...continuing the existence of the species, leaving a mark in the world, ensuring that some part of you continues to exist after you die, etc.,

Survival without an afterlife is temporary Religions are about eternal survival not just surviving so you can reproduce. — Andrew4Handel

What is the point of surviving eternally?

But you are indebted to your parents in the same way. You only exist because of them. being created doesn't mean you owe a debt. I have argued this in my "No consent" thread. — Andrew4Handel

My parents don't ask me to pray to them, nor tell me that my happiness is tied to doing everything they say.

I am referring to a deflationary account of human attributes as ultimately coercive to encourage reproduction. My nihilism doesn't come from Evolution but it is exacerbated by it.
I highlighted it concerning the search for an evo explanation of homosexuality. I think it is insidious to make peoples attribute subservient to brute survival/reproductive success. — Andrew4Handel

Theres more to procreating than heterosexual sex. The offspring need to make it to the age of being able to procreate themselves and gays adopting unwanted children are part ofv the solution. Not everyone gets to mate, but every member of the social group shares the same genes, and participates in ensuring genes gets passed down to the next generation.

The Nazi and eugenicist interpretation of evolution was that we could actively cull the weak and aid evolution. Natural selection is open to this interpretation if it is seen as improving fitness. So for example it is not in our interest to prop up people with poor genes leading to sickness because it could condemn our species as a whole. For instance we advise against interbreeding because it has been shown to cause disabilities. So I don't think that negative applications of evolution are irrational. The idea we should or could transcend evolution is idealistic. It would only be possible to a non determinist who considered human behaviour flexible enough and spandrel like to transcend innate traits. — Andrew4Handel

Evolutionary psychologists are liable to over-emphasise evolution, and people with a scientific cast of mind are inclined to re-work interesting stuff we do into dreary scientific-sounding generalisations.

It seems to me that as soon as we humans have culture, we lay down a good claim to transcend evolution. Whether or not this claim is justified is then an enjoyable intellectual discussion that began with Darwin and will go on and on, because there is no way of arriving at the right answer. I'm an arty-fart so I will have my arty-farty view. On homosexuality, for instance, anti-homosexual culture has until the last few decades blinded much scientific endeavour to how species other than our own own do sexual business. You know, there have always been gay penguins, that's just the way they are, sweetie.

But I would add - culture in the USA faces a bigger threat from the religious/populist movement against the theory of evolution, than it does from the likes of E O Wilson. So we should be sure we see the wood for the trees. I often disagree with Harry Hindu here, for instance, but we should be clear that the likes of him and the likes of me need to stand shoulder to shoulder against anti-intellectualism, and not let careless talk about evolution run away with itself.

What is the point of surviving eternally? — Harry Hindu

What is the point of surviving at all?

The continual enjoyment of living and the deferral of its cessation.

My parents don't ask me to pray to them, nor tell me that my happiness is tied to doing everything they say. — Harry Hindu

We were talking about creation and I am pointing out your parents created you. What is the difference between your parents creating you and a god creating you?

Parents often create their children for a reason because humans have desires and reasoning.

People have children for dubious reasons. My parents spent my entire childhood indoctrinating me into religion. There is a difference between an unthinking species reproducing without motives and humans who can have motives. A lot of cultures have expected children to revere their parents and they have even being worshipped. I don't thinking taking gods out of the picture frees you from being created with dubious motives.

You seem to be attacking a narrow notion of a creator rather than the general concept. A parents with benevolent motives (are there any?) is more likely to help a child than a dogmatic parent.

My experience of a lack of meaning probably derives from my upbringing. Having children for incoherent or bad reasons undermines meaning. I think meaning is often just derived from benevolent relationships. Anyone can reject their parents reasons for having them.

.continuing the existence of the species, leaving a mark in the world, ensuring that some part of you continues to exist after you die, etc., — Harry Hindu

All that exists after a parent dies is copies of some of their genes. I don't see any need to do that and haven't. If death is the end then when your consciousness ceases you will have no idea about the fate of your grand children and whether or not they reproduced. I actively don't want to leave my genes behind or continue the species because life has a bad track record and is prone to suffer and I dread to think of my descendants accumulating in the future doing who ever knows what.

