I'll probably say some Merry Christmas with my Happy Holidays. This cartoon is what I remember about the holiday growing up with only a sprinkle of Catholicism thrown in, even though my mother now claims we were more religious than what I saw us practice. We had a small nativity scene, we sometimes went to mass, and we sometimes had prayer before eating but I don't remember these things as a constant tradition. Even if it was, once I reached my own age of reason I know I'd still be where I am today in my beliefs.

There is a definite traditional side of Christmas that is rooted in pagan and Roman celebrations since Jesus most likely wasn't even born on December 25th or any other time in the winter. The true meaning of the holiday isn't Christ's birth. You can actually find all sorts of info on when he might have been born from many Christian sites. You can also learn about some of the true history of Christmas at History.com.

Happy Holidays and a Merry Christmas to most of my fellow Americans! Do you all really know the origins of this national holiday believers think is under attack? Happy Hanukkah and Kwanzaa too for some of my other fellow Americans! I hope we all have a nice time and just enjoy the fact that we're all human and we're still alive. :-)

I will quote from a New York Times Op-Ed piece titled The Religious Wars that is about some books on religion that the writer believes are a middle ground between recent athiest and theist books. The books he talk about all appear to be from the theist standpoint, but the first book provides an interesting view of the supposed eternal truth of religion by talking about the evolution of it.

First, I will quote the first paragraph that explains why the article is called The Religious Wars:

Just a few years ago, it seemed curious that an omniscient, omnipotent God wouldn’t smite tormentors like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. They all published best-selling books excoriating religion and practically inviting lightning bolts. ... Fundamentalists fired volleys of Left Behind novels, in which Jesus returns to Earth to battle the Anti-Christ (whose day job was secretary general of the United Nations). Meanwhile, devout atheists built mocking Web sites like www.whydoesGodhateamputees.com. That site notes that although believers periodically credit prayer with curing cancer, God never seems to regrow lost limbs. It demands an end to divine discrimination against amputees.

Now on to the first book:

This year is different, with a crop of books that are less combative and more thoughtful. One of these is “The Evolution of God,” by Robert Wright, who explores how religions have changed — improved — over the millennia. He notes that God, as perceived by humans, has mellowed from the capricious warlord sometimes depicted in the Old Testament who periodically orders genocides.

Mr. Wright also argues that monotheism emerged only gradually among Israelites, and that the God familiar to us may have resulted from a merger of a creator god, El, and a warrior god, Yahweh. Mr. Wright also argues that monotheism wasn’t firmly established until after the Babylonian exile, and he says that Moses’s point was that other gods shouldn’t be worshiped, not that they didn’t exist. For example, he notes the troubling references to a “divine council” and “gods” — plural — in Psalm 82.

In another revelation not usually found in Sunday School classes, Mr. Wright cites Biblical evidence that God (both El and Yahweh) had a sex life, rather like the Greek gods, and notes archaeological discoveries indicating that Yahweh may have had a wife, Asherah.

As for Christianity, Mr. Wright argues that it was Saint Paul — more than Jesus, an apocalyptic prophet — who emphasized love and universalism and built Christian faith as it is known today. Saint Paul focused on these elements, he says, partly as a way to broaden the appeal of the church and convert Gentiles.

Mr. Wright detects an evolution toward an image of God as a more beneficient and universal deity, one whose moral compass favors compassion for humans of whatever race or tribe, one who is now firmly in the antigenocide camp. Mr. Wright’s focus is not on whether God exists, but he does suggest that changing perceptions of God reflect a moral direction to history — and that this in turn perhaps reflects some kind of spiritual force.

“To the extent that ‘god’ grows, that is evidence — maybe not massive evidence, but some evidence — of higher purpose,” Mr. Wright says.

God grows? God changes over time as humanity and our societies evolve? Wouldn't that actually be evidence that god changes due to the beliefs and whims of his believers instead of vice versa? God and religions change over time because we are changing and evolving and decide to adapt the fictional stories of our ancestors to our changing times. For example, slavery was abolished in spite of Christianity and their Bible instead of because of it.

A response similar to mine appears in the Letter to the Editor section. I will repost it here because it is a good one:

There seems something facile about Robert Wright’s suggestion that the fact that “god” grows better over time reflects evidence that there is higher purpose, or Karen Armstrong’s notion that pushing reasoning powers to their limit, stretching language and living compassionately produce a transcendence that should be interpreted in a religious sense, and I am surprised that Mr. Kristof presents their arguments as if they offer some rational middle ground for discussion.

