SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

No one is a number, Chockfull. I was trying to make a sweeping generalization that no one intended to practice any kind of deception, even assuming I'm right. That includes you, even if my typical history missed you by a mile.

Ham, it was not the bet: it was the self reflection. It should have happened a lot sooner, but you know how Allan could never SIT before he was saved? (yes he could, but why would anyone who's not saved try it?) Same thing. I never saw any reason to confront my SIT so long as I was continually encouraged and reinforced in my own self deception. It took a catalyst to get me to question it.

The rest is really not much more than projection and extrapolation based at first on a presumption that no one was producing real languages and now on a tad more evidence.

[OldSkool]

I dunno.. maybe I'll get started on Newton tonight.. did you know his successor did not have good words for him? Hawkings said that newton "was not a pleasant man".. and it was an under-statement..

Well, Dotsie said VP was a mean, mean man. Perhaps we are on to something?

[waysider]

I think his actual words were, "Fig you, Newton!".

(I trust we won't need an interpreter.)

Edited October 19, 2012 by waysider

[Freelancer]

Y'all are too flippin' funny.(the last couple of pages) And thanks Old Skool, for the moon, that's the most action I've had in a while. :blush:

[OldSkool]

Y'all are too flippin' funny.(the last couple of pages) And thanks Old Skool, for the moon, that's the most action I've had in a while. :blush:

You're welcome!

[Ham]

Well, Dotsie said VP was a mean, mean man. Perhaps we are on to something?

perhaps.. but unlike vic, newton was brilliant, if but for a brief moment..

he stood on the shoulder of giants.. and saw a little further. He didn't plagiarize and claim that the Shoulders of the World were his vewy own..

sowy Raf. I'm on the second tall beer. Just back from the store..

Hawkings is cool.. on about page three he is willing to make fun of the human perception of the universe.. asks the question, why our model is fundamentally better than the one (or ones) before..

we just have a better magnifying lens today..

off topic, I know.. but I don't think there is even a topic anywhere else in GS that this fits..

but isn't the twi interpretation of tongues a mere MODEL of something, that sometime, somewhere, in a galaxy, far far away, may have made sense to somebody, once, long ago..

[Ham]

Shannon and three kilohertz..

this is kind of cool. When the alcohol wears off, I will look a little more closely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem

shannon was researching what kind of bandwidth was needed to accurately communicate data in a dirty channel.. that is, trying to communicate when everybody else could not STFU. In other words, a noisy channel..

the amount of talking increases bandwidth, to begin with.. add to that the interference due to a lot of other of us talking at the same time..

if the noise is cyclic, it is easy to punch out.. if it is random, the rules change..

the more voices you add to the channel, the more they tends to follow some chotic order.. less open spaces to express themselves..

makes sense to me.

[Ham]

the way I'm reading Shannon.. people generally make colored noise, and the color of the noise depends on how many other humans are talking at the same time..

[OldSkool]

people generally make colored noise, and the color of the noise depends on how many other humans are talking at the same time..

Well, I am no Shannon, but sounds like an excellor session as described by the SIT detractors in this thread.

[Ham]

that's cool..

so.. and this applies across many venues that I have observed.. whatever "it" is, works as long as their is no real, outside pressure..

There have been times.. I could read others minds.. but put it on a schedule, with a paycheck, and whatever "it" is will evaporate..

[chockfull]

sowy Raf. I'm on the second tall beer. Just back from the store..

I for one can detect an improvement in this thread brought on by beer and a reduction in Gaussian noise.

[OldSkool]

so.. and this applies across many venues that I have observed.. whatever "it" is, works as long as their is no real, outside pressure..

YeSS!! Now we have consensus!

I for one can detect an improvement in this thread brought on by beer and a reduction in Gaussian noise.

Hey brother...whatever it takes!!

[Ham]

Snake Oil will only produce the desired result as long as there is no greasy price tag attached..

once you cross the line..

one of my greatest friends described it in a different context.. selling kaballa..

it is expressly Forbidden.

With a capital 'F'..

it refuses to sell itself..

you cannot sell spirituality.. at any cost.. to do so is with the best interpretation I can come up with.. is Damnation..

Sorry for the weirdness. I hope it makes sense to somebody here..

[Ham]

Asides from mathematics, if someone followed my detestable religion, I'd start jumping out of windows, to prove it was wrong..

the Creator have mercy on my soul.. heh

and if that didn't work, I'd find a few more windows, more highly placed, to jump out of..

[OldSkool]

Asides from mathematics, if someone followed my detestable religion, I'd start jumping out of windows, to prove it was wrong..

Now that fits with mathematical precision!

[Ham]

-Christ.. what are you going to do..

surely some other inhabitants of the cafe have beholden similar circumstances..

