Sorry, I'm a little late to the party. Hopefully you'll check your replies.
Anyway, great post Luke. I disagree with your starting point but your conclusions are pretty much spot on, IMO. You know I'm a Christian, but I agree that religion has really missed the mark when it comes to sex. My wife and I try to speak openly with our children about sex, while communicating our vision of the joys of monogamous love. In the churches I've been a part of, we've tried to do the same. I hope that we continue to cultivate a strength of relationship with our children where it's natural for us to share with them some pre-honeymoon tips :)
I'm curious, though... 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?
Always!
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.
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.
The idea that we need an old book or religion to instruct us on "healthy boundaries" doesn't hold up to scrutiny, at least for me. Let me illustrate why by talking about something with less moral/religious baggage than sex---that is, health in general.
Do we need the Bible or religion go learn/know/discern what is healthy behavior and what is not? The Bible doesn't condemn smoking tobacco, but yet we can readily discern that doing so is unhealthy. The Bible does condemn (as "unclean") the eating certain foods that we can readily discern are perfectly healthy when properly prepared.
If you've not ready Sam Harris's book The Moral Landscape, I highly commend it. He explains very clearly how science/logic/reason/compassion are sufficient for discerning the boundaries of moral behavior, and why religion is, if anything, a hindrance to such discernment.
One reason religion is a hindrance is because dogma is impervious to logic/reason/compassion. Consequently, two different religions with two different dogmas may disagree on, for instance, healthy sexual boundaries. For instance, Christians generally believe that rape is religiously condemnable in most all instances, but many Muslims believe its perfectly acceptable to rape infidels. Differences of opinion on these and other matters lead to strife and conflict. Which one is right? Since both have abandoned reason and instead cling to their own interpretation of their differing religious texts for the answer to this question, there's no settling the question.
Religion may therefore create boundaries, but those boundaries are not objectively "healthy". They are a boundary only becasue some old book said so, or is interpreted as saying so.
PS--Corrine is amazing! Lovin that tummy. :-)