought certain Scripture be rewritten, and thereby rewriting theology. You don’t get to rewrite Scripture, then or now. Thus, he got himself into a boatload o’ big time political and theological trouble. Heliocentricity–the earth and planets moving around the sun–was “discovered” by Copernicus 100 years before Galileo began talking about it. In point of fact, the Vatican and some monied royal Italian families paid his bills so that he might CONTINUE his studies in astronomy. The Vatican only asked only that Galileo state his findings as theory, and not irrefutable scientific fact (yet). Remember the early date Galileo worked in–the early 17th century. In the end it was a political and theological problem for Galileo, and not a scientific problem, and Galileo stumbled too much into the political swamp.

      This was way more than people want to know about this controversy, but there we are. ;+}

  5. Thats what pisses me off with Conservative/Republican candidates…they will never go after these idiots in the ‘media’ for asking stupid-offensive questions.
    I want to see a real Conservative candidate rip into an interviewer once in awhile…show some balls & dignity!

  6. The liberal mind cannot comprehend the concept that a “scientific” mind can see the miracles of faith. When in fact, most doctors will tell you of miracles that science shouldn’t allow…
    The liberal mind considers itself the most open when in fact it is the most tightly closed.