“God” has gotten more moral over time because even organized religions have been dragged forward, often kicking and screaming, by human reason, which itself has been pushed forward by our discoveries about nature — discoveries that belied obviously false notions about superiority of one race over another or the need to impose divine vengeance to respond to simple, explicable acts of nature.

While it is surely true that faith itself may exist beyond the bounds of rationality, what Mr. Kristof should be praising is reason and not faith.

If one wants to find transcendent examples of pushing reasoning to its limit and stretching language to the end of its tether, one could do worse than to read the books of my colleagues Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.

Lawrence Krauss
Tempe, Ariz., Nov. 26, 2009
The writer directs the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University and writes frequently on science and religion.

A reader of this blog wrote:

I just stumbled across your blog and found it very interesting yet uninformed of the things of God. When referring to the "perfect image" of our Creator. Scripture is referring to the mind, will and emotions. It has nothing to do with physical frailty or weakness. I am sorry for your recent diagnosis, and you are in my prayers (as well). The "divine creation" that you refer to has been corrupted. I encourage you to read Genesis chapters 1-11. We live in a fallen world. That is the real answer. That may not bring comfort, but that it not why I am writing. It is never comforting submitting to something (the Word of God) that is contrary to your very nature.

My friend, we are all uniformed of all things related to anything we could ever call our creator. That's assuming there was actually such an event as creation. We weren't there so we don't know. Just because scientists see signs of a big bang doesn't mean there was definitely a single beginning to it all. It's just what we can see and comprehend from our viewpoint as beings in this universe at this time.

Man (people) created in God's image was just one religious viewpoint I was picking on and doesn't mean I think all believers think we're literally made from a perfect mold. It doesn't matter to me what anyone reads in the scriptures because I don't trust the people that put pen to paper or chisel to rock to have had any better idea of what really happened than any scientists today. Think about those much more primitive ancestors of ours and ask yourself if you really trust such people to know the mysteries of the universe and its origin. What made them so special and not one of us now? Why should I have to view this as a fallen world as you say? Why shouldn't it be seen as fine exactly as it is instead of seeing it as intentionally broken unless I follow your god? Even if there were a god, why shouldn't we believe everything is as it should be? Who are you to question or even try to contemplate and understand what that highest power thinks or has done?

The comment ended with:

In regards to purpose, those cells that are not working properly had a purpose. Your body is made up of a trillion cells with a purpose, and if they do not do what they are designed to do, then we have a disease or something else that is unfortunate. Sickness and disease is never a cause to reject the existence of God. Instead it should highlight the fall of creation and our need for a Savior.

Sickness and disease is never a cause to blindly accept ancient fiction from our ancestors who believed Earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around us. Sickness and disease highlights the fact that we are flawed creatures with a limited time of existence so we should make the most of what we have. We shouldn’t worry about what may or may not come after our inevitable deaths and just enjoy what we have as the mysterious blessing from the universe that it actually is.

I've often looked at human physical frailty and weaknesses as another sign that we don't really know what we're talking about as far as a divine creation that created us in the perfect image of a creator. We just have too many single points of failure and oddities to our anatomy as a living organism for me to not believe there is definite support for the theories of evolution to explain our build from such a flawed original image. I think how it all got into motion and started as a first spark of life is beyond our understanding, but overall I think we're a mess that just mutated and evolved into what you see today.

I now have a more personal feeling of frailty to help highlight these thoughts. I just got diagnosed with Bell's palsy. It's a sudden and odd thing that will most likely go away in a few months but it does make me feel a little helpless and frustrated. It doesn't even look like much of a visibly noticable problem to others, but not being able to blink one eye and losing control of one side of my mouth is tiring and troublesome.

Today at work a person said "it kind of makes you wonder 'why me?' doesn't it?" No, it didn't. I said I know why it happened to me. It's just a random thing in a random universe. A certain sequence of events that doctors don't apparently fully understand happened and now I have this facial paralysis that others have had and will have in the future unless doctor's can figure out a quick cure or correction to this one like they have for many other physical ailments.

The human ability to overcome our environment is the real answer for such problems. I have old friends on Facebook that say they're praying for me because that's what they believe and do. We could go down all of the thought processes that if there was a god then he created Bell's palsy or allows it to happen at least so such a god probably wouldn't do anything about this. I find it to be such a laugh that some might even think it's a punishment for me. My life's been pretty great so far even with this minor medical issue. I don't feel punished at all.

