jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (12 posts)


  1. Beelzedad profile image54
    Beelzedadposted 7 years ago

    Speaking in tongues does not have evidence to support that any schizophrenia is involved, but it has two unique distinctions that would qualify it as most likely not having divine influence.  smile

    "The speaker uses accent, rhythm, intonation and pauses to break up the speech into distinct units. Each unit is itself made up of syllables, the syllables being formed from consonants and vowels taken from a language known to the speaker.

    That the sounds are taken from the set of sounds already known to the speaker is confirmed by others: Felicitas Goodman found that the speech of glossolalists reflected the patterns of speech of the speaker's native language."

    "Glossolalia can be easily learned through direct instruction, along with demonstrations that tongue speakers can initiate and terminate glossolalia upon request and can exhibit glossolalia in the absence of any indexes of trance support the hypothesis that glossolalia utterances are goal-directed actions rather than involuntary happenings."

    1. profile image0
      crmhaskeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know what exactly this proves, but it is interesting nonetheless.

      1. Beelzedad profile image54
        Beelzedadposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        It may not prove anything, but it does show that there is no common "divine" language and that those who speak in tongues use their own language and inflections, and since it can easily be learned, we can probably conclude it is faked. smile

  2. TLMinut profile image60
    TLMinutposted 7 years ago

    I've actually heard people do this "speaking in tongues". The fact that it can be done on demand, interr...never mind, what is the POINT of it?! Babbling nonsense syllables? I know it speaks in the bible in two places about speaking in tongues but one sounded like people being able to speak a language they hadn't learned for the benefit of foreigners in the crowd.

    The only study I read about it was one where the results showed the brain did not light up in the expected areas for language and such, as if something else was controlling the action. I haven't heard of any further study or replication of it though.

    Why would anyone have considered schizophrenia? That's not like any schizo symptoms, is it?

    1. profile image0
      crmhaskeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Would you happen to know where I could find this study?  My research is in consciousness and the contribution to it by language, and so this sounds like quite the interesting study.

      Not explicitly; however, those unfamiliar with the disease might assume it as an extension of the tendency for those with auditory hallucinations to respond to the "people" they believe are talking them (ie. it looks like they are talking to themselves, and often in quite broken and anxious speech)

      1. Pandoras Box profile image67
        Pandoras Boxposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        CRM, that sounds very interesting. I'd love to read anything you got on it.

        I've been thinking about this ever since Marine started his consciousness threads. Consciousness in 'lower' life forms doesn't come near to our's because of our languages. You cannot successfully dwell a whole lot on much of anything without words. Like.. like I can't meditate. I have a horrible time trying to shut off my mind. And yet, for lower species, without words, their consciousness is going to be very limited.

        The more complex a species' language is, or becomes, the more sophisticated is their consciousness. I mean, that's obvious right?

    2. Beelzedad profile image54
      Beelzedadposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Brain studies show that there is a complete lack of control in the area of the brain when the subject is speaking in tongues.

      Schizophrenia can be linked to belief systems, hence if it cannot be linked to Glossolalia, then it is most likely faked. smile

  3. Daniel Carter profile image73
    Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago

    I think what real speaking in tongues would entail is spontaneously speaking in a *known* language, or understanding in a *known* language, without having prior knowledge or education.

    Therein lies the rub. Why don't we have biblical stories, or even modern ones, where this has actually happened?

  4. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    The ability to utter a language 'unknown' to the person is simply a demonstration -or support- that at one point there was one human language. All languages come from a variation of audible vibrations that every single human has. Thus, our ability to learn other languages.

    there are two mentionable:

    -the tongue of men (that is audible human)
    -the tongue of seraphs (that is non human, groaning of the spirit)

    The latter must have been known to adam/eve in order for the dialogue to be understood. Therefore adam spoke a united language of seraph & human.

    I am with crmhaske, the study of languages would be phenomenal journey.

  5. TLMinut profile image60
    TLMinutposted 7 years ago

    Here's one reference:
    That's an article that mentions it and you can click on the link in it. This is not the original article or study that I read but it sounds like the same one is being referred to. I'm not a subscriber to the site ScienceDirect so I can't give the whole study. I'll keep looking for the first one I found. It probably wasn't online, maybe in one of my science magazines.

  6. Pandoras Box profile image67
    Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago

    A couple other points on glossolalia I'd like to add.

    The brain study somebody mentioned. If I recall right, what they found was simply a letting go. What someone else mentioned about them not using the part of the brain used for language skills, so they suggest that the 'language' -glossolalia comes from somewhere else. Well the way you make it sound is possession. If you have the knowledge of the language, you'd access the language skills part of the brain. If you have no knowledge, do not access the language part of the brain and yet start speaking chinese (or any set language unknown by the speaker), then this is a clear case of possession. (Not that I believe such things.)

    What about people just making it up. No evidence found of that either, the creative portions of the brain are not accessed, by the few people who were willing to undergo this study anyway, and in the study I refer to it was a very few individuals. 

    So where does it come from?

    The OP I believe it was mentioned the repetitive syllables drawn from one's own known language skills. No need to access that part of the brain, not trying to form real words or comprehend real words, just spouting off sounds. Just vocalizing.

    What the OP didn't mention and I'd like to add to the discussion is that if you studied a group of 'tongue speakers' who all came from the same church and all started their glossolalia at that church, all members of that group would speak in tongues that all sounded similar. If you compared them with a group from a different church, taught under a different teacher, the two groups will very likely have distinct differences from each other.

    Additionally, if you then expose these groups to a new and likable (for them) practitioner of glossolalia, at least some of the members of the two former groups will begin to incorporate into their glossolalia some of the sounds this new teacher exposed them to in his own glossolalia.

    Did I say that clearly? Their "tongues" will change. They start with a limited grouping of sounds, which will be based on sounds they know from their own languages, and sounds they have heard others use while practicing glossolalia. If they hear someone new do it differently, their own glossolalia vocabulary will grow.

    What all this indicates is that there is no specific language being spoken. No tongue of the angels, no original language before the tower of babel.

    This leaves us with groanings of the spirit, which we may say might not have a specific set language. The people who practice tongues, and honestly so, are simply urged to let go and vocalize it.

    Like a baby, somewhat, babbling. He has no set language, but he has heard sounds, which he imitates freely, producing a babbling discourse of repetitive syllables, infused if you will with the spirit (nonsupernatural spirit) of whatever mood the baby happened to be in at the moment -groanings of his spirit, if you like. 

    At some point in our now waaaaaay distant past, we had an extremely limited language, based no doubt on the language of whatever beings we had most recently evolved from. But we could vocalize. We probably liked the sound of our own voices. We probably vocalized whenever we were able to let go and do so.

    No doubt we experimented with sounds, and sat around babbling meaninglessly to each other, like children trying to pretend they are speaking spanish to each other.

    So, I believe that is what it is. People who in their faith just let go and start babbling, because they believe they can, are told that they can, and think and maybe are told that they should. The languages part of the brain is not accessed because this isn't about language skills, these people aren't trying to actually say anything. Just letting go and vocalizing, infused with no doubt the tone of whatever mood they may currently be in, and again you have "groanings of the spirit", if you like.

    Again, I refer to those people who honestly believe they are speaking in tongues. Of course there are always a bunch of people willing to totally fake it. Makes little difference in what is produced. Either way it's just meaningless babbling.

    We cannot even pretend that it is a spiritual language, a wordless communication, since the speaker is supposed to be clueless.

  7. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Well done folk! I have been sitting back taking this interesting conversation in. No need to comment other than to say I have enjoyed it so far. smile