Her maj, she's a pretty nice girl, but she changes from day to day..

with the Maj you have to tell her a lot, even with a belly full of wine..

I've already jumped out of a few, in more ways than you could imagine, Even without drunkenly slurred words.. heh..

[OldSkool]

-Christ.. what are you going to do..

surely some other inhabitants of the cafe have beholden similar circumstances..

Her maj, she's a pretty nice girl, but she changes from day to day..

with the Maj you have to tell her a lot, even with a belly full of wine..

I've already jumped out of a few, in more ways than you could imagine, Even without drunkenly slurred words.. heh..

What more can I say? I am listening to the Prince of Darkness...a.k.a...Ozzy freaking Osbourne!

[Raf]

Long, boring post alert. You've been warned.

As I was re-reading yesterday’s flurry of posts, I noticed a few items that slipped past me the first time. I’d like to take a moment to address them.

I wrote:

I believe the Bible is very clear that the expectation would be a real language, not something with language-like features that can be generated subconsciously by a speaker free-vocalizing on the spot. You are entitled to disagree with my expectation there, so long as we're clear on it.

To which Chockfull responded:

I absolutely disagree with this, as part of the definition used in defining a "real language" is circular logic. Meaning it's a real language if it involves communication with and understanding by others. The nature of tongues is different in private. It has similarities in public, but is not the same thing. This is clearly stated in I Cor. 14.

I think we’re confusing terms here, because my reasoning is certainly not circular. I believe Biblical tongues are always human languages. If that is what you disagree with, fine. But you seem to be defining “real” language in a technical sense that’s different from what I mean. If I were to speak in English in the middle of a city in Zaire, there’s a better than even chance that no one will have the slightest idea what I’m saying. That doesn’t mean it’s not a language on the basis that it is not successfully understood and therefore not useful for communication. This is what Paul describes: if you speak in tongues (a real human language, albeit one understood by no one present), you are a barbarian to them. He’s not saying what you’re speaking is not a language. He’s criticizing its uselessness in a worship setting without interpretation. But the underlying implication is that it is still a real human language being spoken.

I see nothing in I Corinthians 14 that suggests SIT produces anything other than a human language, unless one retroactively imposes that meaning on the verses to account for the fact that modern SIT isn’t producing any. It’s a convenient rationalization, not an interpretation of the plain meaning of the text. My opinion. Again, if we disagree, there’s really not a whole lot else to discuss.

***

On a different front, I think I have more than adequately defended my use of the $2 bill analogy, which Chockfull challenged early on but appears to have grasped better as the dialogue continued.

***

What Samarin says about xenoglossia: If someone speaking in tongues were to speak an actual language, the linguist has nothing to study. At that point, we would have something real for someone else to look at.

I think it’s sufficient to say that if I suddenly started speaking in the language of the indigenous peoples of South America, that would qualify to Samarin as a demonstration of knowledge of that language (even though I myself would not have any understanding of what I’m saying). The linguist would stop at identifying the language and pass it off to experts in other fields to determine what the bejeezus just happened (that’s my word, not Samarin’s). Here’s how Samarin puts it:

But if the language proved to be just a contemporary language [Raf here: he’s distinguishing from an extinct language, which would be of interest for reasons unrelated to this thread], then the linguist, as a linguist, would lose interest in the case. The only other matter worthy of investigation would be to determine how the person acquired knowledge of the language. But this would be in the domain of psychology, including the study of extrasensory perception.

Let’s take a step back and look at what he’s really saying there, because he leaves out a lot.

If I spoke in tongues in front of Samarin, and I produced Turkish (is Turkish a language? Let’s assume it is for this discussion), Samarin may be fascinated, but not as a linguist. He’d say, “That’s Turkish. Have you been exposed to Turkish?”

I’d say no.

He’d say, “Then how did you learn Turkish?”

I’d say “God. I’m producing a language in accordance with the Word of God. I don't know what I'm saying. I only know it's Turkish because you're telling me. By the way, do you have James Randi's number? He owes me $1 million.”

And Samarin, as a linguist, would say, “Cool. We’re done here. My expertise as a linguist can contribute no further to determining what's going on here. There’s some people I’d like for you to talk to. And who's Randi?” And he’d introduce me to the psychologist who might probe to make sure I had no prior exposure to Turkish that might be resurfacing in what I allege is genuine SIT. Once he suggests paranormal research, he has left the realm of science and ventured into the realm of faith. I submit at this point you would have already won, assuming all natural explanations to be exhausted.

Neither Samarin nor any other named linguist has been presented with or reported a single such case.

I would consider it a refutation of my position that it’s ALL fake if Samarin had just one case that could not be explained by natural means. He didn’t. That doesn’t prove my case. It merely fails to disprove it. (By extension, it fails to prove the proposition that any SIT is genuine).

