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.
they are insecure about their own lack of sexual fulfilment
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).
Anyway, thanks for posting something intelligent and thoughtful on this topic.
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.