God is Mental (or Dr. Righteous Ideal Dung)

[cienaños]

In his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, Julian Jaynes introduces his controversial theory of Bicameralism, which basically says the brain of early man functioned as two distinct halves - where one side would hallucinate auditory instruction, and the other would execute it. These hallucinations, he says, are the origins of god(s).

Jaynes' theory hangs on two ideas. The first is what is observable today. He cites a study where stress-induced "voices" were heard by schizophrenics and suggests this is not unlike what early man was experiencing. The second is historical evidence, which can be analyzed and interpreted. To paraphrase roughly: As the Pleistocene epoch came to an end, the cataclysmic climate changes were an accelerant to the mind of evolving man as he was forced to come into contact with ferners and such. Visual cues were supplemented with oral cues, the naming of things (gravesites) became more complex (trade), and eventually, the course of events led to writings such as the Atra-Hasis, the Code of Hammurabi, the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta, Homeric lit, Gilgamesh, and the Old Testament. Using this, he argues the god voices went from stable, to discordant, to nonexistent.

I like the theory, but when I watch the news, and when I read gems like this...

In fact, very little seems to shift the identities of the self-appointed Messiahs. They debate, argue, at one point come to blows, but show few signs that their beliefs have become any less intense. Only Leon seems to waver, eventually asking to be addressed as "Dr Righteous Idealed Dung" instead of his previous moniker of "Dr Domino dominorum et Rex rexarum, Simplis Christianus Puer Mentalis Doctor, reincarnation of Jesus Christ of Nazareth." Rokeach interprets this more as an attempt to avoid conflict than a reflection of any genuine identity change. The Christs explain one another's claims to divinity in predictably idiosyncratic ways: Clyde, an elderly gentleman, declares that his companions are, in fact, dead, and that it is the "machines" inside them that produce their false claims, while the other two explain the contradiction by noting that their companions are "crazy" or "duped" or that they don't really mean what they say.

from Jesus, Jesus, Jesus
http://www.slate.com/id/2255105/

...I realize we're still very much in the "discordant" phase. And that's just a funny example, we all know about the scary examples - which brings me to the point of the thread:

What is your reaction when you read about something like this? - these self-proclaimed messiahs? Do you see any similarities between yourself and these guys? If so, what are they?

Also, do you think it possible that the girth of contradiction found in the Old Testament might best be explained by this theory? (many voices, many contradictions)?

All thoughts are welcome.