If having children leads to some percentage of them ending up in hell, is it still reasonable to continue having them? Possibly.
I wish I had been buried like a baby who never saw the light of day.
~ Job 3:16
Should all children be left behind?
Controversial philosopher David Benatar argues in his book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence that since life begets pain, there is a moral imperative not to procreate:
“We infrequently contemplate the harms that await any new-born child—pain, disappointment, anxiety, grief, and death. For any given child we cannot predict what form these harms will take or how severe they will be, but we can be sure that at least some of them will occur. None of this befalls the nonexistent. Only existers suffer harm.”
~David Benatar
I don’t know if I agree with David, but it’s certainly true that the unborn will never have to endure things like: sickness, hunger, bullies, work, disease, divorce, poison ivy, stress, depression, confusion, cancer, canker sores, rejection, miscarriage, migraines, the macarena, incontinence, paralyzation, disabilities, heartaches, toothaches, flu, traffic jams, vomiting, colonoscopies, seizures, strokes, surgery, sunburn, STDs, arthritis, Alzheimer’s, chemotherapy, the loss of loved ones, grieving, aging, dying, and all the other horrors that plague mankind.
It’s also true that the unborn won’t experience any of life’s pleasures, but we cannot reason that the unborn are being deprived of these pleasures, any more than we can reason that a rock is being deprived pleasure. As long as the atoms that would’ve gone into making a new life remain unassembled, these souls remain oblivious and at rest.
But if hell exists…
If hell exists, the situation becomes infinitely more dire. Now, not only are we sparing the unborn from the pain of this life, but potentially eternal pain in the next. If hell exists, we should all stop procreating immediately, lest we risk adding one more soul to hell.
As Balise Pascal might have reasoned, if there’s even the slightest chance of our ending up in hell, then it is in our best interest to never be born.
Even if 99 people out of 100 go to heaven, it’s still not worth the risk. We needn’t concern ourselves with the 99 who enter paradise, as they are in no pain. But for the 1 who must suffer eternal torment, it would’ve been better had none of them been born, as the sum total of those in torment would’ve remained zero.
So while it’s true that the unborn will never have the opportunity to enter heaven, we could reason that it doesn’t really matter, since: 1) the unborn are oblivious to this opportunity, 2) the odds of getting in were slim anyway (Matt. 7:13), and 3) bringing souls into existence only increases the total amount of pain in the universe.
So should Christians stop having children? Surprisingly… no.
If Christianity is true, then the above argument begins to fall apart when we factor in the unsaved.
Currently, 2000 years after Christ, roughly 2/3rds of the world remains unconvinced by Christianity. If all Christians were to suddenly stop procreating, it’s a safe bet that the beliefs of the other 2/3rds would take over, and Christianity might even disappear.
Christians, then, can logically argue that it’s better for 1/3 of each future generation to be “saved” than none at all. (They might even reason that Christians should try to have as many offspring as possible, to push out other faiths in future generations.)
The same argument could be made against Christians killing their young. While killing your young might ensure they get into heaven, if all Christians killed their children, then few would remain to carry the torch.
Should God stop creating children? If hell exists, yes!
How could God, at present, stand idly by while 2/3rds of every new generation enters hell? Why let such a travesty continue? If He’s going to end the world anyway, why not do it now, before any more souls can enter hell?
This harkens back to the problem of evil. If, in the beginning, God knew the majority of us would go to hell, then why create us at all? And why ask us to be fruitful and multiply, when He knows damn well the majority of these souls will go to hell?
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.”
~ Genesis 1:28You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way.
~ Matthew 7:13
This problem truly baffles me. The Bible tells us that God ultimately wins the war against Satan, but how can God declare Himself the victor when Satan has collected the most souls? God may win the final battle, but Satan appears to have won the war.
Should atheists/naturalists stop having children? It’s debatable.
