(Scientifically) Testing God

[Beanieboy]

I have been familiar with speaking in tongues since I was about 18, and being fascinated by language, how it forms, how it changes, etc., I have wondered if there have been scientific studies on it. The only things that I could find stated that it was no recognizable language known to man, and one study that showed a woman speaking in tongues was not using the part of her brain that controls speech.

Is it ethical or moral to even be testing these things, such as faith healers, or prayer, or speaking in tongues, or is it sacreligious? Or, did God give us curious minds to understand such things, how to access such things, or even to defy science?

 

[Beanieboy]

Here are some clips from youtube:
What is interesting is a researcher that says that we are biologically driven to find wholeness and meaning in our life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j97y_1ammk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5DqlK-da7U&feature=related

 

[Ryal Kane]

There's a fair amount on information on it. Start here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia

I find it telling that people who speak in tongues, only ever use sound sets from languages they know. If the words were coming from elsewhere, there would be no reason for this.

Anyone can make noises unlike any language known to man. That doesn't mean it's anything more than noises.

Faith healing, prayer etc should be as subject to scrutiny as anything else. Claiming something is supernatural doesn't give you immunity from questions. If anything, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Much like Carl Sagan's invisible dragon, if something fails to have a detectable result, how is it different from something that doesn't exist at all?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I have been familiar with speaking in tongues since I was about 18, and being fascinated by language, how it forms, how it changes, etc., I have wondered if there have been scientific studies on it. The only things that I could find stated that it was no recognizable language known to man, and one study that showed a woman speaking in tongues was not using the part of her brain that controls speech.

Is it ethical or moral to even be testing these things, such as faith healers, or prayer, or speaking in tongues, or is it sacreligious? Or, did God give us curious minds to understand such things, how to access such things, or even to defy science?

"Test all things, and hold firmly onto the truth."

 

[WatersMoon110]

Is it ethical or moral to even be testing these things, such as faith healers, or prayer, or speaking in tongues, or is it sacreligious? Or, did God give us curious minds to understand such things, how to access such things, or even to defy science?

The thing about science is, it is basically interested in answering the question "how does that happen?" If something like faith healing, prayer, or speaking in tongues was truly proven to be divine (if something like that can ever be "proven" scientifically, which I doubt), science would inform people about it.

It bothers me when people try to defend Creationism with tiny bits of science, but disregard the mounds of evidence that show that Creationism couldn't have happened exactly like (one of the two versions of) Creation in Genesis. To quote the best thing I've ever heard in a (Unitarian Universalist) Church:
"They [defenders of Creationism/ID] use facts like a drunk uses a light post; for support,NOT illumination."

 

[Beanieboy]

There's a fair amount on information on it. Start here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia

I find it telling that people who speak in tongues, only ever use sound sets from languages they know. If the words were coming from elsewhere, there would be no reason for this.

Anyone can make noises unlike any language known to man. That doesn't mean it's anything more than noises.

Faith healing, prayer etc should be as subject to scrutiny as anything else. Claiming something is supernatural doesn't give you immunity from questions. If anything, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Much like Carl Sagan's invisible dragon, if something fails to have a detectable result, how is it different from something that doesn't exist at all?

Much of the sounds that come out from me are often languages sounding like French, African or tribal, and Arabic. I'm unsure how one would make sounds that we have never heard of, since there are so many different languages each using the possible words of the voice. It would, however, be interested to understand it, because I can turn it on an off, just can't control what comes out, and as one cat-scan showed, the person speaking in tongues isn't using that area of the brain to speak, which is activated when speaking to the researcher.

 

[icarusforde]

Its worth thought, actually. Did the study say which parts of the brain were active when she was speaking in tongues? would be interesting to know

And i think it is ok. God gave us a interest in things that we dont know, an inquisitivness, if you like. If he didnt want us working things out, he wouldnt have given this to us.

My take =]

 

[stan1980]

I saw a programme on this on BBC a while ago. They wired up a bunch of people who spoke in tongues and the part of the brain used is the same part of the brain normally associated with hallucinations or dreams. This would seem to suggest at least, that the speaker isn't faking it and the experience would seem real to them. This doesn't prove one way or another though whether these experiences are divinely inspired (or whatever).

Expert linguists examined the speech, and all came to the conclusion that there was no structure to what the speaker was saying (apparently, you'd expect some sort of structure to the words, even if it is an unknown language), so they dismissed it as gibberish.

I guess you could still make an argument that this is some sort of divine language, call it what you will, but being the cynic that I am, I'd just put it down to some sort of weird self imposed hypnotic trance like state.

 

[Andreusz]

I'm unsure how one would make sounds that we have never heard of, since there are so many different languages each using the possible words of the voice.

Not sure what you're saying here, BB. Could you explain a bit more?

 

[cantata]

Recently I read something about a study where they were going to put pictures on high shelves in resuscitation rooms, facing the ceiling, so that they could ask patients about them who later claimed to have had near-death, out-of-body experiences.

I wonder what the results will be.

 

[selfinflikted]

Well, I don't know anything about the ethics of testing such a phenomenon, but I do have an opinion on it (suprise!).