But one thing has been disproved: Every sample of SIT he reviewed has failed to pass muster as an existing, real, human language. It’s not a known language. It’s not a previously undiscovered language. It’s not a language in any real sense of the term. It bears some similarity to language, attributable to the motivation of the speaker to produce a language. But [let’s bring Poythress in right here] it bears no linguistic difference from a case of someone free vocalizing in a non-religious context, faking it on purpose, as it were.

Which is my point.

If SIT produces the exact same thing, linguistically, as free vocalization uninspired by God… What’s the blooming difference?

You may not feel obliged to articulate or express or even find the difference. And that’s fine. Go in peace. But understand that if you’re not obliged to find a difference between what you do and free vocalization uninspired by God, then I’m not obliged to believe that there is one.

That examines SIT on the merits, in my opinion. I am not drawing a theological or doctrinal conclusion. That's a related but different discussion.

I hope I haven’t used a strawman fallacy in presenting this, but I’m sure I’ll hear it if I did (and possibly be accused of it even if I didn’t. ;)

Edited October 19, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

One more point on Samarin and the idea of "faking it." I've been quite judgmental on the matter, but Samarin has been less so, and I think the difference ought to be clarified.

Samarin finds nothing in glossolalia that cannot be attributed to human creativity, and he makes that point several times in several ways. But he never comes right out and says people who claim to SIT are faking it. The question doesn't concern him. It does concern Poythress, who goes on to say that Samarin's findings don't prove SIT is faked. Poythress allows for the genuine nature of SIT based not on the analyses, but by the possibilities that the analyses could not cover. In other words, Poythress tells us that you cannot rule out the genuine nature of SIT on purely scientific grounds because the theological grounds for continuing to believe in it may, in fact, confound the ability of science to investigate it properly and reach a conclusion. Poythress chides Samarin (not by name, but by implication) for exceeding his expertise in this regard (by attributing to human creativity that which Poythress feels may also be attributable to God).

It should be abundantly clear that I don't agree with Poythress on this matter. He relies on an extra-biblical hypothesis of SIT as some kind of undecipherable code that only God can break. In my view, Poythress takes the Biblical presentation of SIT, which as described is quite testable and falsifiable, and distorts the possibilities to make the end result neither testable nor falsifiable. That distortion, he claims, is within God's prerogative, and we go too far when we seek to put Him in a box, as it were.

Me, I don't believe I'm putting God in a box. I am holding Him to His Word, and if what I do does not produce that which His Word promises, then I have to question what I'm doing. (Questioning His Word is another approach, but not one that is necessary and not one I am promoting).

Edited October 19, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

I think we’re confusing terms here, because my reasoning is certainly not circular. I believe Biblical tongues are always human languages. If that is what you disagree with, fine. But you seem to be defining “real” language in a technical sense that’s different from what I mean. If I were to speak in English in the middle of a city in Zaire, there’s a better than even chance that no one will have the slightest idea what I’m saying. That doesn’t mean it’s not a language on the basis that it is not successfully understood and therefore not useful for communication. This is what Paul describes: if you speak in tongues (a real human language, albeit one understood by no one present), you are a barbarian to them. He’s not saying what you’re speaking is not a language. He’s criticizing its uselessness in a worship setting without interpretation. But the underlying implication is that it is still a real human language being spoken.

No you missed the point. Samarin uses 14 points linguists use to identify something as a language. This was among the only series of my posts that you ignored. In those 14 points he declares glossa to be not compliant on a handful. That handful I clearly highlighted as only applicable to conversational communication aspects of language, which clearly doesn't apply to the basic definition and intent of glossa. So it's circular logic Samarin is using. It's not a language because it's not understood. Well duh.

I find Samarin's obtuse handling of points like this to pretty much invalidate and waste all of the work and talent the man has in linguistics.

Neither Samarin nor any other named linguist has been presented with or reported a single such case.

You mean God isn't cooperating with being tested by man? Shocking. However, we do have anecdotal evidence by a handful of people experiencing just this. We even have an example on this thread, posted by socks who doesn't have any interest in arguing with you. This account is of no less value than any of Samarin's subjects. It especially is no less valid than 50% of the examples Samarin quotes from his own personal experience related to xenoglossalalia. Yet you poo poo it.

I call BS. Firsthand experience is admissible in court and cannot be ruled out because a linguist writing a study was not in the audience.

And it certainly is a lot more credible than the continued repetition of opinion / rhetoric from you on the topic.

[Raf]

No you missed the point. Samarin uses 14 points linguists use to identify something as a language. This was among the only series of my posts that you ignored. In those 14 points he declares glossa to be not compliant on a handful. That handful I clearly highlighted as only applicable to conversational communication aspects of language, which clearly doesn't apply to the basic definition and intent of glossa. So it's circular logic Samarin is using. It's not a language because it's not understood. Well duh.