Unlike the Christian, the atheist is under no mandate to be fruitful and multiply, or to spread the gospel. With no great commission, Christians will sometimes ask “Why don’t atheists just kill themselves?” I think most atheists would answer that their life is not filled with so much sorrow and despair that suicide is the most attractive option. Even when there is pain, there is almost always something to look forward to (e.g. love, laughter, music, movies, food, books, art, games, friends, family, travel, weekends, etc.). Life will end soon enough on its own, and we will have the rest of eternity to enjoy being dead. So right now, during our few short moments here, we might as well have a look around.
If you are fortunate enough not to be one of the millions of people who suffer in severe poverty or the horrors of some war, life can be a fantastic ride with or without gods.
~ Guy P. Harrison, 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God
For these reasons, many atheists assume their children will also conclude that life is, overall, a worthwhile experience. But as Guy Harrison points out, quality of life is definitely an important factor to consider when having children.
Personally, I find there are very few days in which I can honestly say that I would prefer not to exist, (though, there are many days when I wish other people did not exist). My personal philosophy is that suffering and death are simply the price we pay for the opportunity to be alive.
Conclusion
If Christianity is true, then there are good reasons for Christians to continue procreating (which they seem to enjoy doing, anyway). But I don’t find any good reasons in the Bible for why God would want this experiment to continue (especially if there is a hell), or why He should desire it in the first place.
If God doesn’t exist, then the question of whether or not to continue procreating becomes more complicated. If there are no gods, then we are forced to occupy their roles, and we must ask ourselves ”Should we continue bringing more life into existence, even if it means creating more pain?”
Earlier today, I pondered this question as I walked alongside my 9-year-old son. I asked him point-blank “Are you glad you’re alive?” He answered (as if it wasn’t a totally stupid question): “Yes. I love my mom and dad, not only because they love me, but also because they chose to bring me into existence when they didn’t have to.” Both my children seem to be greatly enjoying their life experience, at least for now. And while I hope that they will experience far more pleasure than pain in life, I also realize that there are no guarantees. Life is a gamble, but the odds are often good that a person will find ways to feel happy and fulfilled, and that this will outweigh any suffering. Still, we owe it to our children to carefully consider what kind of environment they will be raised in before subjecting them to it.
After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn’t it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked—as I am surprisingly often—why I bother to get up in the mornings.
~Richard Dawkins
Great Dawkins quote. Nice post.
Thanks.
Hell is a somewhat primitive concept. If “Jesus conqured death”, what was it that he did? Where did he go after his alledged death on the cross? To Heaven, or Hell? Or did he just lie dead in his grave waiting to be reincarnated? If that is the case, how did he know, that he was dead, and not just in a coma? He could not even have the slightest clue if he was dead, or not. He gave no “eyewittness account” of either Heaven, or Hell, but alledgedly he is the only guy who has returned from the death. In effect, we have no knowledge wether these “places” are actual, or simply metaphors for good and bad living. Christian theology seems to assume them as actual places, though. Why? To frighten people to join the club and pay their share?
It seems not even all Christians are so convinced about the idea of Hell. For example according to a Norvegian Christian magazine Vårt Land (“Our Land”), only 12% of Norvegians believe in the concept of salvation from Hell. In the the recent poll some 15% said they honestly do not know what happens after death. Fifth of those who answered reconned, that everybody gets to Heaven. 5% said that some few will be saved to a good place and the rest will simply ceace to exist. Almost half of those who bothered to answer – 48% said that there is no afterlife what so ever. People who lived in countryside seemed to be a bit more traditional in their thinking, but “not much”.
Now, why would any of the 48% see themselves as Christian is a bit beyond me. Exept perhaps, simply because of a tradition. Norway is considered a Christian nation, but things are generally quite well there. They have the oil to pay for social security, free education and such. People whose lives are in order, feel the need to summon supernatural powers much less than those who are in constant disstress. Norvegians also have a good quality education, so they are less ignorant about many things, than many people in more religious societies.
“Where did he go after his alledged death on the cross? To Heaven, or Hell?”
Legend has it he went to hell…
“Christian theology seems to assume them as actual places, though. Why?”