I was under the impression that speaking in "tongues" was a gift from god that would allow ministers, or others wishing to share the "good news", to witness to a people who did not speak the same language? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the point was to be able to speak to a people where previous language barriers existed. Now, when people claim to "speak in tongues", it comes out as complete jibberish and no one can understand it. Wouldn't you think that if god had something to say he'd want it understood? It's one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

 

[stan1980]

Here are some clips from youtube:
What is interesting is a researcher that says that we are biologically driven to find wholeness and meaning in our life.

Only just watched the 2nd video. She really should have stated precisely which parts of the brain were active when in normal conciousness and what parts were active when the participant was speaking in tongues, instead of just telling us what parts stopped being active. I suspect she omitted this information because just like in the BBC doc I saw, the dream part of the brain became active when speaking in tongues, so if she had of mentioned this, it puts more doubts that these words are from 'God' or whatever.

Incidentally, has anyone ever heard someone talking in their dreams? An ex of mine used to do it sometimes, could never make out a word she was saying as it sounded like gibberish, thinking back, I suppose it was quite similar to the way people talk in tongues.

Recently I read something about a study where they were going to put pictures on high shelves in resuscitation rooms, facing the ceiling, so that they could ask patients about them who later claimed to have had near-death, out-of-body experiences.

I wonder what the results will be.

I don't know, but I could certainly hazard a guess!

I did read that before somewhere though, I suspect the patients will just say it wasn't a vivid enough experience to remember the pictures.

 

[PantsMcFist]

I have a few issues with how we know "speaking in tongues". If it requires a translator to be understood, it seems to me to not be that ability which is described in the bible at Pentacost.

Speakers are not necessarily under benevolent influence either, or even under spiritual influence at all. For instance, my father was a baptist until his father died. His father was on his deathbed, and two of the men in the church regularly spoke/translated. They said he would recover, but he didn't. My father left the church after that. I also have several friends who are MKs (missionary kids) and spent most of their lives in Indonesian/Papau New Guinea, and they were disturbed at what went on in many Pentacostal, Baptist, and Charismatic churches here, because they had witnessed the identical behaviors for speaking in tongues, laying hands, faith healing etc, in villages by shamans, who were clearly not excersising God given authority.

Long story short, I am EXTREMELY skeptical of all these things as we know them today.

 

[trunks2k]

Recently I read something about a study where they were going to put pictures on high shelves in resuscitation rooms, facing the ceiling, so that they could ask patients about them who later claimed to have had near-death, out-of-body experiences.

I wonder what the results will be.

IIRC, that sort of study has been around for a while, but nobody has been able to say what's on the picture. My assumption on NDE's or out of body experiences is that it's our brains going haywire, especially in the case of NDE's. It's getting various sensory information and randomly firing neurons and basically reflecting it to those that experience it in the form of a very powerful dream. Our minds can build it's own image of what is happening in, say, an operating room based on past information it had as well as sensory information it gets while you're unconscious. That image can then be shown to a person the form of a powerful dream. But while it may be able to construct a fairly accurate image of what is actually going on around the person, it won't be able to construct a random image that it does not know about.

 

[keith99]

Well, I don't know anything about the ethics of testing such a phenomenon, but I do have an opinion on it (suprise!).

I was under the impression that speaking in "tongues" was a gift from god that would allow ministers, or others wishing to share the "good news", to witness to a people who did not speak the same language? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the point was to be able to speak to a people where previous language barriers existed. Now, when people claim to "speak in tongues", it comes out as complete jibberish and no one can understand it. Wouldn't you think that if god had something to say he'd want it understood? It's one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

Well yes and no. The modern interest in Tongues started in the Pentecostal revival and my understanding is that the early interestwas centered aroung real languages and rapidly widening who could be preached to. (Also I vaguely remember they thought they would be able to preach the gospel top all men and thus fulfil one of the 'requirements' for the end times).

But scripture is mixed on this. It does also refer to unknown tongues. But scripture is also clear. On the day of Pentecost men spoke in languages they did not know, but that other present spoke.

So it does not seem that it always has to be a known language. But that there are so few claims of tongues where it involves a known language does raise some red flags for me.

 

[keith99]

The gostak distims the doshes!

I just remembered I had a Fraternity brother who coul dspeak in half tongues. Phrases like the above, but that he put together on the spot.

I'm sure he could have spoken using words unknown, but with structure.

For that matter all one needs is a closet Tolkein.

 

[selfinflikted]

Well yes and no. The modern interest in Tongues started in the Pentecostal revival and my understanding is that the early interestwas centered aroung real languages and rapidly widening who could be preached to. (Also I vaguely remember they thought they would be able to preach the gospel top all men and thus fulfil one of the 'requirements' for the end times).

But scripture is mixed on this. It does also refer to unknown tongues. But scripture is also clear. On the day of Pentecost men spoke in languages they did not know, but that other present spoke.

So it does not seem that it always has to be a known language. But that there are so few claims of tongues where it involves a known language does raise some red flags for me.

But you have to admit, the whole thing is a little silly, no? I mean, if god is speaking through you, in front of people, to people, why wouldn't he just use the language that those people speak?

 

[PantsMcFist]

But you have to admit, the whole thing is a little silly, no? I mean, if god is speaking through you, in front of people, to people, why wouldn't he just use the language that those people speak?

This.

If there has to be someone present with the corresponding 'gift of translation' to understand the Word of God, I seriously doubt it's from God.