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

The End of Subjectivism—The Begin of Individualism

“Как для астрономии трудность признания движения земли состояла в том, чтобы отказаться от непосредственного чувства неподвижности земли и такого же чувства движения планет, так и для истории трудность признания подчиненности личности законам пространства, времени и причин состоит в том, чтобы отказаться от непосредственного чувства независимости своей личности. Но, как в астрономии новое воззрение говорило: «Правда, мы не чувствуем движения земли, но, допустив ее неподвижность, мы приходим к бессмыслице; допустив же движение, которого мы не чувствуем, мы приходим к законам», — так и в истории новое воззрение говорит: «И правда, мы не чувствуем нашей зависимости, но, допустив нашу свободу, мы приходим к бессмыслице; допустив же свою зависимость от внешнего мира, времени и причин, приходим к законам».
В первом случае надо было отказаться от сознания несуществующей неподвижности в пространстве и признать неощущаемое нами движение; в настоящем случае — точно так же необходимо отказаться от несуществующей свободы и признать неощущаемую нами зависимость.”

Лев Толстой

It is amazing how Leo Tolstoy anticipated Fauceir Theory 😉 Well not actually the theory itself, but he made an exceptional point for the development of this theory and all scientific theory in general. He discovered the law that scientific progress requires relativization, the transition from subjective measures to objective ones. And by that the realization comes naturally that the measures are relative.

It was the demolition of the subjective measure of motion (acceleration felt by our inner ear) and its replacement by objective criteria that enabled scientists to appreciate the heliocentric solar system. It was the reference frame introduced by Einstein that allowed for a relative measuring of time (at least in the positive direction), and it is Fauceir Theory that now promotes to a relative measure of everything, including but not restricted to, physical values such as mass and time. The speed of light is no longer a constant and time exists in various (actually unlimited) frames. Only few of them point into the same direction.

Admittedly, that challenges all what we feel about our Universe, and it is hard to grasp it. Though I don’t think that physicists are the main adversaries of Fauceir Theory. The most rigid resistance stems from social scientists. Because it is feared that by accepting the absolute relativity of everything, society is deprived of all moral and ethical bonds and without those bonds a society is destroyed.

Maybe Leo Tolstoy forefelt that and he became fearful. Maybe that explains his decision not to follow this train of thought but instead to become a faithful believer in God later in his life.

It was interestingly an other Russian philosopher, Ayn Rand, who pushed this idea further into the social direction. Accepting the problem she offered a solution, egoism, and as a matter of fact egoism makes people behave rationally and predictably. Egoism is rationalism in a personal relationships, and rationalism is the only acceptable answer to the dethronement of ideologically determined ethical and moral values.

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

Empathobesity—The Dynamics of Social Symbiosis and Parasitism

Social parasitism is a recurrent topic on this website. I tackled the question how such parasitism is unaware to those who contribute. Also the phenomenon of the evolution of a social parasite’s defense system was illustrated. In a recent article Heartiste, raised an other aspect of social parasitism. The systems theory’s well known fact that a symbiotic relationship can become parasitic (and vice versa).

This dynamics of a relationship’s mutuality, of course, is true for all relationships social included. Empathobesity is a role model. The concept describes the rise-and-fall process of Western societies by the impact of empathy.

As well as the process can be divided into rise and fall, the two phases are characterized by (1) a distribution of wealth, education, and power which translated into higher productivity and considerable ingenuity, and (2) growing inequality, declining education, and concentration of power which translates into stagnation and genuine ingenuity became replaced by just fancy but useless innovation such as ringtones. The two phases of the process even have a biological, population genetics, implication. While in the first phase the more prosperous people had more children, it is now the other way around, so even the genetic basis of ingenuity is in decline not to mention the schooling system and psychological and sociological research that supports a propaganda of educating the imbecile to become geniuses.

No doubt, this process was propelled by empathy mostly arising from Christian religious believes, and we owe those Christian ethics a great deal of our wealth and prosperity. The major question is why did the growth of prosperity came to a halt. The answer lays in the dynamics of relationships. Institutions that sprout from the grounds of Christian ethics like political parties and organizations and charities entered their parasitic stage of behavior. All these organizations have in common that they spread their political agendas by the help of creating empathy like the Christian Church did.

Thus empathobesity well characterizes this process. It is empathy that became obesity. Like obesity empathobesity results from doing in excess what is essential. If you don’t eat you starve, if you eat too much you become obese. Obesity like malnutrition is a disease, and both can kill you. The same is with empathy. It is essential to keep a society flourishing, but to much of it causes dangerous metabolic consequences.

