You're covering a lot of different ground here:
Priests. My understanding is the priests in the bicameral period were part of the social hierarchy and they communicated with the "great gods," and conveyed those commands down the hierarchy. These communications were necessary for social order and are what dictated major decisions for the entire community, i.e., start a war, build a major temple, etc. We see clear evidence of this in Mesopotamia, for example. Priests in the conscious period set themselves up as interpreters of the past dictates of the gods, which is a very different role.
Individuals heard the voice of their personal god. On this subject see the references to "personal gods" in the index (specifically pages 183-184). Jaynes argues that this is the reason behind the small idols found in nearly all personal dwellings, decorative skulls, and other hallucinatory aids. Jaynes clearly makes the case in many places that prior to consciousness, everyone heard some type of guiding voice in certain stressful situations, and that these voices were often, but not always, interpreted as gods. This propensity is why voice hearing continues to be so widespread even today (see Intervoice and The Hearing Voices Network).
Prophets. Jaynes argues that prophets and oracles came after the breakdown of the bicameral mind. First everyone heard the voices, then a select few, then only those set aside as mentally ill. David Stove also discusses this in his chapter in Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness. There was no need for prophets during the bicameral period.
Myths. Myths are generally believed to have been a way to convey cultural knowledge. Jaynes doesn't delve into this in any great detail. But I don't see any contradiction with widespread voice hearing and the existence of myths. Cultures could generate myths but still require voices in the place of introspection for daily decisions.
I'm not sure what you mean by this statement: "If bicamerality was once the "norm" and this was based on "hearing God," then this would be the basis of all the massive research on life "before" consciousness -- but it isn't." If you mean by mainstream historians, etc., there is quite a bit of evidence for and discussion of regular communication with the gods. Mainstream historians however, oddly just describe it without any additional analysis or theorizing. See for example, Kingship and the Gods, The Intellectual Adventures of Ancient Man, Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia, Everyday Life in Babylon and Assyria, to name a few.
In a number of places (quotes posted above from his book, subsequent lectures, interviews, as well as a previously unpublished interview by Brian McVeigh that we'll be making available soon), Jaynes makes it very clear that he believes the bicameral mind was the origin of gods and that religion in the modern sense was the longing for the lost direct contact with gods. (I'll post the direct quote here when I get a chance to review the recording as he addresses this issue directly.)
Whether or not what you call "aggressive atheism" is in sharp decline or not is not really relevant to Jaynes's view on the origin of religion. However, it should be noted that Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, which as I mentioned previously also describes Jaynes's ideas on the origin of gods (pages 392-393), has sold in excess of 2 million copies.
Religion is a complex subject and undoubtedly social and other functions became relevant as it progressed and was sustained (after the breakdown of the bicameral mind), as described by Bellah, Boyer, Dennett, and others. However Jaynes's theory of the bicameral mind remains perhaps the best explanation for the origin of god beliefs in ancient man, as suggested by Stove, and given mention by Dawkins. When discussing Jaynes's theory, people often conflate religion in the bicameral period and religion in the conscious period, but they are two very different things.
Jaynes's explanation also dovetails well with other neurological research, such as sudden religious conversions in temporal lobe epilepsy, the feeling of a sensed presence after stimulation of the temporal lobe, and command hallucinations of a religious nature (see also "A Schizophrenic Woman Who Heard Voices of the Gods"). Only Jaynes's theory explains why religiosity, auditory hallucinations, and feeling of sensed presence would all be associated with the non-dominant temporal lobe. Other ideas on the origin of religion don't account for this data.
So I don't think you're accurately describing Jaynes's position on the role of the bicameral mind in the origin of gods and therefore religion. You can disagree with Jaynes's view, but it's important for people to accurately understand what Jaynes's views are.
Incidentally I've just re-read the transcript of your interview with Jaynes, a copy of which was in his papers at the University of Prince Edward Island, and I don't see anything Jaynes says that contradicts what I've written. The closest the interview comes to the subject is the statement, "You describe all religions as vestiges of the bicameral mind..." In his answer, Jaynes does not say anything that contradicts this statement.
|