No, the real answer to any situation like this will be for doctor's to continue to figure out something better to do about our frail bodies. If we stayed in the dark ages and tried to pray away all of our ills then any number of plagues or other issues would be wiping out humanity today. A simple thing like CPR doesn't come from a god or a bible. Fortunately we have people that know in their hearts that prayers won't do anything for us so we have to heal ourselves. It's just too bad one of these pills they've given me hasn't let me wake up the next day with restored functionality of my face. Oh well, that's life and a byproduct of our mysterious existence in the universe.

I've read that some people when faced with severe medical issues will turn to religion for comfort. I can't pretend Bell's palsy is anything more than a minor deal, and it really is compared to anything else that could go wrong, but even with this I don't understand how religion provides anything more than questions starting with my coworker's simple "Why me?" Why am I made to suffer? Why won't my god help me when I ask? Why does this problem even exist? What is the purpose of this?

Thanks, but I already have my answers and it is because I'm Agnostic I know that many things just happen randomly as a part of existence. I know that if there are any higher reasons to any of this then it is beyond our understanding. If you believe in a religion and think everything has a purpose, then look at what this has done for me. It caused me to once again write something critical of what you believe and reenforced my own beliefs enough to share this viewpoint with others. What if it's all a part of the universe's plan to prompt me into action to spread the real truth about reality? Religions are human fiction, it's all beyond our understanding, and you don't really know. :-)

Nine Inch Nails - God Given

Hey man, please don't make a sound
Take a look around
Can't you see what's right in front of you
Have a little taste
No more time to waste
You don't wanna get left behind cause it's all coming down right now

How hard is it to see
Put your faith in me
I sure wouldn't want to be praying
To the wrong piece of wood
You should get where you belong
Everything you know is wrong
Come on, sing along, everybody now

God given

And He gives us sight
And we'll see the light
And it burns so bright
Now we know we're right
It is kingdom come
And Thy will be done
We have just begun
We're the chosen ones

(We would never tell you anything that wasn't absolutely true
That hadn't come right from his mouth and he was made to tell you)

Wait, step into the light
How can this be right
I'm afraid we're gonna ask you to leave
Guess you cannot win
With the color of your skin
You won't be getting into the Promised Land
This is just another case
You people still don't know your place
Step aside, out the way, wipe that look off your face
'Cause we are the divine
Separated from the swine
Come on, sing along, everybody now

God given

And He gives us sight
And we'll see the light
And it burns so bright
Now we know we're right
It is kingdom come (and the Father and the Holy Son)
And Thy will be done
We have just begun
We're the chosen ones

(We would never tell you anything that wasn't absolutely true
That hadn't come right from his mouth and he was made to tell you)


"I wouldn't want to be praying to the wrong piece of wood. You should get where you belong. Everything you know is wrong." What if I started spouting off about being one of the chosen ones with the real truth of Agnosticism? What if I said I am "one of the divine / seperated from the swine" that are the people that don't believe as I do? I would never tell you anything that wasn't absolutely true that wasn't a universal truth that came from existence itself. You do not have the answers and that comes from the universe as a divine message just for you. It's so easy to just assert truth and authority, isn't it? Just look around you and see how much talk and hot air pretends to be truth.

There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance,
A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance.

A planet of playthings,
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
"The stars aren't aligned,
Or the gods are malign..."
Blame is better to give than receive.

Chorus
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.

There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand,
The cards were stacked against them; they weren't born in Lotusland.

All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate.
Kicked in the face,
You can't pray for a place
In heaven's unearthly estate.

Chorus

Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete.
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt that's far too fleet.

Chorus


This is an excellent Agnostic song. We should be able to agree that we all possess freewill. The question then becomes is that freewill a gift from a God that allows you only a certain amount of freewill or do we really possess freewill because we are free beings in a universe we cannot fully perceive or understand?

Do you choose to follow "phantom fears and kindness that can kill" and a preordained existence that leaves nothing to chance? Do you choose to hamper your freewill under the yoke of our ancestors and their stories and imagination of where existence came from and what it really means? Do you really believe all of the awful and good in life is from a magical being that concerns itself with us or that it's really just random chance in a universe that isn't aware of our existence? Is this really a planet of playthings dancing on the strings of powers we cannot perceive? It is easier to blame the gods then to take any blame for ourselves. This song has a lot of interesting thoughts.

This is from Part 5.75 of 6: Change Happens in the series called Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science over at the HuffingtonPost. Valerie's still resisting closing this series with part 6 of 6.