Your genes could go in all sorts of dubious directions.There's no telling.

For example the couple who wrote the book "The population bomb" deliberately had one child but she went onto have four of her own and that is not what they wanted.

To me life is about dealing with death. Trying to approach death with dignity. Trying not to be harmed too much before death. Death makes life temporary and futile in my opinion. It's a leap in the dark.

Evolutionary psychologists are liable to over-emphasise evolution, and people with a scientific cast of mind are inclined to re-work interesting stuff we do into dreary scientific-sounding generalisations. — mcdoodle

You might enjoy this review. (The author, Anthony Gottlieb, is no slouch.)

culture in the USA faces a bigger threat from the religious/populist movement against the theory of evolution, than it does from the likes of E O Wilson. — mcdoodle

I would like to agree, but I think there is plenty of oppobrium to go around. I personally find the polemics of Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins just as bad as that of their opponents. Pox on both houses, maybe.

All that exists after a parent dies is copies of some of their genes. — Andrew4Handel

I've been thinking about how my mother and father both sang to me; who sang to them when they were babies; who sang to them in turn. A genealogy of mothers, stretching back 50000 years, singing. In the sounds we make and the little foibles each of us uniquely has, live the cultures of our forebears, all the way back to when culture began. This emphasis on 'genes', on abstractions supposedly embodied, discards much of what makes us human.

What is the point of surviving at all? — Andrew4Handel

For me, to have experiences as opposed to not having them. For my genes, to procreate.

For me, to have experiences as opposed to not having them. For my genes, to procreate. — Harry Hindu

The first idea I share with you. However, the second part appears to be anthropomorphism. In particular your own. There are many people who live life without procreating.

We were talking about creation and I am pointing out your parents created you. What is the difference between your parents creating you and a god creating you? — Andrew4Handel

No, we weren't talking about what YOU meant by MY post. What I meant when I typed my post is that the difference between my parents and God is that my parents don't make do anything under threat of eternal torture, and don't hold my happiness over my head if I don't obey their every word.

Parents often create their children for a reason because humans have desires and reasoning. — Andrew4Handel

No you are contradicting yourself. Remember when you said this:

I am not keen to save someone from harm just so they can go on and mindlessly reproduce. — Andrew4Handel

Do we mindlessly procreate, or do we procreate for a reason? I'm a parent and the reasons I procreated was to share something special with my mate, to leave a legacy behind when I die, and to experience being a father and the love of my children.

People have children for dubious reasons. My parents spent my entire childhood indoctrinating me into religion. There is a difference between an unthinking species reproducing without motives and humans who can have motives. A lot of cultures have expected children to revere their parents and they have even being worshipped. I don't thinking taking gods out of the picture frees you from being created with dubious motives. — Andrew4Handel

My parents didn't have me so that they could indoctrinate me. I was a "mistake", as they were young, and their marriage didn't last. So, in a way, my coming into the world wasn't planned, or wasn't expected. I was the result of two teenagers following their physical urges. Many, but not everyone, is born this way. Some, like my daughter, were planned.

You seem to be attacking a narrow notion of a creator rather than the general concept. A parents with benevolent motives (are there any?) is more likely to help a child than a dogmatic parent. — Andrew4Handel

Well, I am. I'm attacking the one and only creator - the creator of my ancient ancestors that begat all the rest. If God didn't create anything, then we wouldn't be here discussing who created who in the first place.

My experience of a lack of meaning probably derives from my upbringing. Having children for incoherent or bad reasons undermines meaning. I think meaning is often just derived from benevolent relationships. Anyone can reject their parents reasons for having them. — Andrew4Handel

No it doesn't. Some of my childhood was bad. When my parents divorced, I felt like my father didn't want me. They used me as a tool against each other, too, but there were good times as well. I had some great friends growing up and will always remember those good times, that seems to outweigh the bad.
Just because my parents didn't have me for the same reasons I had my kids, doesn't mean that I don't have meaning, or that life is meaningless. I created my own purpose in life.