The Bible…? I personally suspect that the afterlife was an unavoidable necessity. Without it, people would’ve eventually realized there’s no point in serving God, even if He does exist, because He provides no tangible benefit in this life. But an afterlife, well that’s just pure genius! Now, God can remain absolutely indifferent, because you’ll get your reward later! And since the afterlife is not a falsifiable claim, it can never be disproved. It really is genius. Once again, religion evolves to deal with a difficult problem.
“…only 12% of Norvegians believe in the concept of salvation from Hell”
Much different here, where 70% believe in hell and 80% believe in heaven.
Few years back there was a survey, that compared the basic values of people, and the researchers claimed their results as more, or less surprizing. They said that the people in Islamic countries and in the US held more similarities in their values than Europeans did whith either. Naturally, when values are an issue, religion and attitude towards it was one of the main factors. Of course, the religions are different, but the values people thought their own respective religions presented were more similar between US population and that of most islamic countries. Should we assume, that god enlightens some nations more than others? Like a god alledgedly did with the ancient Hebrews and alledgedly a nother god did with the Arabs. Could there be a nother reason for this phenomenon.
What else do these people have incommon in the US and in the Islamic countries and what makes Europeans different in this respect? Is it, that a large number of Europeans are deranged and decadent, or that the simple god fearing people in both the Islamic countries and in the US are less educated? As I said before humans are prone to ask for divine help when they are in trouble. Could differencies in safety of living make that difference? What also divides the world in this respect is the gap between the very richest and the masses of poor. Could the answer be there?
I have no answer to this, nor do I have any link to the survey either (I read it in Finnish, from a newspaper).
Anyway, what is interresting about the Hell as a concept, is that the division line of who goes and who does not seems to be a mystery even to the adherents of the religions that endorce the idea. Some say that little babies automatically go to heaven, but others claim that a human being is born whith the primal sin. So, which is it? Is the sin added to humans at the moment of conception, as so many Christian “pro-life” people claim a human being begins at that very moment, or is it only when we are born? If it is the latter, and Heaven and Hell are true, aborting children is the greatest favour they can recieve. Or is it later, that we come part of the “sin” when we do our first selfish and vile deed at the age of two or so? But can a two or three year old be accountable for some “sin” to be punished by an eternal torture? Is that not disproportionate for a seven year olds misbehaviour? What about a teenager, who all do stupid things in fit of suddenly raised hormone levels, or what about someone on the treshold of adulthood who is still trying to cope in to the adult world? Who anyway is accountable for anything for an eternity of pain?
There are a lot of unknowns about hell. I think the catch-all answer is “have faith that God will be fair.” In other words, stop thinking, and stop trying to reason it out in the Bible, just believe that God will handle it.
“Who anyway is accountable for anything for an eternity of pain?”
In the interest of treating others they way I would want to be treated, I’d say no one. Heck, even God should be moral enough to see this — would He want to be in hell forever? Of course not, so why would He inflict that pain on others? Even Hitler deserves an eventual reprieve, otherwise his pain exceeds the pain he inflicted on others.
Hitler is so often used in this particular issue. I do not think he was not punished simply because he escaped legal punishment by committing suicide. He had years, from almost the beginning of the war, to see his dream slowly deteriorate. When he finally killed himself the Soviets were practically knocking on his bunker door. It took them several years to get there from Stalingrad, and the German army had very few successes in between. Even Hitler himself was reported to have said, that the Germans were not worthy of him. Since his entire life and ideology was based on the lie how the Germans are this supposedly higher race, it tells the tale of a man who had lost all his dreams and was totally crushed. I’d say he did pay in full for his crimes.
