Does Humankind Have A Purpose?

[jgh7]

I googled this definition of purpose.

Purpose: the reason for which something is (1)done or (2)created or for which something (3)exists.

Certain things may seem to have a purpose. (1) The purpose of me doing jogging is to stay healthy and in shape. (2) The purpose of the original watch creator creating a watch is to have something to tell the time. (3) The purpose of reproductive organs' existence is to allow for reproduction.

Jogging is something others and I may do, a watch is something others or I may create, reproductive organs are something that form on their own and exist.

I can argue it is 100% true that so long as I'm not lying, the purpose of my jogging is to stay healthy and in shape. Other people have different true purposes for their own jogging. But it is impossible to assert that one single purpose for jogging applies to everyone.

I can not argue that the purpose of a watch is solely to tell time. Someone's purpose for a watch could be to look fashionable in addition to telling time. People decide what the purpose of a watch is for them, just the same as jogging. But maybe you could still argue that the ultimate objective purpose of the watch is to tell time. This is what it was originally created to do, what the culmination of its parts and attributes produce when working properly, and that is outside of anyone's opinion.

Reproductive organs are not created by anyone; they form on their own. One could still argue that what they do is their purpose. They allow for reproduction so that is their purpose, and this is true outside of anyone's opinions.

Now that we've gone over this, let's move on to the topic. Does humankind have a purpose? If God created us, then we are like watches, possibly built with a specific purpose from the creator. If we simply evolved into existence, then perhaps our purpose can be found similar to how reproductive organs' purpose are found.

But there's one final comparison to make: stars. Do stars have a purpose? Well, they certainly allow for things like solar systems to exist. We can argue that the purpose of the sun is to give us warmth and sustain us and our solar system. But ultimately, I believe a star does not have a purpose. It simply exists. If this is still unacceptable, then maybe think of an asteroid or something else that simply exists.

Do we have a purpose? Does our purpose stem from our original creator's intent (like watches), does it stem from the results of what we do and accomplish (like reproductive organs), or do we not have a purpose and simply exist (like stars)?

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 8 by Bust Nak]

If something is so specifically designed as to achieve a certain feat, then you can argue that that is its purpose, its reason for existence. Reproductive organs are designed solely to allow for reproduction. Can't you argue that that is its purpose, and this is outside of our opinion? I guess maybe you could argue that allowing for reproduction is simply what reproductive organs do. But that does not entail that they have a purpose. I find this view to make less sense however. You are choosing to completley ignore the very specific task they are designed to do and accomplish.

You asked about a distinction between asteroids and reproductive organs, why one has a purpose to me and one doesn't. The reason is that asteroids are not designed to accomplish a task. They simply form from the results of physical environmental interactions and have certain properties to them. Reproductive organs form from a genetic blueprint that is designed to allow life to continue via reproduction. It is a blueprint with a specific goal in mind, and thus it has a purpose.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 5 by Danmark]

Interesting. It gives me some hope to think that we have a God-given purpose from how he created us. It makes me feel more like I can improve myself since I was designed to be a certain way. It gives me the feeling that I have true potential. With atheism I could never have that hope.

But now we're just discussing why we like our beliefs, yours atheism, mine theism.

Here's another angle (my own, for what its worth ): I live my life as if there were no god. If there is such a thing, I sincerely doubt it is anything like the Bible god or Allah or Brahma, or any other deity humans have worshiped.

If, all this time, what we've believed was purpose imbued by a god were just human ideas claimed to be from a god, then we humans have been the source of every beautiful, profound and hugely meaningful meaning after all, and all this time.

We believed epilepsy and leprosy were caused by sin or demons up until quite recently, and we were wrong; it turns out there is a bacteria to cause leprosy and a brain disorder that causes seizures. Perhaps in the same way that our human 'best' was attributed to a god, we were wrong, and we are a heckuva lot 'more' than we thought we were

I struggled with this dilemma. Before I settled down and accepted, for better or worse, that I hadn't seen hide nor hair of a god anywhere (that couldn't be explained by something natural), the thought of having no purpose in life, just being a random fluctuation on an insignificant ball of rock was disheartening to me.