However, the second part appears to be anthropomorphism. — Rich

Genes are carried by every living organism, not just homo sapiens sapiens. So no, it can't be anthropomorphic.

The issue it's imbuing notions such as "desire to procreate" into genes.

Well, saying it like that would be anthropomorphic. I didn't use the word, "desire" in my post. Genes don't have desires. They just do what they do as a result of natural selection. Our desires, though, are a result of natural selection, too.

Well, saying it like that would be anthropomorphic. Genes don't have desires. They just do what they do as a result of natural selection. Our desires, though, are a result of natural selection, too. — Harry Hindu

As long as you are using the concept of desire it has to be emanating from somewhere. Are you suggesting it is emanating from the gene (a physical entity) or from natural selection (a concept)? If you are suggesting it is emanating from the gene, then that would be anthropomorphism. If you are saying it is from natural selection, then you would be using anthropomorphism on a concept.

Any type if anthropomorphism begs the question of why would a concept such natural selection create a condition of desire of any sort much less procreation. It would seem like the whole theory it's based upon some feeling of some individuals that procreation is natural, leading of course to homophobia and other related sins similar to religious beliefs.

Do we mindlessly procreate, or do we procreate for a reason? — Harry Hindu

What I said is that evolution deflates the reasons we give for reproducing. What ever reason you have for having children by having children you are just carrying on the cycle of reproduction. To carry on reproducing is doing what our genes allegedly "want" us to do. Our genes don't care about our survival but their survival (see Dawkins) I am not defending this view but saying that evolution can easily give a deflationary account of anything

I think there are lots of good reasons not to have children which I have discussed elsewhere but obviously antinatalism isn't an evolution friendly belief.

Determinists of any shade don't believe our reasons matter because we are supposed to have no free will.

I think the problem with humans is they can control their reproduction and reason about it, but choose not to. Any reproduction that is not done on a coherent basis is mindless.

Just because my parents didn't have me for the same reasons I had my kids, doesn't mean that I don't have meaning, or that life is meaningless. I created my own purpose in life. — Harry Hindu

One of the problems for me is my parents made me believe Christianity was absolutely true (by intimidation among other things) Abandoning it lead to a loss of meaning.

For example I had numerous rules like I couldn't watch TV, listen to the radio, shop on sunday and so on. I left due to the horrible atmosphere but it was traumatic and what I discovered was that no rules and no morality could be justified. Before I was told to do X because God said so..

If God does not exist and isn't a moral authority there are no moral facts or moral authority.. That lead me to nihilism. Having to abandoned one extensive belief system made me highly skeptical and demanding better justifications for things.

But nihilism and a sense of futility is a terrible experience. I don't like to see it endorsed as a scientific theory. If science is saying life is pointless and meaningless then we certainly should not reproduce.

i have issues with the idea of making your own meaning but that would constitute a whole new thread"

Explain the treatment of homosexuality then.

Theorists are attempting to explain homosexuality as having adaptive advantage. They are not happy with it just being a spandrel. — Andrew4Handel

The fact that some traits are (or in this case, might be) adaptive doesn't logically imply that all are. The fact that theorists attempt to explain traits in terms of adaptiveness also doesn't logically imply that all traits are adaptive. That's just flawed logic.

What purpose could we be said to have? In a trivial sense someone can claim watching paint dry is their purpose. But this kind of invented purpose lacks profundity and also it can be given a deflationary evolutionary explanation. — Andrew4Handel

Whether a purpose is profound or not is a matter of judgement, not fact. A purpose imposed by a creator seems more arbitrary than one decided for one's self, and that arbitrariness lacks profundity to me. That's my judgement. You're welcome to your own. It is also not the job of a scientific theory to lend purpose, profound or otherwise to life. It's job is to effectively explain our observations, which the theory of evolution by natural selection does very well.

