Raf

I won't earn any new friends with this, but I'm not apologizing for my tone (except maybe for the use of the word "lie" and its variants). I don't think there's much difference in my tone between this and what I've previously posted. The difference is, this time, I'm in disagreement with many here. Ask Ol' Mike if he thought I was a genial fellow. So yes, some things have changed. But I'd rather let my arguments stand and fall on their merits. "Agree with me or I'll berate you" is not how I'm operating here, and it has never been how I operate. Steve and I are at polar ends of this discussion, and the tone has been nothing but respectful between us. That I am passionate about this is merely a reflection of the strength of my conviction. This all started, from my perspective, with the demand that I prove my point. Erase that, and we have no argument here. But the remainder of it followed quite logically, I think. Sorry if you disagree. +++ Let us take ourselves out of it and see if it helps with our discussion. I'm not going to cite sources here, but if you go through these articles and look through some more, they are not difficult to find. I suspect most of us would agree that SITWI doesn't work the way Pentecostals describe: You speak in tongues, this dude over there is gonna interpret. The researchers bear this out: Tongues are presented to one interpreter, who interprets. The exact same message is presented to another interpreter, and he interprets. And the interpretations don't match. Proof? No, not really. But if they matched, you can bet folks would be shouting from the rooftops that it's proof! That's not the only experiment, of course. In one church, a guy stood up and spoke in tongues, and another person got up and interpreted. Except the guy who spoke in tongues wasn't speaking in tongues. It was the Lord's Prayer in an African language that he knew. And the interpretation, well, wasn't. You can't find a single documented example to verify the gift of interpretation of tongues as described by Pentecostals. Not one. Now, a Pentecostal would say that interpretation is one gift and prophecy another, so the interpreter cannot just say, well, it was prophecy this time, the way a TWI follower could. Or he could say, as many of you have, that the experimenter's interference short circuited God, who had no desire to participate in the study. No amount of "proof" would satisfy them. But whatever it is they are doing, it is not what they claim it to be. So what do you say to them? Mind you, if any of these studies verified their claims, once again, you can bet folks would be shouting from the rooftops that it's proof! It is remarkably convenient to devise a proof system that can only validate your claim but cannot invalidate it. But here's the thing: These interpreters firmly believe, with utmost conviction, that they have the gift of interpretation. How do you call them liars? You can't. You've been had. You're deluding yourselves. There's no nice way to say it. So you shut up? Do you have to have a better Biblical answer (which I don't in our larger discussion) before you tell them that they're practicing a falsehood? +++ What I mean in this stuff is that what we were taught is rather obviously error. Whatever it is we did, it wasn't speaking the tongues of men, and speaking the tongues of angels seems like a copout. Ok, so you guys disagree with me. Cool deal. Godspeed.

That's not true. Linguists are supremely interested in the topic, as we have seen. The problem with Vern, I find, is that he makes comments and assertions that are not academic in nature. I dismiss those comments when he makes them for the same reason that I dismiss those comments when you make them: they are not academic comments. Here you have someone who says, rather plainly, that someone making it up and someone doing it in a religious context produce utterances that are linguistically indistinguishable from each other. Indistinguishable? And we KNOW one is made up. So what academic reason does he give us for failing to conclude that SIT, at LEAST in the cases he examined, were fake? God. That may be satisfying on the level of faith, but it slams the door on any further discussion. How do you argue with that? You can't. He doesn't prove it. He just says it, and BAM! door closed. And that's his prerogative, as it is my prerogative to label that approach non-academic/biased. Compare that to Samarin, who looks at the same kind of data and concludes that a speaker feels strongly motivated to utter sounds that replicate a language and does so. What he speaks is not a language, but it can tell us something about how we communicate. We attach meanings to words, we use inflection, volume and pitch to convey emotion. Words? No, not in the real sense of the word. But fascinating to observe and document. His approach is unsatisfying to the faithful, but it's honest and apparently not considered biased (as evidenced by the fact that every single person we've reviewed in this discussion cites Samarin as an authority. So you may not like what he says about SIT as a real language (it's not), but you'll like what he says about how SIT resembles a language (neglecting, unfortunately, all the devastating and relevant things he says about how it's not a language). So we're stuck just plain disagreeing. And I'm good with that. No. :)

I'm fine with that.

