It doesn't make it a good theory that you can come up with an even more ridiculous theory. It is not even clear if any of the events of the Iliad are historical beyond there probably was some kind of war. You can explain Gods talking to Achilles with this theory...but can you explain Achilles literally fighting a river-God and winning? Even if this is based on historical events, the Homeric epics are centuries removed. And the Iliad is even fairly realistic compared to the Odyssee.
Yeah, using bicameral theory to explain away myths and religions (and vice versa) completely ignores that there are loads of reported miracles and supernatural events that go beyond visions and voices. Bicameral theory makes a dull Occam's Razor, and myths and religion aren't great evidence for testing a scientific hypothesis.
> It doesn't make it a good theory that you can come up with an even more ridiculous theory.
But in that context "Gods talking to him" isn't the "more ridiculous theory" we came up with after, it was the original theory. Just like this:
> but can you explain Achilles literally fighting a river-God and winning
Doesn't make it "more plausible" for gods and deities to be involved. That "river-God" could have been any numbers of dangerous aquatic animals, which would be way more plausible than arguing "He fought an actual river god!".
I realize I'm ruffling a lot of theist feathers here, but any explanation that involves the "supernatural" should automatically be considered rather implausible, especially when there are much more plausible alternatives that do not involve the supernatural at all.
