Religion... why?

[Insidious 3]

How can there logically be one allmighty being who created everything?
I don't know of anyone who can explain it logically, and i doubt i ever will.

[IlyaK1986]

What's after death? The answer is: we don't know. We don't know if we have a soul or not. We don't know if there's another reality, or if we go "to sleep" for a very long time and are reincarnated or whatnot...

After all, after you die, what do you feel? What do you see?

[Mole]

Religion comes from the breakdown of the bicameral mind.

Before the breakdown, we literally heard the voice of god. And villages were organised around a central hut which contained a statue of the god and his or her voice. And the voice of the god guided the whole tribe.

But after the breakdown, the people who heard voices were called schizophrenic.

And today neither you nor I hear the voice of god - so we might reasonably conclude she or he is dead.

But oddly enough we are once again organising ourselves into tribes in the Noosphere. For instance, we are organised into the MBTI-Central tribe.

And emerging from the tribe will be the voice of the tribe. At the moment we are typing electronically to one another, but voice Skype is but a keystroke away. And soon your warm muzzle will be whispering in my ear. And the voice of the tribe will reassert itself.

And oh yes, you can read about the breakdown in - "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" - by Julian Jaynes.

Or you can read about the Noosphere in - "Understanding Media" - by Marshall McLuhan.

[Mole]

The problem for atheists is to explain why there has been no civilization not based on a religion.

But rather than address this problem, they prefer to criticise religion on logical grounds.

This is a wise choice because their problem is difficult - so better to avoid it.

However the - "breakdown of the bicameral mind" - does address this issue.

And - "the breakdown" - is falsifiable so it may well be wrong. But at least it addresses the issue.

And even if it is wrong, it gives atheists a place to start addressing their problem.

And if it is right, it solves their problem.

[Totenkindly]

Religion comes from the breakdown of the bicameral mind.

Before the breakdown, we literally heard the voice of god. And villages were organised around a central hut which contained a statue of the god and his or her voice. And the voice of the god guided the whole tribe.

But after the breakdown, the people who heard voices were called schizophrenic.

What, the integration of the inner voice to the modern sense of self?

And today neither you nor I hear the voice of god - so we might reasonably conclude she or he is dead.

Or else the voice has been re-identified as something else.

What's after death? The answer is: we don't know. We don't know if we have a soul or not. We don't know if there's another reality, or if we go "to sleep" for a very long time and are reincarnated or whatnot...After all, after you die, what do you feel? What do you see?

That's really the problem, isn't it?

If someone could just come back and "tell us," then all the speculation could end.

Then again, you know that no matter who might come up saying something, people just would choose not to believe if they did not like the answer.

The problem for atheists is to explain why there has been no civilization not based on a religion. But rather than address this problem, they prefer to criticise religion on logical grounds.

Good assess.

Namely, no matter how much people want to eradicate religion, it persists.
Why?
It's intrinsic to human survival in some way.

It makes more sense to integrate it properly than trying to eradicate it.

[Oberon]

That's really the problem, isn't it?

If someone could just come back and "tell us," then all the speculation could end.

If that were to happen, what would such an event look like?

I'll venture it would look like just another wild tale out of irrational religious hysteria, and only worthy of dismissal by those who weren't actually there to witness the event.

People always find some reason to believe, or disbelieve, as they choose.

[Oberon]

How can there logically be one allmighty being who created everything?

The presence of such a being is no less improbable than the absence of such a being. Existentialism's metaphysical ramifications are no less profound than those of theism.

[Mole]

What, the integration of the inner voice to the modern sense of self?

This is the most interesting and radical part of Jaynes' work.

He claims the voice of god was heard literally.

He thinks the brain was literally bicameral so that when one part of the camera spoke, the other part heard this as a literal voice.

It was not an inner voice but an outer voice.

And that when the bicamerality broke down, the voice was no longer heard. Except in pathological cases such as schizophrenia.

[Mole]

The presence of such a being is no less improbable than the absence of such a being. Existentialism's metaphysical ramifications are no less profound than those of theism.

This is true from a logical point of view. But it is a complete failure to explain why no civilization is not based on a religion.

This is a very interesting question. And going round in logical circles gets us nowhere.

No, what we need is evidence, archeological evidence, historical evidence and neurological evidence.

And it is this evidence that can be tested against Jaynes' theory. Of course he may be completely wrong.

But this is a way out of the logical loop.

Staying in the loop, no matter how logical, is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. While seeking evidence gives us a way of falsifying Jaynes' theory or not.

Using logic without evidence leaves us in the same position as the Scholastics of the Middle Ages.

The Enlightenment taught us to apply logic to evidence. So let's collect the evidence and analyse and evaluate it - as we do in every other intellectual endeavour since the Enlightenment.

Of course there is a political element to this - neither the theists nor the atheists want to see this problem addressed because it would put both of them out of business.

It has been noted that in other areas of politics that the two extremes reinforce and feed off each other. And this is true for theists and atheists - they are two sides of the same coin - or spuds and potatoes - choose your own metaphor.

[Mole]

And Jaynes' theory is eminently testable as he claims bicamerality broke down only a few thousand years ago.

And even more interesting Jaynes' claims that human consciousness only came into existence a few thousand years ago.

This is not in the dim distant past and so evidence is available.

And if the evidence can't prove him wrong, then our whole view of humanity and god would change.

And this is what you would expect - if the theists and the atheists present us with an insoluble argument, then we can expect the answer will be to an entirely different question.

And Julian Jaynes may have asked that question.