Smallpox and God

[sashh]

One of my classes of ESOL students can't understand that I'm an atheist so they brought in a friend with good English to try co convert me or at least educate me.

One question I asked was that, if Allah made everything in the world for a reason, was it a good or a bad thing that smallpox has been eradicated.

From my point of view it is a triumph of science and undoubtedly a good thing.

I wondered what other people think. I don't think I'm going to change my mind, but I think it is an interesting point.

So, is the eradication of smallpox a good or a bad thing?

Africa has loads of resources. War, corruption and exploitation are responsible for starvation in Africa, not lack of resources.

Certainly it has resources, but when you have to travel 60 miles to your nearest clean water, that's a problem. I'm not suggesting there are no natural resources in Africa, that would be ridiculous, but the poorest, most hard up communities are the ones who don't have local access to clean water, trees, arable land. They live in areas of the world where, in all honesty, they shouldn't really be able to survive.

No peoples settle 60miles away from clean drinking water, it's kinda the first thing our species look for when camping for the night, never mind building a community. People are driven off their land by war and corruption. Rivers are dammed and waterways re-routed for gain. Pollution of drinking water by business is accepted by governments and shareholders alike without a thought for those who depend on it. Land is seized, forests are felled, deserts are created. Where real drought occurs it should be a case of keeping people fed until it passes or they settle somewhere else.

As I said, starvation in Africa and elsewhere is caused by the greedy and the powerful, not lack of resources.

"there are beliefs we hold about God in Islam which are not in Christianity. and in Judaism that are not in Islam, and in Christianity that are not in Judaism."

You can't all be right, how do you reconcile that?

Snorbs, Pedro and HeadinHands, do you regard the scientists who contribute to the research and design of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons which kill, torture and maim human beings to be responsible for the death of those human beings? Do you regard them as morally reprehensible?

For example a scientist like Fritz Haber, who developed the Haber process which is important in the production of fertilizers (leading to increase in food production) but also developed chemical weapons for the German government in World war 1 which was used to kill millions of soldiers in trench warfare. Do you agree with his statement that death is death, by whatever means it is inflicted? Is he morally reprehensible? He recieved a Nobel Prize.

Wa alaykum wa salam Crescent

'This association of being 'honoured' or 'loved' by having something - health/wealth - or being 'dishonoured/abased' by NOT having something - health/wealth - is a human assumption.'

'Muhammad (pbuh) tried to break that among his own followers by connecting hardship with trial not evil. In Islam it always comes back to what the purpose of life is - which is to be tested as to our resolve and commitment to do good in any diverse situation.'

Happy to see we are singing from the same hymn sheet . Really agreed with the points you made about material status in this life and spiritual standing with God not being connected. There are two chapters in the Quran which I love to recite in my prayers when I am facing difficulties (though I dont recite them as beautifully as these two:

)

The verse that I particularly love in the first chapter is the one where God says to the Prophet Muhammed PBUH that He has not forsaken him nor does He hate him. This was to comfort the Prophet Muhammed PBUH who was suffering hardships. The chapter goes on to highlight that trials and difficulties are temporary afflictions. The Prophet was an orphan without parents and God gave him refuge. He was poor and God enriched him. He was lost and God guided him. Its message is comforting to me too.

The second chapter again reiterates the message that spiritual standing with God is seperate from worldly status. Both states (having material wealth or being impoverished) are a test that should cause us to increase in our empathy, compassion and kindness towards those who are suffering rather then to arrogantly gloat over them that we are somehow better or more deserving.

And as for man, when his Lord tries him and [thus] is generous to him and favors him, he says, "My Lord has honored me." But when He tries him and restricts his provision, he says, "My Lord has humiliated me." No! But you treat not the orphans with kindness and generosity. And you do not encourage one another to feed the poor...And you love wealth with immense love Holy Quran, Chapter 89, verse 15-19

^"there are beliefs we hold about God in Islam which are not in Christianity. and in Judaism that are not in Islam, and in Christianity that are not in Judaism."

You can't all be right, how do you reconcile that?^

God is beyond our human efforts to fully comprehend him, but all faiths have glimpses of him. For me, Christianity has more glimpses, and for Crescent and Peaceful Islam offers more glimpses. One image for it would be that God is like a courtyard garden surrounded on all sides by a portico, through the pillars of which we can see into parts of the garden. We can never be on all sides of the portico, and we can never see the whole garden. But we have glimpses into it, and we can hear about, and imagine, other people's glimpses, and learn to see the garden from their point of view.

crescentmoon

No I meant what I wrote.

Some debated have a clear single answer. Some have several outcomes that are appropriate and positive.

This one doesn't.

What do I advise? It depends on the answers. Ideally no one should be put in that position. An interpreter should have been used earlier to assertion the patient's own wishes.

Other options include asking the chaplain for advice, many hospitals now have 'chaplains' of various faiths.

The answers I get have included:

Giving him a bible to learn 'the truth'

Phoning the son for more information.

Giving the drug and not telling anyone.

Page the Dr and ask for something else to be prescribed.

Finding an interpreter / medical professional who can speak the same language and asking the person himself.

Obviously the first answer is totally inappropriate, but the student found it difficult to accept it.

Giving the drug and saying nothing is also a definite 'no'.

The others depend on the response you get from phoning/paging etc.

"well, they reconcile far better than the materialism that dominates molecular biology and the field of quantum mechanics."

Not really, quantum physics is by far the most tested, most consistent and most accurately predictable branch of science we've ever had. By a huge margin.

"Snorbs, Pedro and HeadinHands, do you regard the scientists who contribute to the research and design of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons which kill, torture and maim human beings to be responsible for the death of those human beings? Do you regard them as morally reprehensible?"

I regard people who deliberately manufacture weapons with the intent to kill or sell to some who does to be responsible for any deaths that weapon causes.

Scientists who contribute to research which subsequently gets used for weapons, I don't consider to be responsible. Otherwise you'd have to jail the inventor of the candlestick for all those Cluedo moments.....

Snorbs, regarding the ethics surrounding a creator deity in allowing such viruses to exist: viruses and bacterium massively predate human evolution. Do you think it would be ethical of a creator deity to wipe out old organisms because newer organisms don't like them?