Hopefully you'll check your replies.
Always!
I disagree with your starting point
Which one? Do you mean the evolutionary justifications?
Do you speak about sex outside of your family to also include your friends? It's good to hear your talk about it in the churches you're a part of. That's certainly needed, IMO.
having rejected the Bible as a guide for life and sexuality, on what basis do you teach your kids healthy sexual boundaries? Also, what boundaries do you / will you teach your kids?
That's a really good question, one @corinnestokes and I are still working out the answer to. Since she and I are still determining where we stand on a number of issues related to what we'll teach our children, I think at this point my only answer is expose them to as much truth as possible and teach as much good epistemology as possible.
Yes, namely that the propagation of our genes is the meaning of life.
We have one couple who are our dearest friends that we are VERY transparent with. They have a healthy sexual relationship so it's not awkward at all.
You infer in your post that the reason people don't talk about sex is because they are insecure about their own lack of sexual fulfilment. I believe that's true. I've tried to talk to many men about sex and most of them are either addicted to porn or not regularly intimate with their wives, which makes it difficult for them to discuss openly. Sex is such a massive part of the human experience and my wife and I are pretty passionate about helping other couples improve in this area. We get the best results with those we can counsel before they get married. I do think we've freaked some people out though with our level of transparency :)
Anyway, thanks for posting something intelligent and thoughtful on this topic.
If it's not the meaning of life, then what would you go with? If it's to please what you perceive to be your creator, is that universal to all the other religions around the world and wouldn't you feel differently if you were born in a different region of the world?
I like the "spread our genes" answer because it not only fits universally for humanity, but also for most species on the planet. I just started another book on this topic today (The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley), and I'm looking forward to getting through it.
Too true. I think it becomes a matter of identity. Too many men have no identity in this area and it tears them apart (from an evolutionary standpoint, I'd argue that makes sense).
Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
To know God more deeply and to help others know him.
If I did not believe it was a universal truth then I would not truly believe, at least not in the God of the Bible.
Perhaps I would feel differently if I was born in a different region of the world, but that in itself does not make my view of the world untrue. If you were born in a different region of the world, you too may have a different worldview . That alone doesn't mean your worldview is a false reflection of reality.
How is that view of the meaning of life consistent with your monogamous lifestyle? If humanity is no different than any other species in relation to procreation, then shouldn't you be trying to impregnate as many women as possible (up to the limit of still being able to protect your offspring) to live out your ultimate meaning in life?
No, but it certainly casts doubt on it. The nice thing about a falsifiable claim is I can read and travel and learn from others to find actual aspects of my worldview which can be falsified and by doing so improve it over time.
A faith based worldview does not allow for this because it is a non-falsifiable claim. That, to me, creates challenges for justified belief (epistemology) because from that framework anyone can believe anything and no one else has a mechanism to show them where they might be incorrect (we see this with many religious disagreements in the world today).
It's something I'm working out as I better understand the reality of my species along with the reality of my marriage and my love for my wife. An evolutionary strategy of "impregnate as many females as possible" does play out in some species, but notably not so much in ours. Even then, people like Genghis Khan may disagree. :)
I view these discussions about purpose as being tied to discussions on morality. I do think gene transfer is the ultimate goal (and I see no strong counter argument to that claim), but I also think there are complicated sub goals on multiple levels which achieve that higher goal for the species. For example, affluent societies seem to reproduce less. Could that be a built in mechanism to prevent us from overconsumption which might introduce systemic risk? There are many more examples like this I'm interested in learning more about along the lines of evolutionary stable strategies, but I also temper everything based on my love for my wife as I recognize we are not in the same place when it comes to worldviews. Because I love her, I wouldn't consciously do things to hurt her.