The parasitic abuse of empathy has a long history and it has it re-birth again and again.


The young man on the streets of Prague creates empathy, but does he deserve it. Please take a closer look. His sneakers are as new as the ones of the bystanders and his backpack and his clothes aren’t ragged. He covers his face to not show that he is well shaved. My conclusion was he just wanted to create a feeling of empathy in visitors crossing the Carl’s bridge to pay for his vacation.

In a family, for instance, one member can force tho other into obedience by playing the sufferer. This is the trick played by men and women likewise, but only women showing such a behavior are supported by society. You can easily spot those women on facebook, for instance, by re-posting charity requests. The women don’t care the least about the poor chap who asks for help, but it is a test for her male followers who will qualify to become enslaved by her empathy trap.

But empathy parasitism is not restricted to personal relationships and personal contact like beggars. Whole institutions support on it. Charity organizations, Environmental protection groups, churches, and political parties all use to employ the human social instinct of empathy for their egoistic purposes.

A Hare Krishna parade in Prague. They would offer me a rose but in return they would have demanded my whole pocket full of money. An other type of social parasitism.

A Hare Krishna parade in Prague. They would offer me a rose but in return they would have demanded my whole pocket full of money. An other type of social parasitism.

But empathy is not the only social behavior pattern (fauceir) that is abused by social parasites. Here follow some other examples of social parasitism:

  • A security agency that creates security risks to enforce their power and influence.
  • A news agency that creates new just for a good selling headline.
  • A health organization that creates a disease to have more patients to cure.
  • A company that creates a monopoly to increase revenue.
  • A scientific community predicting a disaster, such as an epidemic, to obtain more funds.

The faces of social parasitism is manifold, and what once has been a respectable institution can become a social parasite. This is made clear by the term Empathobesity when empathy in political realms becomes an obstacle of social advancement at best but in its worst case scenario become morbid leading to death of a culture. So many culture died already. They all died because they succumbed to their specific social parasites. BTW biological organisms die the same way.

Well from a fauceir historical perspective there is nothing wrong with that. Fauceir Theory has a non-partisan view. Nobody can avert the death of an organism. That’s true for biological organisms and social organisms likewise. Death and the subsequent degradation is the prerequisite of a life circle going on. If the Roman Empire hadn’t been degraded some thousand years ago we would not have the level of culture that we enjoy in Europe today.

Thus what can be done practically, is to prevent the dying social organisms to take to much human vitims, to destroy intellectual achievements and other natural resources.

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

Essence of Fauceir Evolution

Here go some quotes:

Evolution is not just about species [1] but includes all types of fauceirs [that form resources PN].

Evolution is not just about natural selection [2] but a set of optimization rules [including decotectulization and adaptation, for instance PN].

—– Mato Nagel
[addendum by the author]

[1] Darwin, Charles, 2008, On the Origin of Species. Rev. ed. Oxford World’s Classics. New York: Oxford University Press. (

[2] Wallace, Alfred Russel,1870,Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection. A Series of Essays. London, New York: Macmillan and co. (

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

Male intelligence and female preferences

This is actually a comment on Do women find bright men sexy?

Heartiste writes in his Dating Market Value Test For Men that only slightly above average men have an advantage. I would agree with that as it not only is consistent with my own experience but also coincidentally is found by a mathematical model of democratic election. Finally, it seems quite logical that higher intellectual capabilities are not perceived as an advantage but as a threat. According the Dunning-Kruger effect, we all are incapable to correctly evaluate capabilities that are more favorable than ours. We cannot understand a more intellectual person, and everything that we cannot understand we use to fear instinctively.

Fortunately, if women are capable to select slightly more intelligent men this is of evolutionary advantage over many generations, as these INDIVIDUAL decisions sum up over the generations.

Unfortunately, that is not true with democracies, as COLLECTIVE decisions always cut down over the generations.

The mathematical effect on variance is as follows: the former will increase variance, the latter decrease towards idiocracy.

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

Social science dilemma

This is actually a comment on this post.

„The social sciences have developed in ways that are not necessarily to our advantage.“

Though they do have developed to the advantage of the money source, the government. That’s the fundamental rule of evolution: everything evolves to get the most of the resources. Admittedly that implies that government is not “necessarily to our advantage” which for most of you is difficult to digest.

“How to fix?”

Simply develop social science isolated from governmental support. BTW, if you keep your eyes open, you can spot a lot of social science evolving outside governmental control. As a matter of fact that’s where social science becomes most exciting.

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