Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site stat-l
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:Pucc-I:Stat-L:rsk
From: rsk@stat-l (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Kulawiec on Sargent on speaking in tongues
Message-ID: <191@stat-l>
Date: Fri, 16-Nov-84 20:27:41 EST
Article-I.D.: stat-l.191
Posted: Fri Nov 16 20:27:41 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Nov-84 23:45:11 EST
References: <231@pyuxd.UUCP> <1469@pucc-h>, <184@stat-l> <1489@pucc-h>
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 72

>> = Sargent
>  = Kulawiec

>> How do you explain the gifts of the Holy Spirit -- particularly the most
>> common one, most commonly called "speaking in tongues"?  How do you explain
>> the fact that in May, 1972, a man laid his hands on me and prayed, and I
>> received the ability to speak without conscious thought in a language I don't
>> believe I've ever heard?  And I'm not the only Christian of my acquaintance
>> with this gift.

> Before demanding an explanation for such a phenomenon, you must prove that
> it actually occurred, AND that it is attributable to the "Holy Spirit" --
> which of course means proving that such a thing exists, as well.

>> There are a number of people who witnessed this occurrence (i.e. my initial
>> receipt of this gift).  When you ask for proof that it actually occurred,
>> what are you saying?  Are you calling me a liar?

	Not at all.  I have no idea whether or not you are lying.  If I assume
you are not lying, then I still have no idea whether or not what you say is
true; you may *think* it's true, but it may not be.

	Can we talk about standards of proof for a minute?  If you tell me
that you dropped a magtape in your office yesterday, and it hit the floor,
I'll probably take your word for it, because (a) it's repeatable on demand,
(b) I've seen it happen before, (c) it's a (relatively) common occurence,
attributable to the laws of physics.  If, on the other hand, you tell me
that the Math-Science building was upside down at 8 o'clock this morning,
I probably won't believe you, because none of (a) thru (c) apply.  I think
"speaking in tongues" is closer to this second example, and thus I will not
take your word for it.

>> You are only hurting yourself by cutting yourself off from the Source of life
>> due to your cynical, doubting, denying attitude.

	Feh.  I've said nothing about the "Source of life", whatever that is,
and I really don't think I'm hurting myself.  I call it "keeping an open mind".
I'm quite ready to be convinced; but blanket statements won't do the trick.
See below for what probably would.

>> Seriously, though, that doesn't explain what could have *caused* this to
>> occur.  All you are doing is refusing to believe, not putting up any
>> evidence against the claims made here.

	Evidence!?  You have offered a sum total of zero (I counted twice)
pieces of evidence in support of your claim; you cannot shift the burden of
proof over to me without offering any evidence that your claim is true.

	Your demanding an explanation without proof for "speaking in tongues" is
equivalent to my demanding an explanation for flapping my arms and flying two
laps around the building, without offering any evidence whatsoever that this
really happened.

	If you want to try and convince me, here's an outline to get you
started:

	1. Prove that you can speak this "other language".
	2. Prove that you couldn't speak it before this experience.
	3. Prove that you can speak it now as a result of this experience,
keeping in mind that coincidence does not imply causality.
	4. Prove that 1-3 are not a result of a psychological phenomenon.
	5. Prove that 1-3 are the result of a "supernatural" intervention;
i.e. not attributable to other physical causes.
	6. Prove that the "supernatural" intervention in 5 is attributable
to some "supernatural" entity.  This implies showing the existence of such
an entity, so that you have something to attribute the effect to.
	7. Prove that the entity in 6 is indeed the one you claim it is.

	Good luck.  (I'm not holding my breath.)
-- 
Rich Kulawiec @ Purdue University Computing Center
{ decvax, ihnp4, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk & { decwrl, hplabs, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk