What is creationism?

[leibowde84]

To be clear, I'm not debating at this point, but I'll be happy to explain. I need to reference my scriptures as they explain better than I can. When two disciples were on the Road to Emmaus, they were lamenting the death of Christ. A stranger approached and they didn't recognize him, meaning his identity was somehow hidden. He went to their home. While they were eating, he revealed himself to them and they saw that it was the resurrected Christ. After he left, they commented to each other "did not our hearts burn within us" as we walked with him on the road. In other words, "we had a spiritual witness from God, who this was, but we didn't recognize it at the time." The "burn within us" is not a literal burn, but a deeply spiritual impression, beyond emotion and beyond the physical experience.

The LDS Doctrine and Covenants says "I (the Lord) will tell you in your mind and in your heart by the Holy Ghost which shall come upon you". There's a spiritual and intellectual impression from the Spirit.

The Lord manifested himself to Elijah in 1 Kings 19. There was a great wind, and a great earthquake, and a fire, but it says the Lord was not in the wind or the earthquake or the fire, "but a still small voice". God revealed himself by what the scriptures call the "still small voice".

So we have references to "our hearts burned within us", "I will tell you in your mind and in your heart", and "the still small voice." The intensity varies. I've had these impressions many times. I've had many occasions where the accuracy of the impressions are confirmed by events. These impressions bear witness of spiritual truth. They also give guidance on what to do in certain circumstances. They also give spiritual comfort and peace.

Can I convince others that this is no more than emotion or a self induced experience? Some, but certainly not all. But I've seen enough answers to prayers, and confirmations of spiritual manifestations, throughout my life, that this feeling goes deep into my bones, so to speak.

I fully expect skeptical responses to this post such as "it's all in your head" and "how do you explain that others claim the same experience, but their witness of truth contradicts yours?" It is what it is. I'm fully satisfied that God has revealed himself to me in this way.

As my quote from Corinthians indicates, these things are not naturally discerned by the natural man, but they are spiritually discerned. To those who insist on natural, empirical proof, and deny the Spirit, they are foolishness.

I've scarcely done the subject justice either in doctrine or in describing a lifetime of experience.

I am familiar with the passages quoted. But, I am asking what specifically happened to you and no one else.

 

[Scott C.]

I am familiar with the passages quoted. But, I am asking what specifically happened to you and no one else.

It started for me when I was 16 years old. I didn't participate in my faith at all. Without any human catalysts (friends or family), some deep impressions came over me that God was trying to tell me to get my life together. The feelings kept coming back, over a couple of weeks. I don't want to get too personal here. I responded to those promptings and asked for further guidance. I received it. I devoured the Book of Mormon in a week. I read the New Testament, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. It was like a bright light was turned on. My impressions were deep that it was real and true. It made so much sense logically and spiritually and felt so right. I felt that God communicated the truth to my heart, soul, and mind. My family was surprised that right out of the blue, I announced that I was going to church and stuck with it. So were my friends. I was ridiculed by some of them. My mother was the only church goer at the time. I turned my life around at that point and never looked back. That was 41 years ago. Since then, these feelings have repeated themselves over and over and over. My conviction has grown stronger. I don't want to go into any more detail than this.

 

[Sapiens]

It started for me when I was 16 years old. I didn't participate in my faith at all. Without any human catalysts (friends or family), some deep impressions came over me that God was trying to tell me to get my life together. The feelings kept coming back, over a couple of weeks. I don't want to get too personal here. I responded to those promptings and asked for further guidance. I received it. I devoured the Book of Mormon in a week. I read the New Testament, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. It was like a bright light was turned on. My impressions were deep that it was real and true. It made so much sense logically and spiritually and felt so right. I felt that God communicated the truth to my heart, soul, and mind. My family was surprised that right out of the blue, I announced that I was going to church and stuck with it. So were my friends. I was ridiculed by some of them. My mother was the only church goer at the time. I turned my life around at that point and never looked back. That was 41 years ago. Since then, these feelings have repeated themselves over and over and over. My conviction has grown stronger. I don't want to go into any more detail than this.

Here is a much more rational and defensible argument concerning your "deep impressions." A bit less dramatic, and assuredly less egotistical, making it (at least by Occam's Razor) more probable.

