A Missing Piece of the Puzzle: Jaynes and the Psychology of Religion

John Hainly, Invited address at The Julian Jaynes Society Conference on Consciousness and Bicameral Studies, Charleston, WV, June 2013.

Abstract: We will examine some of the newer explanations of religion and consider how Jaynes’ groundbreaking ideas might augment or complement them. Is the bicameral mind theory outdated, or discredited as many assume? Or on the contrary, does the theory provide a comprehensive explanation for the origin and character of religious experience? The truth, as usual, is probably complicated.

Many of Jaynes’ claims need to be re-examined, but his questions must also be re-framed. Scholarship and field research in psychology and anthropology have come a long way since Jaynes proposed his theory. Most contemporary theorists have largely or completely ignored Jaynes, his issues, and his ideas. They have come up with new grand explanations that cover large amounts of new evidence, and explain more general religious experiences. However, Jaynes still holds claim to one of the only viable explanations of certain phenomena, namely the internal “auditory” religious experiences. These phenomena cry out for a new examination and re-evaluation in light of all the new theories.

One of the new theories explains religion as an adaptive illusion, that the characteristics of the human mind entail certain illusions, and those illusions have proven useful for human survival. Many religious phenomena can be explained as by-products, accidents of other adaptations that go on to be useful in some new way. Evolution is saturated with this type of development. Some mutation, or variation, genetic or functional, allows for another use in a given environment. The new function ends up being useful as well and so re-enforces that variation.

Other theories emphasize social evolution as the driving factor in religion’s development. Many try to fit human religion into a grand comprehensive theory of all human mentality. They see religion as only one aspect of human culture, whether a consequence of the development of the human mind, or the social skills of human groups.

In some ways, Jaynes anticipated these general trends, and his bicameral mind theory has both elements: evolutionary adaptation, possibly by-product illusions, as well as social usefulness. What makes the bicameral mind theory unique is its explanatory power concerning the history of internal “auditory” experiences associated with religion. Most modern theorists neglect or ignore these phenomena. Those that do mention them, consider them a minor piece of the puzzle, perhaps even an insignificant aberration. Have these experiences always been aberrant, or are they significant core expressions of religious phenomena?

Finally, we will consider whether Jaynes’ theory can be integrated, updated, and reconsidered to provide a valuable insight to understanding human religion. Is the bicameral mind a missing piece of the puzzle?