No, I don't. Would you like me to post the writings of a high school sophomore raised by atheists? No. Because I was looking for the competent work of linguists, not the exploratory work of a college kid who quotes the philosophical musings of a tongues speaker as a kicker for an academic research paper! Dare I ask? Could you please show me a post where I expressed wholehearted support of Vern? I mean, aside from my repeated references to his work as laughably biased, can you show me one? Justone? I'm cowering in my confessional.

Vern is a biased researcher who doesn't discount SIT for religious reasons. He doesn't point to research to bear this out. All the research he cites points in the opposite direction. But I agree, he doesn't rule it out. Samarin absolutely discounts tongues as a language. That he "supports the possibility of tongues being real in private prayer life" is a dodge and a distortion of his VERY firm finding that it's not a language in any real definition of the term (he actually calls it a pseudo-language, which I suppose you can quote and count as a victory). That it's real in private prayer life only means, to Samarin, that the people who do it attach a real meaning to it and they do it in what is, at times, a rather sophisticated manner. Really, at this point your misrepresentation of his work can only be uninformed (you haven't read him, have you) or deliberate (you don't care what he says. You'll pick out a quote that describes the linguistic qualities of glossolalia and ignore the fact that he's dismissed it as any kind of language, which is the only point of this discussion. Landry is (at the time he wrote that article, which incidentally I did not cite) a college kid who wrote a paper for class, a paper for which we don't even know what grade he received. His conclusion is a quote from a tongues speaker. He favorably cites research conducted by Guideposts writer. I've got nothing against Landry, as I'm sure he has nothing against me. But he would be alarmed, I think, to find people seriously debating his work. I think that accurately reflects Landry and Vern. It does not accurately reflect Samarin. If you read him, you'd know that by now. Samarin basically recognizes that this is something made up by the speaker and is fascinated by the quality of the creative stuff we come up with. Your interpolations into his work are purely imaginary. HA! You're right. I've yet to produce one. Except someone forgot where the burden lies here. Remember, it's not on ME to disprove tongues. It's on YOU to prove it (but you can't, because God). What the studies say, unanimously, is that Speaking in Tongues, when studied, has failed to come up with a single instance of someone actually speaking a known language. NOT ONE. In other words, I looked to these studies to see if anyone had already proved me wrong, and guess what? It hasn't happened! (And if I may make a leap of "faith" here, it won't. Because I'm right). Um, I said bring it because you accused me of misrepresenting what these people, specifically Samarin, wrote. You proceeded to butcher Samarin's findings to suit your own ends, utterly ignoring the relevant statements he makes about what glossolalia is but focusing like a laser beam on what he says about what glossolalia looks like. Buh bye.

Um, no. Other than that it looks like a term paper and that it WAS written by someone who at the time he wrote it was a college undergrad with a major in philosophy and religion, no, I have no evidence that this was a college paper. Goodness, is enough evidence enough for you in ANY area? You have descended into a fit of namecalling and hysteria that is far beneath you. I think. Excy, I wholeheartedly agree with that first sentence! Do not accept my abbreviations. Read them all for yourself (IF YOU WANT TO. If you don't, don't. I sleep exactly the same either way. Sure! I googled "speaking in tongues" and "linguists" and that was the first article that came up. I printed it out. I thought it was interesting, though I questioned the objectivity of the writer (not realizing until later why). I did not provide you with the Vern citation to "prove" my position. I provided it because you asked for it, and I'm not going to hide stuff I find interesting just because I disagree with some of the conclusions or methodology! We call that integrity. You should try it. You see, if I lacked integrity, I would have ONLY shared Samarin. And you would have found Vern and asked me why I ignored him. I didn't. He's just biased, and I showed exactly how and where and why. But it's okay for you to not accept that. What's not okay is to take a quote out of context, use it to prove that a researcher (Samarin) is saying the exact opposite of what he's saying (which is EXACTLY what you did) and then turning around and accusing ME of the same when all I've done is correct your misrepresentation of his findings!

