to be or not to be: albert mohler v. david benatar

Compare this, by R. Albert Mohler:

The Scripture does not even envision married couples who choose not to have children. The shocking reality is that some Christians have bought into this lifestyle and claim childlessness as a legitimate option. The rise of modern contraceptives has made this technologically possible. But the fact remains that though childlessness may be made possible by the contraceptive revolution, it remains a form of rebellion against God’s design and order. (R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “Deliberate Childlessness: Moral Rebellion With a New Face,” 07 June 2005)

With this, by David Benatar:

The central idea of this book is that coming into existence is always a serious harm… I shall argue that one implication of the view that coming into existence is always a serious harm is that we should not have children. Some anti-natalist positions are founded on either a dislike of children or on the interests of adults who have greater freedom and resources if they do not have and rear children. My anti-natalist view is different. It arises, not from a dislike of children, but instead from a concern to avoid the suffering of potential children and the adults they would become, even if not having those children runs counter to the interests of those who would have them. [David Benatar, Better Never to Have Been: the Harm of Coming into Existence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) 1, 8]

Conflicting worldviews indeed. A conflict which begs the question of not just recognition of biblical authority, but also of what calamities have befallen Mr. Benatar. Perhaps none. But it does make one wonder…

Leave a Reply