then you don't understand anthropology and human pyschology.
or political science or sociology...
Not to mention Dianetics/Scientology, Christian Science, phrenology, astrology, and Sheldrakean morphogenic fields.
do you really not understand the difference between what we're saying and what you're saying?
If all of those "sciences" are hard enough to stiffen a soft concept like the religious mind then we should know by now what moves a true believer to prayer.
i don't think you understand. nobody is
justifying religious thought as accurate, but there
are explanations for its origin and function that
don't involved falsified hypotheses that everyone was schizophrenic. it's not like modern psychology has not studied prayer and the phenomina associated with it.
And so I suggest bicamerality and take a load of bovine wastes products over it. Well, excuuuuuse me!
...because it's bullshit. look, you can keep insisting on how it makes everything make sense
to you, but that does not make the hypothesis correct. the data does not bear it out -- it's wrong. and your adherence to an idea that so much evidence contradicts as an explanatory story is anything but rational. you argue a lot like a religious fundamentalist, who when corned with evidence ignores, and keeps insisting on the truth and usefullness of their claims.
Question; If advancing from bicamerality to consciousness is NOT an evolutionary thing then why do educated people consistently show less and less interest in a bicameral sport like religion?
that's a silly and self-contradictory question. education is
not evolution. and to assume that atheists are more
evolved than other human beings is arrogant in the extreme. like it or not, all of
h. sapiens is one single subspecies.
further, as i have pointed out repeatedly in this thread, there is no point in human evolution where there has been a brain matching jaynes's description of the bicameral mind. if anything, mammalia as a whole has tended
away from a unicameral brain towards a bicameral one. and even so, a bicameral brain neither produces the phenomina that jaynes describes, nor does he attempt to use it as explanation for
modern religious behaviour.
do you see the flaws in your thinking yet?