Reproof got a bad rap because of how TWI did it. It should not. It's a good thing. It makes us all better people when done right. Pick a word that's less insulting to you. I don't think anyone "lied" per se. I think we kidded ourselves out of a sincere hunger for the things of God and a considerable amount of peer pressure to manifest. I think Samarin described that well. I would say that you described my experience as well. First, I'll repeat: lying is an ugly, ugly word. As I used it, it had the effect of starting this whole conversation, immediately, in rather stark, absolute terms. I don't think of myself as a liar, and certainly didn't think of it then. But there was always little niggling thoughts in the back of my head: You KNOW this is just you. You know that interpretation bore no relationship to what you just spoke. You know you made up that prophecy. I keep using the words communal self delusion (since someone asked) because it's so vividly descriptive of what happened. It wasn't just that I fooled myself. It's that I fooled myself within the loving embrace of a community of people who had done exactly the same thing. And we embraced each other and it bound us. It helped cement us into a family. It wasn't just "God" or "Church." It was "Wow. We have done something pretty amazing. God's AWESOME." I intend no assigning of malice to anyone who did this. I did it out of a sincere hunger and desire to spread the message of God. I WANTED it to be real. But when I look in the mirror, I realize it wasn't. The rest is kind of a leap. I know I'm not alone in what I did. And I want others who did it to realize it's ok. Because it is.

You can say that, but that doesn't make it true. Why? You're just going to discount it anyway. Any study that doesn't agree with what you've already concluded is ineffective for our discussion. Clearly, when you asked me for those studies, you were uninterested in their scientific accuracy or reasonableness of their unbiased arguments. You were looking to embarrass me and insult me. You succeeded. Congratulations. But clearly your argument has been reduced to insulting me, as you have ceased misrepresenting the papers you soooo carefully read. By the way, the report has the look and feel of a college paper. I've taught college, recently. I know what these things look like. Landry also has a resume or something posted that shows where he went to school and when he graduated. This paper was written while he was studying for a degree in philosophy/religion. That doesn't discredit it, per se, but seeing as he quoted an evangelical tongues speaker without disclosing the rather obvious bias of the source... Do I really need to go on? Kid wrote a decent college paper, but that's all it was. "Drop the ridiculous namecalling, you tool." Riiiiight. Chockfull, take it elsewhere. I don't want this thread moved to Soap Opera. I noted earlier that an honest intellectual discussion is impossible once one side of that discussion has been denounced as Satanic in its methodology. Over the past two days, you have illustrated my point brilliantly, for which I thank you.

Not ignoring this. Actually quite interested in what folks conclude. One thing I believe with conviction: it is not as it was presented to us.

I am going to state rather emphatically that waysider and I appear to be headed in different directions here. ;) http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/muellerlinguisticanalysis.pdf It is communal self-delusion.

Can't speak for that researcher. I haven't gone into his work. I can tell you that Samarin recognizes such a field of study as impossible, for obvious reasons. A linguist could tell you whether different people are speaking the same language, even without recognizing the language itself, to a reasonable degree of certainty. But understand what we're dealing with in your question, excy: once we embark on it, we are accepting the findings of the linguists and concluding that if SIT is truly what we have claimed it to be (it's not. We all know it. Some of us just choose to finally admit it), then everyone who's ever participated in a study of it has either been faking or, how dare I suggest such a thing, speaking in the tongues of angels. ALL OF THEM. Come on.

Ok, so now I'm just piling on: Read more: http://meta-religion.com/Linguistics/Glossolalia/contemporary_linguistic_study.htm#ixzz272JyAyIW The bold and italics, and of course, the "well shucks" bracket, are mine. Folks, if ANYONE reading this is able to speak in tongues and produce the tongues of men, I am certain that there are linguists who would LOVE to talk to you. And preachers/pastors. And, yes, psychologists. James Randi, who has offered $1 million for conclusive proof of the paranormal, would probably be obliged to cough up a check to you. Yeah, I know. God won't let you. It can't be because, deep down, you KNOW that you don't know that you know.

Aww, thanks! Hey, seriously, I'm sorry if this thread bums you out or upsets you. If you want to make a case to the mods, be my guest. If they move it (over my objection), so be it. I am at a loss to how "hey, you know all those times I claimed to be speaking through the power that created the heavens and earth? Mea culpa, I was full of crap" can somehow be interpreted as self-righteous, but HEY, we are free to make judgments and express them. BWAAAAhaahahahahaha!