It's sort of like having no parent to guide you, and protect you from making mistakes. Parents know what is important for their children before the children do, and children rely on their parents directions for their safety and success. Without a god that cared about humans, who knows what kind of nonsense we would get up to? Shooting off in all the wrong directions . . . and what if I 'chose' wrong in the purpose department?

Can little ole me just . . . make up my own purpose? Is that purpose going to be 'real'? It's like I needed that authority behind a god-given purpose to feel like I even had one. It felt like being lost and drifting, that nihilism Christians often attribute to atheism. But if all the 'divine' purposes we've ever heard of were indeed just us doing it ourselves all along, what's stopping us from continuing to create meaning for ourselves? Maybe human civilization is 'outgrowing' the need for an uber-Parent to tell us what to do and how to do it?

[wannabe]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

In science we exist like stars ( something to wonder about )
In god we exist as an acceptance of his gift. ( that purpose being to fill the universe with eternal righteousness ).

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

In science we exist like stars ( something to wonder about )
In god we exist as an acceptance of his gift. ( that purpose being to fill the universe with eternal righteousness ).

These are silly sentences.
No one "lives in" science. Science is a methodology, a tool used to understand nature.
No one "lives in" God. God is a mere concept some people consider an actual entity.

[Bust Nak]

If something is so specifically designed as to achieve a certain feat, then you can argue that that is its purpose, its reason for existence. Reproductive organs are designed solely to allow for reproduction.

First a question. The design in question here, I assume is referring to creationism? Most people will not accept that reproductive organs are designed in that sense. Reproductive organs and asteroids are on par at least in the sense that neither are designed by human.

On to your point, why couldn't I say the same for asteroids? They are designed solely to keep water and other material from being lost to interstellar space.

Can't you argue that that is its purpose, and this is outside of our opinion? I guess maybe you could argue that allowing for reproduction is simply what reproductive organs do. But that does not entail that they have a purpose. I find this view to make less sense however. You are choosing to completley ignore the very specific task they are designed to do and accomplish.

Why couldn't or shouldn't I completely ignore the very specific task an item is designed to do and accomplish? Someone makes a spear with a specific purpose in mind, he made it for hunting. Knowing what the creator intended, can I not use it as a tent pole? Am I morally bound not to use it as a tent pole?

I think these two rhetorical question is enough to demonstrate that purpose is whatever an evaluator want to use it for, I can use a spear as a tent pole, there are no reason (purpose wise) why I shouldn't use it as a tent pole. It may even make a better tent pole than a spear.

You asked about a distinction between asteroids and reproductive organs, why one has a purpose to me and one doesn't. The reason is that asteroids are not designed to accomplish a task. They simply form from the results of physical environmental interactions and have certain properties to them. Reproductive organs form from a genetic blueprint that is designed to allow life to continue via reproduction. It is a blueprint with a specific goal in mind, and thus it has a purpose.

To summarize: 1) It's not clear reproductive organs are designed for a purpose. 2) If you insist that organs are designed with a purpose, what stops me from insisting asteroids are designed with a purpose? 3) More importantly, even for items that we acknowledge were designed for a particular job, its purpose still does not exist outside of the opinion of evaluators, the designer of said item is but one evaluator out of many.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 15 by Bust Nak]

Creationist beliefs don't come into play with reproductive organs for me at least. It's enough to examine the genetic blueprint which is followed for their formation, and that has nothing to do with creationism at all.

So it seems like you take the stance that purpose is something completely subjective? Humans define their own subjective purpose for things and nothing has a purpose outside of these subjective purposes we place on them?