This part of the series talks about deconversion. Deconversion for me was a major paradigm shift once my honest questioning of the beliefs of my ancestors led to a tipping point where I realized the entire thing was a human created fiction. Quoting from Valerie:

In 1962, Thomas Kuhn wrote a seminal book entitled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in which he introduced the term "paradigm shift." He argued that in science change rarely happens in a steady incremental way. Rather, a generation of scholars operates out of a (tough, resilient) set of assumptions, a paradigm, and new information gets assimilated or explained within the paradigm. But gradually contradictory evidence accumulates until it reaches a tipping point, and what Kuhn called a "paradigm shift" occurs. Previously ignored patterns in the contradictions abruptly becomes clear, and the community toggles to a better paradigm that will guide inquiry until evidence accumulates and these assumptions, too, get revised. Kuhn wrote about the hard sciences, but scholars since have come to realize that a similar process can take place in other scholarly communities and even in individuals.

The article closes with a reflection on individual paradigm shifts and those people continuing to operate in communities that have not shifted with them. I agree with the advice against arguments as being sound advice. Arguing your position easily comes across as attacking someone else's position.

Just like the born again Christians who feel transformed by faith, those who feel freed from faith want to share their discovery with those they love. Many former Christians grieve the fact that their spouses, children, or dear friends are still embedded in what now appears as an enormous cult. But what are the options? Attempts at conversation often fail, bringing tears and conflict, even shunning or divorce. A couple of elderly scientists are not allowed to see their grandchildren because contact might lead the children astray. A mother laments that a grown daughter won't let her visit because of the mother's loss of faith. A college student who has been caught reading "spiritual pornography" isn't allowed to be with his younger siblings unattended. What is a former believer to do?

One thing we know does not help is arguing. Research shows that after an argument, both sides tend to be even more entrenched in their old positions. By lining up our best arguments, we are more likely to convince ourselves that we are right than to convince anyone else. Perhaps the best advice is to adhere to the formula that has worked well for other hidden and stigmatized minorities: Be out. Be yourself. The more negative the stereotype of nonbelievers, the easier it is to challenge that stereotype simply by being a decent human being. When it comes to explicit conversations about religion, try to arrange time to sit down and really talk through your changes rather than having the differences of opinion come up in bits and scraps. Lay out your own thinking, and then let it be. For those you love, either the paradigm shift will happen or it won't. It is not in your power to control anyone but yourself.

This is from Part 5.5 of 6: How Beliefs Resist Change in the series called Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science over at the HuffingtonPost. Apparently it wasn't a fully thought out series since Valerie's resisting closing this series with part 6 of 6. I'm not sad though because she's presenting a lot of good information and understanding about belief that is very much worth your consideration.

This part of the series concerns the staying power of belief in a changing world. It all starts with indoctrination of the young and continues through a believer's life. Quoting from Valerie:

To make things even more complicated, each religion has what can be called an immune system. Because traditional Christianity is centered on orthodoxy, meaning right belief, the immune system consists of a set of teachings that guard against other beliefs or loss of belief. Christianity's immune system includes the following teachings:

· Doubt is a sign of weakness or temptation by Satan, the father of lies.
· False teachers (those whose theology differs) should be cast out.
· Believers should not be unequally yoked (partnered) with nonbelievers.
· Nonbelievers have no basis for morality, so their motives are suspect.
· If Christians act badly, the flaw is in the persons, not the religion.

Given that core beliefs are naturally resilient and given the power of messages such as these, it will come as no surprise that people go to extreme lengths psychologically to defend religious dogmas.

The article continues with the topic of cognitive dissonance and confirmatory thinking that explain a great deal about why people continue to think what they think despite contradictory evidence. I do agree that a lot of this boils down to group identity and our personal filters. Are you reading this because you already believe in a freethought philosophy such as Agnosticism or Atheism or are you truly operating outside of your own religious filter and reading things you don't agree with?

Even outside our personal information filters is a set of ring defenses: our communities. Who forwards you email? What magazines do you subscribe to? What shows do you watch? Because confirmation is so satisfying and contradiction is so uncomfortable, we surround ourselves with friends and colleagues and coreligionists who think like us. Often, we join groups that do the filtering for us: Democrats for America, The Nature Conservancy, Assemblies of God, The National Rifle Association. These groups provide a steady flow of information confirming and elaborating what we think we know--and ensuring that a lot of contradictory information never makes it anywhere near our brains. They let us short-cut. Instead of weigh the quality of arguments and evidence - we look at the source and either raise or lower a draw bridge.

