By Vexen Crabtree 2003 Feb 08
List pages on the Problem of Evil on this site by Vexen
This page
Monotheism is at its most inconsistent when you consider the fate of babies and unborn life who die very young. First I want to highlight the problem of evil, which in this context simply means that everyone experiences suffering and pain. A baby who dies has not yet experienced suffering and pain. Heaven, also, does not have suffering or pain. The questions I look at here are does a baby go to heaven when it dies? And if so, why should we not kill all our babies in order to save them pain and assure they go to heaven? This page is mostly concerned with Christianity, as I am unsure of the particulars of Islam and Judaism in this area.
“The Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out: by this means they secured these infants went to Heaven. No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action, although all nowadays do so. In countless ways the doctrine of personal immortality in its Christian form has had disastrous effects upon morals.”
"Why I am not a Christian"
Bertrand Russell (1957)2
As a loving god-believing parent I would do anything to make sure my child goes to heaven. Even if this means sacrificing my own child, causing myself pain, because I love my child I will do what is best for it over and above what is best for myself and am willing to sacrifice myself for it. This means I am willing to pay the consequences, whatever they are, as long as I know my loved child then enjoys eternity in heaven (at least this is the case in Christian mythology1).
Sacrificing ones' own life for a greater good is a moral action that is seen as good. If I murder a baby, I will go to hell. But if I love my baby, I will gladly go to hell if it means it can enjoy eternity in heaven. Such is the nature of a true loving sacrifice. Such an extreme sacrifice, done out of genuine love, would end up with myself in hell. Which is ironic, given that my intentions are absolutely good. I could be more selfish, keep the baby alive for my own good: This more selfish action, however, would result in the baby maybe going to hell, and myself not even being sure I'm still going to heaven. It seems infinitely preferable and more loving for me to kill the baby and sacrifice myself, rather than risk it going to hell.
It seems that if Biblical Christianity is true it is more moral and loving of us to kill our babies. However, we do not do so. This must be because:
Although I am often critical of Christianity, I know that Christianity has hardly ever promoted infanticide. The Spaniards mentioned by Russell (1957)2 are in a minority. There are also some cases where baby killing has been commanded by God in The Bible:
Exodus 4:22-23: "Then you must tell him that I, the Lord, say, 'Israel is my first born son. I told you to let my son go, so that he might worship me, but you refused. Now I am going to kill your first-born son.'"Numbers 31:17: (Moses) "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him" (in other words: women that might be pregnant).
1 Samuel 15:1-8: "Now listen to what the Lord Almighty says. He is going to punish the people of Amalek because their ancestors opposed the Israelites... : With 210000 soldiers they killed all the men, women, children, babies, cattle, camels and donkeys."
2 Samuel 12:11-19: "Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee ... the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. ... And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. ... David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead."
It seems that in practice and in theory, Christianity does allow infanticide. The "Do not kill" commandment is not absolute nor completely binding, if the intentions are good and Godly then it seems this commandment becomes overridden. So the conclusions are still:
I do not advocate infanticide for the sake of allowing a child to go to heaven, because I am not a Christian and do not believe that God exists or that heaven exists. I therefore do not kill babies or cause suffering for moral reasons: In short, I think it is wrong to do so. A Christian can make a supreme self sacrifice and send themselves to hell by killing their baby and sending it to heaven. The reason they do not do so, is selfishness: they do not want to go to hell.
I do not believe in hell, yet I still do not kill babies. It seems that I am a more moral person than the Christian. The Christian risks their baby going to hell out of selfishness, out of a desire to go to heaven themselves. The more they believe it is wrong to kill babies, the greater the disservice to themselves they would be doing if they did so, and the greater the self-sacrifice would be. However such a self sacrifice is (thankfully) rare.
So, we have:
And,
“If I am threatened into behaving in a good manner then I am at best amoral, because I am not acting with free will. If you believe that a supreme god is going to punish you or deny you life if you misbehave, it is like being permanently threatened into behaving well. In addition, if you believe there is some great reward for behaving well, then your motives for good behavior are potentially more selfish. An atheist who does not believe in heaven and hell is potentially more moral, for he acts without these added factors [...] Who is more moral? Those who act for the sake of goodness itself, or those who do good acts under the belief that failure to do so results in hell?”
Now, obviously, theists would not accept these conclusions. Their answers to this are tied up with their theodicies: Their explanation of why we have to endure suffering. In short, they have to come up with a reason why it is more moral for them to keep babies alive. We have seen how they do so for selfish reasons, which they will try to justify with what philosophers call "theodicies": Attempts to explain why the suffering of life, for a baby, is better than immediate heaven.
The argument against all such possible reasons is that when a baby dies (for example, if an Earthquake destroys a town and kills some pregnant women and young children), then if it goes to heaven there appears to be no valid reason why we keep babies alive. I have debated this point extensively over the years and the most common argument against it has been that the experience of suffering of life is good for the baby. However I believe such an argument is not consistent with theism:
The tests and experience of life, and the experience of suffering, is for our own benefit
This was given as both a justification for the creation of suffering by God, and also as a reason why we should not kill babies. Following it up with a further statement makes it a bit clearer, by analogy: Going through suffering in life is for some reason we do not, as Human beings, understand, although it is ultimately for our benefit, because God is all-loving. A baby grows limbs and organs in a mothers' womb. It might think it would be easier and quicker if it did not grow these: But later, these parts of itself will prove to be immensely beneficial even if it doesn't automatically understand why it has to. Likewise with suffering: We endure suffering as part of self development for reasons we do not yet understand, but will become clear when we go to heaven.