It's honestly a strong argument. Even if genetic blueprints show that reproductive organs pretty much solely accomplish the act of allowing for reproduction, it does not then entail that reproduction is their purpose. We ultimately decide what the purpose of reproductive organs is for us. So maybe I guess I'll concede to your argument. Purpose may solely be dependent on the individual's desires for something.

[Bust Nak]

So it seems like you take the stance that purpose is something completely subjective? Humans define their own subjective purpose for things and nothing has a purpose outside of these subjective purposes we place on them?

Not just humans. Every conscious being, capable of handing the abstract thought of tool use and planning, would qualify as an evaluator for purpose. Stick the Christian God in the equation and still I would say purpose is subjective. God made human to be his companion, his purpose is for that specific task, and that would still be God defining his subjective purpose.

It's honestly a strong argument. Even if genetic blueprints show that reproductive organs pretty much solely accomplish the act of allowing for reproduction, it does not then entail that reproduction is their purpose. We ultimately decide what the purpose of reproductive organs is for us. So maybe I guess I'll concede to your argument. Purpose may solely be dependent on the individual's desires for something.

Enjoy the ease of having easy answers to traditionally difficult questions such as "what is the meaning of life?" It's whatever you want it to mean.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 15 by Bust Nak]

Creationist beliefs don't come into play with reproductive organs for me at least. It's enough to examine the genetic blueprint which is followed for their formation, and that has nothing to do with creationism at all.

So it seems like you take the stance that purpose is something completely subjective? Humans define their own subjective purpose for things and nothing has a purpose outside of these subjective purposes we place on them?

It's honestly a strong argument. Even if genetic blueprints show that reproductive organs pretty much solely accomplish the act of allowing for reproduction, it does not then entail that reproduction is their purpose. We ultimately decide what the purpose of reproductive organs is for us. So maybe I guess I'll concede to your argument. Purpose may solely be dependent on the individual's desires for something.

What do you mean by a 'genetic blueprint?' Each organism, each species that exists today only exists because it had a means for reproduction. The instructions for the way an organism develops is, of course, contained in its DNA.

But there have been an infinite number of organisms that have existed or could have existed for a single generation, but for the fact they had no means of reproducing. The counter argument is creationism. Claiming there is 'purpose' in any species or that any organism has a 'purpose' is another way of claiming one is a creationist who believes God is the designer of that organism and has decreed a purpose.

[jgh7]

[Replying to Danmark]

By genetic blueprint I meant DNA, I guess I should have used that term instead. And as for purpose, I was inferring that since the DNA's complex instructions for reproductive organ formation and function are obviously geared towards allowing reproduction, reproduction must therefore be the purpose of reproductive organs. I don't see anything creationist in that inferrence. I don't hold that inferrence as correct anymore, but I do hold that it is not creationist. God or the supernatural does not factor in to it.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

By genetic blueprint I meant DNA, I guess I should have used that term instead. And as for purpose, I was inferring that since the DNA's complex instructions for reproductive organ formation and function are obviously geared towards allowing reproduction, reproduction must therefore be the purpose of reproductive organs. I don't see anything creationist in that inferrence. I don't hold that inferrence as correct anymore, but I do hold that it is not creationist. God or the supernatural does not factor in to it.

Anytime you claim 'purpose' you are talking creationism whether you realize it or not. There is no purpose in evolution. Changes take place and if they don't allow the organism to reproduce, the organism dies out as a species.

Do you have a theory for the variety of species that exist that does not involve either evolution or creationism? If you claim there is purpose in evolution then you do not understand evolutionary theory. Or can you cite a single expert in the field of evolution that claims there is a design or purpose involved?

Perhaps the problem is semantic. Certainly legs allow an animal to move. Legs can be used for movement if the animal wants to move. In that sense, if the animal wants to move he uses his legs for that purpose. But that is using the word "purpose" equivocally. It has nothing to do with legs being made for a purpose. If legs were "made" for a "purpose" then a designer would be required and that is called 'creationism.'