In an even more impervious form of this, we form a group identity: I'm a Catholic. I'm a Republican. I'm an American. I'm a Woman. I'm Hispanic. I'm a Calvinist. Each of these identities creates what I call a tribal information boundary (TIB). TIB's are remarkable efficiency devices, allowing us to weave coherent story lines about the world around us. But for someone seeking to understand complicated realities, they can be tremendously costly.

When we actually allow ourselves to bump up against the limitations of our world view, when we acknowledge we've hit a wall and then find a way over or around it--that is when growth is most likely to occur. In the 1998 comedy, The Truman Show, the protagonist, played by Jim Carrey, pushes past an information boundary and realizes he is living in the artificial world of a television set. From childhood, Truman has accepted the explanations and roles offered him. But he is confronted with small discrepancies, and one day he ignores his own fears and barriers that his community has erected, and punches through to the world outside. The movie's message to us all: It is possible.

Are you in an information and belief dome? Can you break through that wall and open yourself up to the possibility that there is much more out there that you and I just do not and cannot understand?

This is from Part 5 of 6: How Viral Ideas Hook Us in the series called Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science over at the HuffingtonPost. Why do people forward chain e-mails that are too-good-to-be-true urban legends? Why do people get sucked in by emotional responses that when you examine things critically just don't hold up? The article starts with the chain mail idea but then moves to the more plausible reason as to why religions survive so well even though they are filled with unbelievable stories. Religions are actually more like a virus, a virus of the mind. I'll again quote from Valerie:

But whereas diseases spread passively, meaning people rarely try to infect each other, viral ideas, also known as "memes" spread by harnessing the human desire to share what we know and to learn from each other. Memes get transmitted through established social networks. They spread horizontally within a generation, and vertically from generation to generation. That is why specific religions are concentrated in one part of the world or another and children tend to have the same religion as their parents.

For developmental reasons, children are particularly susceptible to simply accepting the ideas of their parents and community. If a parent says stoves burn you, cars can squish you, and bathing keeps you from getting itchy, kids tend to do best if they simply trust what their parents say. Nature has designed children to be "credulous." This allows them to learn from the mistakes of their elders. It makes them more efficient in acquiring valuable information and adapting to cultural norms. It is also why evangelical parents are encouraged to convert their children. Research on identity development shows that if children can be contained within an enveloping religious community through their transition into young adulthood, few will ever leave. Bring up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it. (Proverbs 22:6)

A successful religion needs to have the qualities of a successful virus. In a changing environment, this means it must have the ability to mutate and adapt. In the past, religions spread largely by edict and conquest. This is how Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and into the Americas. Today, though, religion is perceived as an individual choice and religions must gain share by proselytizing or attracting adherents. For any religion to grow now, it must be something that people are motivated to transmit to each other one on one or in small groups. This is why, today, the religions that are gaining mindshare are those that have strong proselytizing mandates and high birthrates. In the current environment, Christianity has been able to produce offshoots that need no edict or conquest.

Significantly, the religions that are growing right now are ones with strong copy-me commands. Evangelical Christianity is centered on what Christians call the Great Commission: "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, baptizing them in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost." In addition, just as the Roman church latched onto the strategy of competitive breeding (keep women home, sanctify a high birth rate), so Evangelicals have begun to explicitly add this form of copy-me command to the mix. By contrast, modernist Christianity is more often centered on what Christians call the Great Commandment: "Love the Lord your god with all your heart, soul and mind, and . . . love your neighbor as yourself." In a straight up competition, the copy-me command wins out, and in fact, evangelicals are gaining mindshare, while modernists are losing it.

It's me again. Agnosticism, Atheism, or any of the other freethinking viewpoints don't have a strong copy-me command. Our viewpoints can be shared with others but they are not intentionally spread to others as a component of the viewpoint. I do feel that "unknown" is the right answer for humanity and I feel peace for acknowledging my own simplicity and ignorance about the supernatural that is beyond my understanding. I do feel a sense of righteousness but it is only enough to passively share my ideas on the web and not something where I want to push a viral idea that I feel others must adopt. Religions are based on the idea that since this works for me this must work for you too since it is a universal truth. I believe I have found a universal truth in Agnosticism but it's not something I feel is what everyone must have to live a proper life. Back to Valerie's article:

But most theological fundamentalists have a more hybrid approach. They protect their children from external influence by home schooling or parochial schools, but don't mind accessing creationist materials from interactive websites. They expand in-house social services that include pop psychology. They promote hierarchy and sexism but are willing to have women and children as spokespersons for these views. They play up the risks of inquiry and doubt and use scientific findings and follies to make their arguments convincing. Fundamentalist populations resist ideological change, but they have learned to exploit popular culture, best business practices, new technologies, and even scholarship itself to maintain the survival of their beliefs.

