The Rules of Religious Conversion and Adaptation

If we analyze adaptation and conversion two important attributes of a religion have to be distinguished. The type of religion and the ideology. The ideology describes the set of rules while type defines how these rules come into existance. Consequently, type is the more abstract term. It is the common denominator. Several quite contradictory religious ideologies can be hosted by the same type.

There are the following rules.

1. Rule

The most fierce competition is among different ideologies of the same type. While different ideologies of different type can easily tolerate each other.

For example: Judaism and Islam are of the same type, so they hate each other while both can easily accept or being accepted by Christianity that is of a different type.

2. Rule

While ideologies of the same type of religion have a fierce competition. The members of such a religion, actually the people, have not such a problem to switch to an other ideology if it is of the same type.

Example: (1) The well established religions know this quite well. Therefore they use perpetual indoctrination to prevent such conversions. (2) After WW2 German Nazis, all of them devoted stateists, had a few problems to assume a new stateist ideology both in the Western and the Eastern part.

3. Rule

For a member to change the type of religion even if the ideology resembles is difficult, as the way how rules come into existence is deeply engrained in a human’s behavior and social traditions. It either takes several generations or a genius to perform this step up the evolutionary ladder. It is easier to drop down.

Example: It is a well known fact that before changing the type of religion people rather adapt the new ideology the type already assumed. This was why so many Christian missionaries failed. This is also why in African countries, even with dominating Christian religion, satanism and other forms of superstition thrive. Finally, this also explains why the exclusively black American evangelical believer adhere to stateism.

These rules can be easily deduced from Fauceir Theory because of its analogy to biological evolution.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at


Religious Evolution and Political Preferences

A study that analyzes political leanings of religious groups confirms the Fauceir Theory of religious evolution. The study that was conducted by the PEW Institute found mainly the following trends.

source: PewResearchCenter

  1. Protestants are the groups that most tend to vote for republicans.
  2. All Christians taken together are more pro republican than all other groups including atheistic groups.
  3. The atheistic groups do not differ very much from other monotheistic groups.

Admittedly, there are some religious groups that I have no particular knowledge about, so I cannot explain their actual place in the diagram, but I will discuss the above mentioned trends.

In order to correlate these trends, two questions have to be answered:

  1. What are the trends in religious evolution.
  2. What is the ideological basis of a political leanings towards a party?

We start with the first question. In every evolutionary process there exists a simple rule, the time rule. This rule states that the latest innovation is the most advanced, the heighestly evolved. Or the other way around, the older the more archaic and primitive. This rule is generally true in biological, economical, scientific, technical (you name it) branches of evolution. And of course, it’s true in religious evolution too.

There are well known exceptions to that rule of course, but these exceptions follow an other rule. They are adaptations of archaic entities to recently opened ecological niches. This for instance happens with viruses and other pathogens. But nobody would argue that a recently originated virus is more evolutionary advanced than a vertebrate.

Thus there is a third rule of evolution. The more advanced an entity the more complex and the better adaptable it is. This third rule, admittedly, is difficult to prove sometimes. Some scientists therefore argue that this rule doesn’t exist at all. But the people who argue that way are mostly those that ideologically cluster with non-humanistic religions, which will be discussed later.

Of course, all these rules apply to religious evolution too. The general path of religious evolutionary advancement can be described in four steps.

  1. Shamanism or religious believes that we use to call superstition today.
  2. Stateistic religions that are centered on the ruler. Depending on the time in history we may call this type of religion pharaoism, kingism, or stateism.
  3. Theistic are religions that are centered on many Gods (polytheistic) or a single God (monotheistic). Theistic religions put the ruler under control of an even more important authority, which reduced a ruler’s capriciousness. While capriciousness was still an issue in polytheistic religions—the various Gods did rarely agree—this room for interpretation was further narrowed by monotheism.
  4. Humanistic religions are clearly human centered, which to my knowledge is only Christianity to these days.

Some people may want to add Mormons as the most recent innovation, but I’m not sure, as I don’t know exactly how this religion works. I’m sure, though, that atheism not exactly is an advancement. As Larken Rose famously elaborates in his book “The Most Dangerous Superstition”, most atheist are not really non-religious they just believe in the state instead of God which borders to superstitions and is at best characterized as stateism. Some atheists might be humanists, but most atheists just stepped back to stateism.

What is it that makes Christianity to stand out against other religions. It is that by Christianity for the first time in history human interests became the ultimate measure of ethical rules. We know that with pharaoism the ruler was the undisputed maker of rules. The Pharao was the only authority to make the rules if it please him he changed them all the time. With monotheism the measure of rules switched to an eternal authority. However this eternal authority could never be asked in person, so some clergy had the authority to interpret the will of God, and often enough it ended up as a pharaoism or stateism. By Christianity for the first time in history the authority to create ethical rules switched to the people. Of course Christianity was also abused, first by the Romans and later by feudalistic kings. As a rule of history all states enforce stateism. It is in a state’s nature. But in Europe the abuse of Christianity for stateism came to an abrupt end with reformation which brought back Christianity to is humanistic rules.

Therefore it comes as no surprise that countries dominated by evangelical religion were the most progressive in history. These countries simply possessed the best tools to quickly adapt the way of ruling a country to the needs of economical end scientific needs. In other words, evangelical Christianity enhanced the adaptability of nation and therefore has to be considered as an evolutionary advancement.

Now that the evolution of religion is understood, we may come back to the second question. The point what ideology determines a political party. First of all we have to issue a warning ideologies are only loosely related to parties. Parties are entitled to actively choose an ideology that best suites them to get and maintain power. Therefore all parties favor stateism, but they cover it up more or less effectively with respect to their constituency.

So the correlation explains as follows the more openly a party promotes stateism the more it is supported by non humanistic religions. The more secretively a party supports stateism the more it is supported by humanistic religions. In the United States currently the democrats are the strongest proponents of stateism, so they have the strongest support from those religions that are more theistic instead of humanistic.

BTW. This piece of theory also explains why Western governments currently try to replace their population by believers of theistic instead of humanistic religions.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at