I find Samarin's obtuse handling of points like this to pretty much invalidate and waste all of the work and talent the man has in linguistics.

Ok.

You mean God isn't cooperating with being tested by man? Shocking. However, we do have anecdotal evidence by a handful of people experiencing just this. We even have an example on this thread, posted by socks who doesn't have any interest in arguing with you. This account is of no less value than any of Samarin's subjects. It especially is no less valid than 50% of the examples Samarin quotes from his own personal experience related to xenoglossalalia. Yet you poo poo it.

I call BS. Firsthand experience is admissible in court and cannot be ruled out because a linguist writing a study was not in the audience.

And it certainly is a lot more credible than the continued repetition of opinion / rhetoric from you on the topic.

You forget the point of citing linguistic studies on this thread in the first place. I only alluded to them. You are the one who asked for them and then started posting snippet quotes outside of their contexts to prove they were reaching conclusions 180 degrees removed from what they were actually saying.

I do understand and always have said that if God won't cooperate with the studies, we have nothing to discuss. What you cannot do is have it both ways: mine the material for proof of linguistic content in SIT, then dismiss the capacity for linguistics to even study the issue because of the non-cooperation of God. I don't care which side you pick, but you gotta pick one! If, for the sake of argument, you are going to allow for the idea that glossolalia can be studied by a linguist, then you have to allow also for the fact that the linguist may know a little more about his subject matter than you do.

You don't have to accept Samarin's findings. I'm fine with that. But citing his report and disagreeing with his conclusion is rather disingenuous: you are not better qualified to interpret his findings than he was. And the fact that every named linguist who has studied the same thing has reached the same conclusion is a testament to that fact.

Now, we do have unnamed linguists provided by Sherrill. But accepting their word is problematic on a number of fronts.

1. We don't know who they are.

2. We don't know that their findings are accurately reported.

3. Assuming they are credible and the reports accurate, we obliterate the notion that God won't cooperate with a study. This is a problem, because their findings appear impossible to duplicate, often a clear indication that their conclusions are flawed. [unless, of course, they studied the only known genuine samples of the real thing].

You keep getting on me for repeating myself, and I suppose that's ok. But how different is it from the opposite position, which demands acceptance on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, distorts the clear meaning of scripture to make a testable premise untestable, and retreats to "you gotta take it on faith" whenever its back is against the wall? You can repeat THAT litany as many times as you like, and it doesn't validate SIT one whit.

I don't believe Socks' story. I don't believe Tom's story in doctrinal. I invite them both to prove it. But if you want me to accept that this miracle took place, you're going to have to do a little better than unnamed speakers and unnamed hearers removed from the present by 40 years and a continent or two. "I heard someone speak, who wasn't me. Someone else, who wasn't me, says they understood what was spoken. We were all amazed. I can't name any of them and couldn't find them with a detective kit and a Yahoo map." That would NOT be accepted in a court of law to establish the truth of what happened, and if we can't agree on that, then you don't know the slightest thing about the court system.

The evidence for UFO abduction is just as reliable and a heck of a lot more widespread.

Apologies to Socks: you didn't present your story as proof, did not ask me to accept it or judge it. I am only doing so now because someone else is faulting me for not accepting it as proof.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

The purpose of language is to convey information. What, if any, information is being conveyed by what we refer to as speaking in tongues? Even if there is, in fact, information being conveyed, what purpose does it serve if it can't be identified? We can't even figure out what dolphins are saying to each other and we KNOW they are communicating information to each other!

[Raf]

Even if we were to assume the communication is to God and that man could not pick up on it, the bottom line that it is never a case of actual xenoglossia has been given short shrift on this thread. We've been poring over what the experts say about the counterfeit to determine how closely it resembles the genuine precisely because no cases of the genuine exist to study.

Oh, except 40 years ago, in Alaska. Or California, sorry. And it involved Arabs. Or Asians. I keep getting it mixed up. But it's proof I tell you! Right, skyrider? I mean socks?

Edited October 19, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

Once, in Egypt, a baby with 3 heads was born.

[Raf]

Hey, we finally got a CES-sympathetic vote in the poll. I was wondering where those guys all disappeared to.

Chockfull's latest post illustrates in a way I probably never could what I said earlier on this thread: I cannot prove my case because you won't let me, or God won't let me. I cannot prove my point because I don't have a 100 percent sample size. I cannot prove my point because even if I had a 100 percent sample size and showed every single case of SIT to produce "linguistic nonsense," you still have the "God won't let it be tested" fallback.

It is your fallback position, not merely the evidence, that makes my case impossible to prove.

Fine. But don't get on me for not proving my point. That would be like judging a fish on its ability to climb a tree.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Raf