The problem with evolution on some interpretations is that it reduces or deflates human claims. For example you could help an elderly person cross the road with genuine kindness and altruism but that disposition is seen as primarily in service of the survival of the genes. — Andrew4Handel

So if something is good for our species, it cannot also be good in itself? How do you make that leap of logic? That's like saying that we can't eat food because it tastes good, because we all know that we eat food because it nourishes us. Both can be true. They are not mutually exclusive.

So if something is good for our species, it cannot also be good in itself? How do you make that leap of logic? That's like saying that we can't eat food because it tastes good, because we all know that we eat food because it nourishes us. Both can be true. They are not mutually exclusive. — Reformed Nihilist

Personally as someone who overeats I find the enjoyable taste of food a treadmill. (See obesity, tooth decay, heart disease)

I think music is one of the few pleasurable things that isn't a vice.

I agree that helping others is an independent good, the problem is that it is subservient to mindless.
reproduction.

As an antinatalist I feel a sense of futility when helping people. For instance the population of Ethiopia has tripled since the 1980's and Famine aid. Malnutrition related disease are a big problem there.

Empathy and helping people is not an unmitigated good. The same instincts have been posited to play a role in war and prejudice.

If there is no over riding point then I don't see the point in anything, it is just a set of distractions. I didn't used to see life as meaningless as a child for some reason. I thought it was going somewhere. I thought it had a purpose. I am hoping it turns out to have a meaning.

I agree that helping others is an independent good, the problem is that it is subservient to mindless.
reproduction. — Andrew4Handel

What does that mean? Who makes it subservient? By what method of categorization is it subservient? By evolution? Well, in terms of what is most successful in reproduction, yes, reproduction (mindless or mindful) is at the top of the list. It doesn't logically follow that because someone accepts evolution as an effective explanatory model that they also prioritize reproduction personally as being more important than doing good.

As an antinatalist I feel a sense of futility when helping people. For instance the population of Ethiopia has tripled since the 1980's and Famine aid. Malnutrition related disease are a big problem there. — Andrew4Handel

So because there is still harm done, all attempts at help are futile? More flawed logic. Even if we assumed that all help offered by a person to another or others added only to a drop in the bucket compared to all harm done (which I don't think is true), then it is still the case that the world is at least minimally better for the help.

Empathy and helping people is not an unmitigated good. The same instincts have been posited to play a role in war and prejudice.

True. Does that imply that we should stop trying to do good? Or does it imply that we should be more careful when trying to do good to avoid ending up doing evil?

If there is no over riding point then I don't see the point in anything, it is just a set of distractions. I didn't used to see life as meaningless as a child for some reason. I thought it was going somewhere. I thought it had a purpose. I am hoping it turns out to have a meaning. — Andrew4Handel

Well, you can feel that way if you want, but it's not very sensible in my opinion. What makes you think that life is supposed to have an objective purpose? My guess is that it's a cultural artifact created by a religious history that purported to offer that meaning. Let me ask you this: If there was an over-riding purpose, and you didn't like it or agree with it, what then? What if the purpose of the universe was to glorify shrimp?

My guess is that it's a cultural artifact created by a religious history that purported to offer that meaning. — Reformed Nihilist

That's exactly the kind of thinking that is at issue. It is the attempt to 'explain' the history of philosophy and religion in terms of adaptive necessity. It is just the kind of thing that fills books by Dennett and Dawkins. But where do you find those books? Why, in the 'philosophy' section of popular bookstores, snuggled alongside the Family Bible and Deepak Chopra. But unlike them, they claim that 'philosophy books have nothing meaningful to say'. But, why do they not fall by the same criteria? If what they are saying is correct, their authors are simply chimps standing on a mound of dirt, making 'boo' noises. After all, that's what they say philosophy is.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that is at issue. It is the attempt to 'explain' the history of philosophy and religion in terms of adaptive necessity. — Wayfarer

That's not what I said. What I said was "my guess...". Nothing about adaptive necessity at all. Just my personal read on how a culture and it's history can effect a person's view on matters like an "overriding" purpose. It's no different than theorizing why the Japanese language had no word for "self-esteem" until recently, which no doubt points to a cultural and historical difference between Japan and the west.

