waysider

There is a considerable amount of data currently available on the subject that includes a variety of studies. Unfortunately, much of this information is not simply "free for the asking". If you are willing and inclined to do so, you can gain access to these various studies. Personally, I'm not inclined to spend any money on the subject at the moment.

No, his conclusion is that it's not a language because it doesn't meet the necessary structural criteria to be considered a language. A language can meet the necessary criteria without anyone recognizing the specific language.

That sounds like another way of saying, "The end justifies the means.".

Oh, well, since we're having fun....... A little musical interlude: HERE

I'm curious. How does the subject present itself? Do you say, "Hey, have you ever tried.....?" or what?

No, it's not off topic. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that speaking in tongues "SOUNDS" like a real language, this thread might have died long ago. Simply stated,however, speaking in tongues doesn't meet the linguistic criteria necessary to be classified language.

You can link to "The Big Book" on line. (The A.A. "Bible") http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/en_tableofcnt.cfm I've heard that Wierwille borrowed heavily from concepts contained in it. I haven't looked through it so I can't verify that. The link is there, though, for anyone choosing to take a closer look.

Isn't that disclaimer straight out of PFAL? The wording may have changed slightly but, the essence remains intact.

I like met this guy once who was a scientist kind of dude. He told me extraterrestrials are like real, for sure. He said they did tests and all to prove it and stuff.

Do I know where I'm going to? Nah. Most of the time I'm flying by the seat of my pants. :~)

It only stands to reason that people who are preconditioned to be anti-SIT (ex-JW) would display reluctance. I think you could attribute that to cultural conditioning. Gay people speaking in tongues? Why not? All kinds of people speak in tongues..... Christians, Jews, Pagans, Shamans, etc. The (TWI implied) "spiritual implications" of it, on the other hand, might be fodder for a interesting thread but, out of place in this discussion....In my opinion.

Consider for a moment that speaking in tongues is not an exclusively Christian activity and predates Pentecost.

"Stone, act, shake a leg, gyroscope, running water, fungicide." Jibberish? No. These are real words and phrases, not random sounds that have no meaning. Language? No again. There is no message being conveyed, no recognizable structure. It's only my opinion. I certainly can't prove it. But, I think that maybe this is what has happened in the anecdotal examples. People have heard words they understand, maybe even whole phrases, but, the critical question remains; was there an actual message conveyed? Secondly, if there was a message, was it extemporaneous or rehearsed? I personally don't put a lot of stock in anecdotal evidence.

"It was observed that many speakers in a study showed natural elements of language when doing 'their thing'. But since nobody in the scientific studies understood the language, it wasn't proven." ......................................................... Ahhh, another stumbling block...It's not a "language". It has some elements of language, such as words that may be genuine in and of themselves, delivery that at times sounds very convincing, but, no language structure, per se. And that, Bible or no Bible, seems to be the crux of the issue. No amount of cognitive dissonance is going to change that. The "first hand testimony"? Yes, I heard my fair share of those during my time in the Way. There was never any verification of authenticity. I classify that more along the lines of urban legend. And, you know, the reason urban legends are so believable is because the people repeating them believe they're repeating something that's true.

I think there was always a part of me that was hoping I was speaking the refined language of an ethereal being instead of the typical ramblings of a babushka sporting stada baba at Yasha's Butcher Shop. "Yea, my little ones, look neither to the kishka nor kielbasa but keep your eyes steadfastly on the pierogi."

Yes and no. The argument has changed nature and focus over the course of this thread. The current burden of proof being examined at this point in the discussion is the veracity of speaking in tongues. 1. It can be shown that speaking in tongues is not a "language". 2. It cannot be shown that speaking in tongues is a "language". Can we agree on that much?

While I do see your point, I don't think God ever asked us to have faith that what we called speaking in tongues is genuine.

Here is how a burden of proof fallacy works: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

The leap of faith. Yes, almost anything can be justified with a leap of faith. That's what Wierwille asked us to take in the Christians Should Have Sex class when he revealed "the original sin" and said, "I can't prove this from the scriptures, you'll just have to take my word on it." I'm not saying you should never take a leap of faith. I'm just saying this isn't one of those situations that warrants it.

Sorry...clicked the wrong thing It's called a Burden of Proof Fallacy.

It's really quite simple. It can be proven that a sample of speaking in tongues is not a language. It cannot be proven that a sample of speaking in tongues is a language. The onus of proof has somehow been reversed in this argument.

Isn't this sort of proof a bit like saying, "If you're not here, raise your hand."?

This point, in particular, helps greatly in understanding that it's not a uniquely Christian ability. Christians can do it. Jews can do it. Shamans can do it. The list goes on. How is that possible? Simple. It's merely an innate ability of the human mind to "speak in tongues". It might sound genuine and be presented with theatrical fanfare but, in the end, it's not a real language. There are plenty of recorded examples that could be examined from a mathematical perspective to show that it's not real. I think, for some people, that would prove to be like chasing the end of the rainbow. I'm reminded of the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy. In it, a group of people who have never had contact with the world outside their cultural sphere are confronted with the discovery of a Coke bottle that has been discarded by someone in a passing airplane. The bottle could be this or the bottle could be that but, ultimately, the bottle is just a bottle. HERE

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy, or succinctness. It is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the one which makes the fewest assumptions should be selected. Occam's Razor

Sounds like a really loving sort of organization. How can I join?