“An analogy [...] is that of the embryo in the womb, developing various organs such as arms or eyes which do not really benefit it there. Once the baby is born, it can use and appreciate what it has developed. If it has not developed these, it suffers.”
"The Phenomenon of Religion: A Thematic Approach" by Momen, 1999
p237. More quotes from this book
The best outcome of life is to spend eternity in heaven. It doesn't matter if you are a limb or two short by the end of your life, the outcome is equally blissful for all people, it is an absolute good. BUT... this means that babies who die early, who go straight to heaven, appear to also enjoy this everlasting bliss without having experienced the pain and suffering of life. If it is possible to go to heaven without experiencing these things, then why did God create pain and suffering? It seems that, by this argument, God himself could kill all babies and therefore grant them all access to heaven. This would prevent all suffering. But, God does not prevent all suffering. This adds a further potential conclusion:
A second common argument is that:
The tests of life are for our benefit, not for the sake of God testing us
But this argument suffers a similar problem. If there was no evil, if God created no such thing, then such tests would not be necessary and everyone would go to heaven. However, God does send babies who die when very young to heaven despite them not having endured these tests. Therefore the tests are not necessary, and this does not work as a defence of evil, nor as a reason why God or us should not kill babies.
A more general assessment of the problem, with the above notes taken into account is:
Is there a God? Is there a point to life before heaven? If God wants what is best for everyone he could immediately place everyone in heaven. If we want what is best for our children, we could kill them, and then God would send them to heaven because they were innocent. That we do not do this means that there is no God, no heaven, or that there is some purpose to life and evil. However, there is no such purpose. Babies who die (for example, in natural disasters) go to heaven, therefore there is no essential point of life, nor any essential reason that we have to endure suffering and go through the tests of life before we can go to heaven. This shows no moral God exists.
Concluding:
If there is an all-good God, then this God is immoral for not putting us all in heaven, and Christians are selfish for not killing their own children in order to send them to heaven.
If babies go to heaven, it seems that the Universe is *more moral* if God does not exist. If the Universe is perfect, or if there is an absolute morality, then God does not exist. However, it is still possible to consider the fourth item above and question our basic premise. (There is actually another way to invalidate my argument so far, Universalism, and I will consider that last).
What if babies do not automatically go to heaven? Or, in other words, those who are not ready to go to heaven are reincarnated. Belief in reincarnation solves the problems presented on this page. It means that killing a baby does not send it to heaven. This means that there is a purpose to life, that the experience of suffering and the tests of life *do* matter, because if babies do not go to heaven then no-one gets to heaven without first experiencing suffering, which means suffering could indeed be essential in some way that we do not yet understand.
If reincarnation occurs, and we need to live a full life, make choices in life, in order to find the path to heaven, then life becomes worthwhile. It is then a disservice to our loved ones to kill them early, because it means they have to go through the cycle of life yet one more time and actually delays their entry to heaven, rather than accelerates it.
Some Christians pointed out that there is potential for a belief that babies go to limbo when they die. Others criticized these for holding beliefs that are more Catholic than Biblical.
“Those who believe in predestination believe that God already knows what the child would have chosen (hell or heaven) and the soul of the baby will be sent to that location accordingly.”
I agree with Deinsen's comment for the most part, but also think that it is possible for God to know what the baby would have chosen even if predestination wasn't true, as many believe that God's knowledge of the future does not imply that the future is predestined, but merely that an omniscient God knows every possible outcome no matter which way the course of events go. If this is true, it seems that life and suffering is pointless. Because if God can do this with babies, it can do it with all beings. Therefore, God could not allow anyone to exist who would choose hell, and therefore reduce all suffering in hell. If God is benevolent, this is what it would do. If all beings that exist do go to heaven, then what is the point of the suffering of life? Why does God not simply put everyone in heaven immediately? This problem means that it can't be true that God places babies in heaven/Hell according to what they would have chosen in life.
Universalism, here, means the belief that all living beings go to heaven. I believe that universalism is the most consistent form of religion, and universalism is the only situation where the Universe can be said to be worthwhile or ultimately moral. All other beliefs (such as belief in hell) is a belief in a less than perfect Universe.
Because... what if, at the end of our lives, we are still not ready to go to heaven? It seems more consistent with a loving creator that he will send us back to Earth to try again, rather than sending us to hell to be punished. It is more loving, more perfect, if a God is infinitely patient with us, until every last living being has attained heaven. This is also Indian belief. Buddhism, which was an atheistic reaction against Hinduism, retained Hinduisms' belief in Nirvana for all beings. Whether the Universe is governed or not.
If Universalism is true, and all beings eventually go to heaven, then killing our babies is immoral, because it only delays their and ours ascension to bliss. Also, if there is no heaven and no God, killing babies is immoral because it is a wasting of a finite life.
Momen, Moojan
"The Phenomenon Of Religion: A Thematic Approach" (1999). Published by Oneworld Publications, Oxford, UK. [Book Review]
Russell, Bertrand
"Why I am not a Christian" (1957). Quotes from Fourth Impression of 1967 edition, 1971, Unwin Books.
By Vexen Crabtree 2003 Feb 08