It is just the kind of thing that fills books by Dennett and Dawkins. — Wayfarer

Need I once more protest that Dennett, Dawkins, and I are all different people who think and say distinct things? I feel like there is a poisoning of the well here. Anything I say that somehow reminds someone of either Dennett or Dawkins (or both simultaneously), gets viewed as if it fits perfectly into the narrative of either (or both) of those guys, and then is dismissed, ad hominem, because of the alleged source (which isn't even the source). It's just a logical mess. Do you mind if it stops? It's exhausting trying to defend them against implications I never made.

But where do you find those books? Why, in the 'philosophy' section of popular bookstores, snuggled alongside the Family Bible and Deepak Chopra. But unlike them, they claim that 'philosophy books have nothing meaningful to say'. But, why do they not fall by the same criteria? If what they are saying is correct, their authors are simply chimps standing on a mound of dirt, making 'boo' noises. After all, that's what they say philosophy is. — Wayfarer

You use quotes around the sentence "philosophy books have nothing meaningful to say". Who are you quoting? Where do they claim that? Are you sure that's really either one of their positions? Seeing as though Daniel Dennett is a writer of philosophy books, I suspect you're mistaken.

As long as you are using the concept of desire it has to be emanating from somewhere. Are you suggesting it is emanating from the gene (a physical entity) or from natural selection (a concept)? If you are suggesting it is emanating from the gene, then that would be anthropomorphism. If you are saying it is from natural selection, then you would be using anthropomorphism on a concept. — Rich

Natural selection is a process, not a concept. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a concept.

Any type if anthropomorphism begs the question of why would a concept such natural selection create a condition of desire of any sort much less procreation. It would seem like the whole theory it's based upon some feeling of some individuals that procreation is natural, leading of course to homophobia and other related sins similar to religious beliefs. — Rich

Desires are natural inclinations. It's really quite simple, (which is the magic of the theory - the simplicity). Any organism that doesn't procreate leaves no offspring. If your inclination is to not procreate, then there won't be any descendants that also have the natural inclination to not procreate. Those species that exist, and are successful at existing within an environment for many generations are those that procreate. Any species that doesn't procreate who is competing for the same resources as those that do, will lose out and won't exist long enough to leave a mark in the fossil record or even be noticed by humans millions of years later to be classified.

To exist for any length of time, means that you must have some attribute or quality that enables you to continue to exist. Procreating is how genes do it.

Anything I say that somehow reminds someone of either Dennett or Dawkins (or both simultaneously), — Reformed Nihilist

Not 'anything you say' - the specific thing you said. Namely, that 'the search for meaning' is an evolved trait. Don't make statements like:' What if the purpose of the universe was to glorify shrimp?' and then protest because someone jumps on it.

.

You use quotes around the sentence "philosophy books have nothing meaningful to say". Who are you quoting? Where do they claim that? Are you sure that's really either one of their positions? Seeing as though Daniel Dennett is a writer of philosophy books, I suspect you're mistaken. — Reformed Nihilist

Daniel Clement Dennett III (born March 28, 1942)[1][2] is an American philosopher — Wikipedia

Dennett is probably among the best-known public intellectuals in the US. And, it is a fact that what he understands as philosophy, undermines or tends to dissolve anything that was previously understood as 'philosophy'. That was the central message of one of his books, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, where he compares evolutionary biology to a 'universal acid':

“it eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.”

Transformed such that we understand that everything we are and do is the consequence of a biological algorithm.