Since a virus and host fit together like a lock and key, understanding viral ideas helps us to understand the human mind, and vice versa. Retro-viruses and influenza mutate rapidly, which makes it hard to develop immunizations against them. On the spectrum of religions, Christianity shows a similar flexibility, regularly spinning off new sects, denominations, and even non-denominational renegades. And yet each of these taps a familiar range of emotions and social mechanisms and is constrained by the cognitive structures that place bounds on human supernaturalism. Christianity has adapted to a broad range of human minds and cultures, a strategy that has resulted in success beyond the wildest visions of the patriarchs.

The underlying motiviations of those that actively push religions are too varied to get into and to me don't actually matter since some motivations are really good and valid. Despite the person's motivation, the truth is what matters to me and I know the religions of the world do not have that. They are simply viral ideas that have caught fire and are about as useful to me as any other virus. Just because an idea spreads and is popular it doesn't make it right just like if many people have a virus it doesn't mean we all should have it.

This is from Part 4 of 6: The Born Again Experience in the series called Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science over at the HuffingtonPost. This next article in the series talks about the conversion process and gives some insight as to why people would believe the stories and tall tales found in religion. Valerie says "the born again experience doesn't require a specific set of beliefs. It requires a specific social/emotional process, and the dogmas or explanations are secondary." This tells me that the religious experience is much more experience than actual religion. Once again I'll quote the more interesting passages from the article.

When asked about whether Evangelical Christianity might fit the pattern, Conway and Siegelman were reluctant to say yes. Today they admit, "In America today, increasingly, that line [between a cult and a legitimate religion] cannot be categorically drawn. . . Our research raised serious questions concerning the techniques used to bring about conversion in many evangelical groups."(p. 37).

Conversion is a process that begins with social influence. As sociologists like to say, our sense of reality is socially constructed. We will come back to this later. Suffice for now to say that missionary work typically begins with simple offers of friendship or conversations about shared interests. As a prospective converts are drawn in, a group may envelope them in warmth, good will, thoughtful conversations and playful activities, always with gentle pressure toward the group reality.

In revival meetings or retreats, semi-hypnotic processes draw a potential convert closer to the toggle point. These include including repetition of words, repetition of rhythms, evocative music, and Barnum statements (messages that seem personal but apply to almost everyone -- like horoscopes). Because of the positive energy created by the group, potential converts become unwitting participants in the influence process, actively seeking to make the group's ideas fit with their own life history and knowledge. Factors that can strengthen the effect include sleep deprivation or isolation from a person's normal social environment. An example would be a late night campfire gathering with an inspirational story-teller and altar call at Child Evangelism's "Camp Good News."

These powerful social experiences culminate in conversion, a peak experience in which the new converts experience a flood of relief. Until that moment they have been consciously or unconsciously at odds with the group center of gravity. Now, they may feel that their darkest secrets are known and forgiven. They may experience the kind of joy or transcendence normally reserved for mystics. And they are likely to be bathed in love and approval from the surrounding group, which mirrors their experience of God.

The article talks about the evils of the religious and cult conversion process that you can read for yourself. I agree with this view but I want to skip that and highlight the article's conclusion that explains why conversions work.

The conversion process as I have described it sounds sinister, as if manipulative groups and hypnotic leaders deliberately ply their trade to suck in the unsuspecting and take over their minds. I don't believe this is usually the case. Rather, natural selection is at play. Over millennia of human history, religious leaders have hit on social/emotional techniques that work to win converts, just as individual believers have hit on spiritual practices they find satisfying and belief systems that fit how we process information. Techniques that don't trigger powerful spiritual experiences simply die out. Those that do get used, refined, and handed down.

With few exceptions the evangelists, from mega-church ministers to "friendship missionaries," are unaware of the powerful psychological tools they wield. They are persuasive in part because they genuinely believe they are doing good. After all, they have their own born again experiences to convince them that they are promoting the Real Thing. Consider, for example, the Apostle Paul, whose Damascus Road event (possibly a temporal lobe seizure) transformed his moral priorities and sustained a lifetime of missionary devotion. What decent person wouldn't want to share the secret to healing and happiness? The challenge is trying to figure out exactly what that secret is. As I say to my daughters, it is not enough to be well intentioned--even joyfully, generously so. We also have to be right.