We could find some other historical character who died totally unaware of the reprecussions of his evil deeds, but why do people do terrible things? Most often it is because they allready have tormented minds. What is then more important? That there was no vengeace, or that the evil he did finally ended? The knowledge of Hell has done very little to stop people from evil deeds. Most people who do something truly horrific, actually believe they are doing good. For example Hitler believed so to the very end. It might even be, that he expected to end up in Heaven. Maybe he repented at the very last moment of his life and was forgiven. According to the Biblical logic he would then end up in Heaven while some Chinese ordinary everyday loving parents, sons and daughters end up in Hell, just because what they heard about a foreign and strange religion called Christianity did not make any sense at all to them.
Very interesting conversation. What would you say to the Christian that sees Hell as a timeless point of realization that Life was within grasping, if only you would have believed in it? I believe that the choice set before us by God is between eternal Life and eternal Death, In this manner, both the believer in Jesus and the believer in atheism are rewarded according to their faith.
Howdy I n I,
Hummm… I suppose I’d ask about the difference between a “timeless point of realization” and “eternal Death”. To me, “eternal Death” sounds like a total lack of consciousness, while a “timeless point of realization” sounds like an eternal waiting room, where you sit and bemoan your poor choice forever.
But neither really sounds like the fiery pit I was promised in Matt. 5:22, Matt 18:9, Luke 3:9, Mark 9:43, John 15:6, Jude 1:7 and Rev. 21:8. If we are to discuss hell, I’d have to insist on sticking with the Bible’s description as best we can, otherwise we risk traipsing into red herring territory. But I’ll grant you that it’s an ambiguous description that doesn’t give us much to go on.
Regards!
Hi,
“Timeless” is just a reference to the fact that eternity does not include it, since time is a property of the physical universe. Death is the cessation of life and eternal death is the second death that revelation talks about. As one who has accepted the gift of Jesus I am looking forward to life eternal. As an atheist, you do not believe that you will continue upon death ,so you too will be granted the object of your faith. Hell resides in the after life understanding that you could have had eternal life had you believed (hence the weeping and gnashing of teeth). I really appreciate your amicable tone! I can assure you that I bear no judgement on you or your position since I am not your judge. I am merely sharing what I have gleaned from the scripture with reference to Hell and God’s judgement which as you can see is not the Orthodox view, but is scripturally sound nonetheless. I would like to invite you to read some of my posts, since I find your work very engaging.
Regards!
I wish you all the best on your afterlife adventures. (Though, unfortunately, we’ll have to die to find out who’s right… so… you go first, lol.) I’ll be sure to check out some of your posts.
Have a good one!
Love it.
Have a good one!
Much respect
Interesting blog. Douglas Adams wrote something very a propos to this post in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, but I haven’t been able to find it. In a similar vein is this quotation: “Many were increasingly of the opinion that they’d all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.” But there’s one that’s even better. If I find it, I’ll pass it along. If you haven’t read Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, I highly recommend it.
Please do, would love to hear it. I haven’t read it since I was a little kid, maybe I’ll read it to my kids. Loved the latest movie version, have been thinking I need to watch it again.
Life is pretty stupid any way you slice it. I was born happy, after 37 years on this planet I’m as bitter as a lemon. Leave souls on the other side by not procreating, trust me, they’ll thank you for it. Not only am I not happy in my own life, my kids are unhappy in theirs. Once you realize this planet is a pile of steaming bullshit it stops being enjoyable here and we want to leave. I’ve wanted to leave for about 20 years now but if I take it upon myself to leave I’m not only breaking the law (LOL) there’s a chance I’ll be sent to hell for an eternity to suffer even more. Hallelujah!
Hey Tyler,
Ya, I agree, life certainly can suck sometimes. It makes me wonder what people would do with eternal life, even if it did exist.
For me personally I find it comes and goes. Some days I hate life and curse the day I was born, other days I’m happy as a clam. But would I mind if I was never born? Nope, not one bit.
I’ve probably continued to ponder this question more than any of the others. I can’t honestly refute the idea that a life that doesn’t exist is better off than one that does. My atoms were perfectly at rest before they turned into me, and at no risk of damnation (if such a thing exists).
Life is a nice place to visit, and I’m going to try to enjoy the shit out of it while I’m here, but I wouldn’t want to live here forever.