What I said is that evolution deflates the reasons we give for reproducing. What ever reason you have for having children by having children you are just carrying on the cycle of reproduction. To carry on reproducing is doing what our genes allegedly "want" us to do. Our genes don't care about our survival but their survival (see Dawkins) I am not defending this view but saying that evolution can easily give a deflationary account of anything — Andrew4Handel

Genes don't even care about their survival. They don't even possess knowledge. Genes just do what they do. We can have many reasons for doing the things we do, but it all narrows down to survival in the natural and social environment. We can either possess the knowledge for the reasons we do the things we do, or delude ourselves into thinking that the things we do and what we are are really "special" to the point that scientific theories can never explain them.

I think the problem with humans is they can control their reproduction and reason about it, but choose not to. Any reproduction that is not done on a coherent basis is mindless. — Andrew4Handel

Sure, we can control our reproduction. After our third child, I had a vasectomy. I did so, because having kids costs money, and I wanted the children we did have to have more than what we could have given them if we had more kids. Other species are no different. When resources are low, certain organisms won't procreate. It's logical as having kids with no resources is equivalent to not having them at all because it is likely they won't survive.

One of the problems for me is my parents made me believe Christianity was absolutely true (by intimidation among other things) Abandoning it lead to a loss of meaning.

For example I had numerous rules like I couldn't watch TV, listen to the radio, shop on sunday and so on. I left due to the horrible atmosphere but it was traumatic and what I discovered was that no rules and no morality could be justified. Before I was told to do X because God said so..

If God does not exist and isn't a moral authority there are no moral facts or moral authority.. That lead me to nihilism. Having to abandoned one extensive belief system made me highly skeptical and demanding better justifications for things.

But nihilism and a sense of futility is a terrible experience. I don't like to see it endorsed as a scientific theory. If science is saying life is pointless and meaningless then we certainly should not reproduce.

i have issues with the idea of making your own meaning but that would constitute a whole new thread" — Andrew4Handel

My father is very religious, but not as harsh as your parents. I was raised as a Christian and was even "saved" and baptized. I abandoned those beliefs. I began questioning everything in my late teens, and when I realized that there wasn't really any consistent answers, I began a new search for truth. I understood that the truth isn't going to be what I wanted it to be, or what I would like, or what sounds trendy. I realized that I couldn't make an emotional investment in the truth - that if I really wanted to know the truth, I go where the evidence leads, not where my emotions, or desires lead. I found science to provide more answers than any religion and that it was consistent and held true for every person - no matter where they are from, what culture they call their own, or what time period they live in. I'm an atheist, much to my father's disappointment. In my mind, most people hold on to their beliefs because that is what gives them purpose and allows them to carry on their lives. As is commonly said, "religion is a crutch for the weak mind." It is for those that don't understand, or may even be fearful, of the power in their own hands to make their own meaning and purpose in life.

Not 'anything you say' - the specific thing you said. Namely, that 'the search for meaning' is an evolved trait. Don't make statements like:' What if the purpose of the universe was to glorify shrimp?' and then protest because someone jumps on it. — Wayfarer

When did I say the search for meaning was an evolved trait? That's my point. You're arguing against things I didn't say. What I'm actually saying is that the search for a "higher purpose" is a cultural artifact, which is entirely different from saying it is an evolved trait.

Dennett is probably among the best-known public intellectuals in the US. And, it is a fact that what he understands as philosophy, undermines or tends to dissolve anything that was previously understood as 'philosophy'. That was the central message of one of his books, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, where he compares evolutionary biology to a 'universal acid': — Wayfarer

Wow, that's a big leap of logic. His theories purport to subsume, dissolve, or correct previous/alternate theories on a particular subject matter, like every other theory ever proposed. That's a far cry from claiming that "philosophy books have nothing meaningful to say". You might as well say that Hawking says that physics books have nothing meaningful to say. He just thinks other theories are mistaken or incomplete. That's sort of his job.

When did I say the search for meaning was an evolved trait? — Reformed Nihilist

I took that to be the import of this:

What makes you think that life is supposed to have an objective purpose? My guess is that it's a cultural artifact created by a religious history that purported to offer that meaning. — Reformed Nihilist

Please feel free to set me straight.