Why do so many cultures believe in unseen beings? - from Psychology Today, 28 June 2011, by Stephen Law, Ph.D.

Why, for example, is belief in invisible,supernatural agents - such as ghosts, angels, dead ancestors, and gods - so widespread? Belief in such supernatural agents appears to be a near universal feature of human societies. There is some evidence that a predisposition towards beliefs of this kind may actually be innate - part of our natural, evolutionary heritage. The Oxford psychologist Justin Barrett has suggested that the prevalence of beliefs of this kind may in part be explained by our possessing a Hyper-sensitive Agent Detection Device, or H.A.D.D.

Human beings explain features of the world around them in two very different ways. For example, we sometimes appeal to natural causes or laws in order to account for an event. Why did that apple fall from the tree? Because the wind blew and shook the branch, causing the apple to fall. Why did the water freeze in the pipes last night, because the temperature of the water fell below zero, and it is a law that water freezes below zero.

However, we also explain by appealing to agents - beings who act on the basis of their beliefs and desires in a more or less rational way. Why did the apple fall from the tree? Because Ted wanted to eat it, believed that shaking the tree would make it fall, and so shook the tree. Why are Mary's car keys on the mantelpiece? Because she wanted to remind herself not to forget them, so put them where she thought she would spot them.

Barrett suggests we have evolved to be overly sensitive to agency. We evolved in anenvironment containing many agents - family members, friends, rivals, predators, prey, and so on. Spotting and understanding other agents helps us survive and reproduce. So we evolved to be sensitive to them - oversensitive in fact. Hear a rustle in the bushes behind you and you instinctively spin round, looking for an agent. Most times, there's no one there - just the wind in the leaves. But, in the environment in which we evolved, on those few occasions when there was an agent present, detecting it might well save your life. Far better to avoid several imaginary predators than be eaten by a real one. Thus evolution will select for an inheritable tendency to not just detect - but over detect - agency. We have evolved to possess (or, perhaps more plausibly, to be) hyper-active agency detectors.

If we do have an H.A.D.D, that would at least partly explain the human tendency to feel there is "someone there" even when no one is observed, and so may at least partly explain our tendency to believe in the existence of invisible agents - in spirits, ghosts, angels or gods.

For example, in his book Illusion of Conscious Will, Daniel Wegner points out what he believes is the most remarkable characteristic of those using a ouija board (in which the planchette - often an upturned shot glass - on which the subjects' index fingers are gently resting appears to wander independently around the board, spelling out messages from "beyond"):

People using the board seem irresistibly drawn to the conclusion that some sort of unseen agent... is guiding the planchette movement. Not only is there a breakdown in the perception of one's own contribution to the talking board effect but a theory immediately arises to account for this breakdown: the theory of outside agency. In addition to spirits of the dead, people seem willing at times to adduce the influence of demons, angels, and even entities from the future or from outer space, depending on their personal contact with cultural theories about such effects.

Because the movement of the planchette is inexplicable and odd, it is immediately put down to the influence of an invisible agent (though notice the kind of agent invoked varies from group to group depending on their own particular, culturally-led expectations - see Piling Up The Anecdotes).

However, I am not here endorsing the H.A.D.D. explanation for widespread belief in such invisible agents (though I suspect there's some truth to it). Also, notice that, even if we do possess an H.A.D.D, that at best explains the attractiveness of only some wacky belief systems. Many - such as those involving crystal healing, palmistry or numerology - involve no invisible agents.

Note that the H.A.D.D, hypothesis does not say that there are no invisible agents. Perhaps at least some of the invisible agents people suppose exist are real. Perhaps there really are ghosts, or spirits, or gods. However, if we suppose the H.A.D.D, hypothesis does correctly explain why it is that so many people believe in the existence of invisible agents, then the fact that large numbers hold such beliefs can no longer be considered good evidence that any such agents exist. It will no longer do to say, "Surely not all these people can be so very deluded? Surely there must be some truth to these beliefs, otherwise they would not be so widespread?" The fact is, if the H.A.D.D, hypothesis is correct, we're likely to believe in the existence of such invisible agents anyway, whether or not such agents exist. But then the commonality of these beliefs is not good evidence such agents exist. If the H.A.D.D hypothesis is correct, it adds yet another nail to the coffin lid of the suggestion: "Lots of people believe it so there's got to be something to it!"