Somewhere, and I can’t find where, I read about an Eskimo hunter who asked the local missionary priest, “If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?” “No,” said the priest, “not if you did not know.” “Then why,” asked the Eskimo earnestly, “did you tell me?”
— Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek (1974), p. 123
Both Christianity and Islam, in their more traditional branches, assert exclusive salvation only for their followers, while for nonbelievers, what awaits is eternal Hell without any way to escape this place after death (which we may call “no second chance”). However, what I intend to demonstrate, invoking intellectual humility due to possible errors, is that belief in eternal Hell without a second chance, in the salvific exclusivism of a given revealed religion, leads to the self-condemnation of the individual, and we ought to minimize the risk of people, even hypothetical ones, being condemned to Hell.
So I offer the following reasoning:
- A person’s belief in eternal Hell without a second chance, in the salvific exclusivism of a particular religion, along with the subjective preference to minimize the risk of people, even hypothetical ones, being condemned to eternal Hell without a second chance, leads the person to descriptively agree with antinatalism (the view that having children is morally wrong).
- To avoid eternal Hell without a second chance, one must be either Muslim or Christian, depending on which religion is true, as these are the two main religions that include the doctrine of eternal Hell without a second chance and salvific exclusivism.
- One cannot be a Christian or Muslim and find antinatalism desirable.
- Therefore, the individual is condemned to eternal Hell without a second chance.
Firstly, it should be noted that the argument is built around the doctrine of eternal Hell without a second chance; it does not address different views of the afterlife, such as reincarnation, universalism, annihilationism, a second chance after death where the person stands before God and can choose the true faith or reject it, etc. The word “Hell” will be used solely to refer to the doctrine of eternal Hell without a second chance.
Now, concerning premise 1, there are two possible options regarding a religion: to believe in it or not (either believing it to be false or suspending judgment on its truth), considering that this religion is true and disbelief in it leads to Hell. When someone decides to procreate, the following future possibilities arise, which we will call the antinatalist argument:
- The person procreates, and the child believes in the true religion and is not condemned to Hell.
- The person procreates, and the child does not believe and is condemned to Hell.
- The person does not procreate, and there is no child to be condemned to Hell.
Thus, if a person has the subjective preference to minimize the risk of people, even hypothetical ones, going to Hell, they should adopt antinatalism and also wish for others not to have children.
If a person denies premise 1, perhaps thinking that the risk of a descendant going to Hell is outweighed by the chance they will go to paradise, then the argument does not work for them. However, one inescapable fact is that, very likely, at least one of their descendants, after a few generations, will end up in Hell. A parent cannot fully control their child’s beliefs, much less the legacy left by a deceased great-great-grandfather on a great-great-grandson.
In an even worse scenario, imagine that a devout Catholic has six children, and from these children, after several generations, there are dozens of descendants, all devout Catholics. However, in this hypothetical scenario, unfortunately, Islam is correct, and all these people will be tortured for eternity.
Regarding premise 2, we are considering a scenario where Hell and the salvific exclusivism of some so-called revealed religion are true, and the two main religions (there may be some smaller ones, but I have not found them) with these characteristics are Christianity and Islam.
Concerning premise 3, I am aware of the existence of antinatalist Christians, but analyzing the Bible (and in the case of Islam, the Qur’an), there are various passages where children are said to be desirable:
Psalm 127:3-5: “Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their opponents in court.”
Proverbs 17:6: “Children’s children are a crown to the aged, and parents are the pride of their children.”
Genesis 33:5: “Then Esau asked, ‘Who are these with you?’ Jacob answered, ‘They are the children God has graciously given your servant.'”
Proverbs 22:6: “Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it.”
Psalm 113:9: “He settles the childless woman in her home as a happy mother of children. Praise the Lord.”
Surah An-Nahl (The Bee) 16:72: “And Allah has made for you from your homes a place of rest and has provided you with spouses and children and grandchildren, and has provided you with good things. So do they believe in falsehood while they disbelieve in the favor of Allah?”
Surah Al-Furqan (The Criterion) 25:74: “And those who say, ‘Our Lord, grant us from among our wives and offspring comfort to our eyes and make us an example for the righteous.'”
Surah Al-Kahf (The Cave) 18:46: “Wealth and children are adornment of the worldly life. But the enduring good deeds are better to your Lord for reward and better for [one’s] hope.”
Surah Ash-Shu’ara (The Poets) 26:132-133: “And fear He who provided you with that which you know, provided you with grazing livestock and children.”
Without entering into the ethical aspect of the antinatalist argument, only the descriptive aspect of reality, the antinatalist argument rationally leads to the conclusion that having children is the most imprudent and undesirable thing one can do, which is quite contrary to the view of Christianity and Islam that children are a blessing from God. Additionally, one could extrapolate the antinatalist argument, and the very act of God’s creation of humanity becomes undesirable, as, if He had not created anything, no one would be in Hell.
Finally, premise 4 is the consequence of the other premises, where the person self-condemns in having a deeply altruistic desire.
To conclude, all of this can lead to a thought experiment. Imagine that Christianity is true and that there is a world emperor who is Christian and, upon learning of the antinatalist argument, becomes desperate and undertakes a campaign of compulsory sterilization across the entire world population, thereby preventing billions of souls from ending up in Hell. However, after he dies, he is condemned to Hell because of his antinatalist campaign, thus making an eternal sacrifice.