Yes, and Vern provides it. Anyone can perform free vocalization. If you're in a place and time with next to zero exposure to other cultures and other languages, then you can claim to be speaking in a foreign tongue by the power of God, Krishna, Isis, Zeus or Baal, and no one would be the wiser. Rare is the person who cannot do this. Common is the religious leader who would seize on it as proof of, or display of, or manifestation of, something supernatural.

Ok, quick clarification: chockfull, you confused me by accusing me of calling Landry laughably biased. Clearly I said Vern and you meant Vern. You just wrote Landry. But to the original point, I never accused Vern of misquoting or misrepresenting Samarin. THAT was your false accusation against me.

just repisting this because I didn't want it to get buried.

Read that carefully: I did not call Landry laughably biased. I made a reference to Landry, then changed the subject to the OTHER article, Vern's identifying it as the one I had previously referred to as laughably biased. So I retract my statement. You did not bear falsewitness. You did not mean to lie about me. You were mistaken, and the subsequent statement you made in reference to that mistake was untrue, but sincere. Kinda like the whole SIT experience we've been hoodwinked into accepting.

More bearing falsewitness. Go ahead. Find the quote. I'll wait for your apology. (If I said it about Landry, by the way, it was a typo, because I meant it about Vern). By the way, remember Sherrill, the guy who did the review of the 40 different samples of glossolalia? Look him up. REAL "unbiased" stuff there: http://www.amazon.ca/They-Speak-Other-Tongues-Sherrill/dp/0800793595/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348156477&sr=1-1 Here's my original reference to "laughably biased," by the way.

I compare Samarin to an agricultural biologist studying the solid, post-digestive byproduct of the species bos taurus to determine its potential uses in farming or other potential application. The results will vary based on any number of issues, from the diet of the animal to the climate in which it was raised. Numerous different conclusions can be drawn about its content, consistency and application. But in the end, the agricultural biologist knows that what he's studying is bulls hit, and so does Samarin.

Thou shalt not bear falsewitness against thy neighbor. That is not what I said. It is not what I meant. And it is not what he did, as I believe he cited Samarin accurately. What do the studies agree on: SIT, as examined thus far, has failed to produce a single instance of a speaker producing a known language that was unknown to the speaker but identifiable to other human beings. Does this bother no one? If what you were doing was reproducing what Paul promises in the Bible, wouldn't you expect MOST SIT to produce a known language? Ok, not most. Many! Ok, not many. Some! Ok, not some: ONE?!? The alternatives are tongues of angels and code (a non-Biblical copout that, if we're being honest here, should not even be considered).

A quick detour on the bias of Vern Poythress, which I picked up on just by reading the article, not even realizing that although he has taught linguistics, his primary field is, in fact, religious. Interestingly (for what it's worth), his Wikipedia entry lists him first as a Calvinist philosopher, theologian and New Testament scholar. Do you suppose such a person might be predisposed to believe that tongues can't be proved or disproved? Apologetics? Yeah, that's the field where your primary goal is to argue in favor of the Christian faith. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's the opposite of unbiased. Just as I would never expect Richard Dawkins to conduct a study that validates SIT, I would never expect Poythress to conduct a study that invalidates it. He can't. It's literally not his job. So he tells us that it "can't" be proved or disproved, ignoring the obvious fact that it can be proved quite easily: the moment someone DOES speak in tongues and produce a verified language, you watch how fast the SITters jump up and say AHA! We PROVED it! Let's not neglect at a couple of things he is willing to say DESPITE this bias. This is not the statement of an unbiased researcher. It is wholly consistent with an apologetic who does not want the results of a scientific study to be perceived as an attack on an article of faith. Still, he IS able to describe free vocalization (which is by his own definition made up by the speaker without any... wait, let me not characterize it. Let's have Vern do it: I think it's self-evident that he is not at this point describing a supernatural phenomenon, but something that anyone can do. In fact, he says, it would be unusual to find someone who cannot do it! Earlier he says the following: Again, Vern here is NOT describing any supernatural process that requires God to energize or inspire the utterances that come forth. He is explicit about that. By the way, you'll be forgiven if the above description reminds you at all of session 12, because it is precisely how we were taught to fake SIT. It is also, practically speaking, indistinguishable from what we read earlier in Samarin. The only difference is that Samarin introduces the motive of the speaker to produce a real language. Practically speaking, mechanically, they are describing the exact same thing. That's why I find Vern's discussion here highly instructive. If it differs, it's not the same thing. Now watch this, because it is central to what we discuss: Wait, what? Lemme read that again: Most of the time, linguistically speaking, a person speaking in tongues produces something that's indistinguishable from someone who is free-vocalizing while deliberately trying to make it sound like a language. What conclusion does Vern draw from the observations he's describing (as it seems clear that he's not the one doing the studying, by the way: he is strictly describing other studies with the ultimate goal of producing an apologetic response TO those scientific analyses. Any unbiased scientist reading that paragraph in 1912 would probably STILL be laughing. A scientific conclusion that SIT, which produces utterances that are linguistically indistinguishable from open fakery, IS itself fake... is only possible if you don't know how God works. That conclusion is theologically understandable, but it's a joke, scientifically speaking. That he has the professionalism to admit that free vocalization is not indisputable proof of the presence and the power of the Hholy Sspirit is commendable. That he lacks the professionalism to admit that both examined speakers are clearly faking, but only one is admitting it, is disappointing. This sounds impressive, but is really self evident. Unless you analyze all SIT, you can never prove that it's ALL fake. You can only prove those you've analyzed are fake. Apparently a failure to distinguish between SIT and admitted fakery is insufficient evidence to conclude that SIT IS fakery. Because God. You can't argue with that logic. No, I mean that. You can't argue with it. There's nothing to argue with. I should note that Vern later goes into an extensive discussion about the possibility of SIT as a "coded" language, but seeing as I do not see Paul talking about speaking the tongues of men, angels and secret agents, I am choosing not to delve into that part of his discussion. It appears, at best, a desperate attempt to rescue SIT (or what Vern calls "T-speech") from utter debunking. I mean no disrespect to the Rev. Vern. He is clearly a brilliant man and quite the Christian apologist. But this paper, for what it's worth, is not a work of research, per se, and cannot be treated as such. At this point it becomes clear that you are not even reading these reports but merely looking for reasons to insult me. Had you read them, you would see that the incidents of xenoglossia were NOT samples of people exercising SIT. They were claiming past life regression, reincarnation and the like. So... no. Please read Samarin's report before you embarrass yourself any further.

T-speech here refers to SIT as a practice. Wow. These scientists must be deluding themselves. I mean, to think that the Holy Spirit would be unlikely to work a miracle in controlled conditions for the convenience of linguists. Apparently, the scientists are well able to obviate the limitations in their study. But Raf, not so much. In fact, Raf gets so offended at the idea that he comes up with cute little bracketed statements about censoring statements to prevent Satan. Really, really adept political type maneuvering there. But honest scientific research? Not so much. This conclusion, that you cannot really prove or disprove tongues, has been discussed on this thread ad nauseum. It is one of the reasons I characterized the Right Rev's article on the subject as laughably biased. For those just joining us: If SIT produced a verified language from a speaker who had no prior experience with or exposure to that language, it would pretty much PROVE SIT as a legitimate experience. Let's agree that you can't disprove it everywhere in all cases. But to say you can't prove it is to agree, pretty much, that "speaking in tongues" and producing the tongues of men as recorded in Acts 2 and expected in I Corinthians 13 is something no one can do. Because if someone could do it, you would not be hiding behind the lie that "it can't be proved." So is the Right Rev's paper "honest scientific research"? Clearly not. It doesn't even make rhetorical sense on that critical point. The paper DOES make some interesting points, but seeing as he exposes his bias, the only value I would draw from him is when he presents something that is objectively verifiable or reaches a conclusion that runs counter to his expressed bias (in favor of the possibility that there may be something genuine going on here, and his refusal to allow the evidence to rule it out).

What is the non SuperPac translation? LINGUISTS CONCLUDE THAT THE PATTERNS IN GLOSSALALIA SUPPORT THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT IS A LANGUAGE. The supportable evidence? Like a language, there are sentences, words, sound units. IT SOUNDS LIKE A LANGUAGE WITH GRAMMAR AND SYNTAX. How did they arrive at this? They observed comparisons of consonants and vowels, and speeches on different occasions. So Raf makes claims that linguists all have examined recorded evidence and dismissed all of them as not a language. Yet the very first supporting study posted to this thread makes exactly the opposite claim. Although they are not familiar with the language, linguists examining 40 recordings of glossolalia conclude that THE PATTERNS SUPPORT THE POSSIBILITY OF IT BEING A LANGUAGE. So Raf, science seems to be failing you here, bro. But hey, on the positive side for you, you could always snip a few quotes from the paper out of context, and say 100% the opposite of what your source is saying. Because, you know, most of the people reading the thread won't read your entire source anyway. That's galling. I mean unmitigated gall. Let's explore why. Chockfull quotes Landry (the undergrad whose grade on this paper we still don't know), who quotes Malony and Lovekin quoting Samarin. Whew. (Hey, are you getting the impression that Samarin is a rather respected and recognized authority on this issue? Not that appealing to authority is a valid logical tactic, but it IS interesting). Ok, so what does Samarin say in this quoted quote: Hmm. Glossolalia and gibberish are different. Hold the phone. Are we clear on what Samarin even MEANS by glossolalia yet? Oh, we're not? Well, let's find out to arrive at the truth of what Landry says: What does this tell us about Samarin? Well, I think it clearly differentiates between real language and stuff made up by the speaker that SOUNDS like real language but has "no systematic resemblance to ANY LANGUAGE LIVING OR DEAD." This definition needs to be recalled whenever we read Samarin's references to glossolalia: He has already ruled it out as a language and is now fascinated not by "what is glossolalia NOT," but "what IS glossolalia" (having already ruled it out as an existing or extinct language). To take Samarin and conclude, from one quote of a quote, that "linguists conclude that the patterns in glossolalia support the possibility that it is a language" is an error at best, a blatant lie at worst. Fortunately, we HAVE a substantial writing sample from Samarin to compare against the undergrad's quote of a quote to get to what he's REALLY saying. When Samarin says glossolalia is not gibberish, what he is saying is that the speaker has invented out of whole cloth something that looks and sounds languagish but clearly is not. By the way, that's not my interpretation of Samarin. It's what he says (I've already quoted this with more context, so don't go accusing me of taking this quote out of context): You may not take that to mean "the speaker makes that s#1% up," but I do, and if we're at odds here, Godspeed. Back to chockfull: If you're going to steal my joke, I would appreciate it if you were at least a little funny. That you should call your approach "the scientific method and common sense" should humiliate you, considering your contempt for a truly scientific approach to this question. See, if you were REALLY interested in a scientific approach in keeping with common sense, you would [censored by the Committee to Protect the Faith From A Scientific Approach And Common Sense Already Dismissed as the Methodology of SATAN!] You see? THAT's funny.

I'm going to try to review chockfull's allegations one by one, which may take some time considering the lengths undertaken to label me a crying politician (because namecalling really helps prove your point). I'm going to kind of agree there. It was no language that they could identify, and I should have said as much. Of course, if it WAS a language they could identify, we'd be done here, wouldn't we. But it never seems to be a language anyone can identify. Wonder why that is. Here the pot calls the kettle black. Let's remember that we are reviewing here an undergraduate term paper, without access to the sources documented by the future geologist, and making judgments about words like "glossolalia" and "gibberish" without regard to the meanings of those words as used by the researchers. Samarin distinguishes between gibberish and glossolalia in his study (which the undergrad cites and which, thankfully, we DO have access to), so that the conclusion "glossolalia is not gibberish" is actually self-defined. This is rather critical to our purposes here: if you define away the difference between glossolalia and gibberish at the outset, you pre-determine their differences. In gibberish, the speaker is making no effort to produce anything that sounds like a language. In glossolalia, the speaker IS making an effort to produce something that sounds like a language. Therefore, to the linguist, the difference between gibberish and glossolalia becomes clear because one displays that conscious or subconscious effort and the other does not. Key realizations: regardless of what you believe glossolalia to be, you have to admit that it's not any known language, which eliminates it under the Biblical definition of speaking in tongues at least insofar as they are the "tongues of men" as described in Acts 2 and I Corinthians 13. Glossolalia are NOT tongues of men by any definition, and none of the researchers we are considering concluded that they are. Not one. Samarin is explicit on this, as we shall see later.

I apologize. I should not have said deliberately dishonest. I have no idea whether it was deliberate.