The Psychological Mechanism behind Conversion

One thing I've come to believe more with experience is that a person's world view, be it religious or secular in nature, is ultimately a component of their personal experiences. Specifically, certain personal experiences carry with them a certain indescribable meaning that cannot be fully conveyed to another person. It is the phenomenological portion of the experience, to put it in more formal terms. For example, you can describe a meaningful event in your life to someone else, but there is no way for you to convey the full weight of that experience. It is that part that I am going to talk about today.

So, what causes a change in world view? People are inherently biased towards their current beliefs, especially the beliefs that make up a person's world view. Disconfirming information is requisite for conversion to even be a possibility. Unless a person is lacking any sort of strong conviction, there is a good chance that any strong challenge to a person's world view will be avoided if possible.

Does disconfirming information automatically cause a conversion? No, since there is a few ways a person will try to deal with it. First, people will attempt to reinterpret it in a way that supports their world view. For example, a fundamentalist Christian may interpret the decline of church attendance as a sign that the end times are near, rather than a rejection of religious institutions and their inherent flaws.

If disconfirming information cannot be reinterpreted, a person will try to reject it. The most common method is to discredit the information or the source. Common rationale include claiming a flawed methodology, a biased source, that the information has been "spun" to present it in a certain way, or that the information is entirely fictitious.

Sometimes disconfirming information cannot be rejected. The third thing that people will do is to minimize the impact of the information. They will say it isn't as important as it seems, or that it's presented in a way that overplays it. This is done using similar rationale that people use to reject information, but in a way that acknowledges some level of correctness.

If none of the above work, a person goes through a "crisis of faith" or an "identity crisis", where their beliefs are challenged on a level that cannot be easily dealt with. This requires a person to either change their existing world view in such a way that it can handle the information, or it requires them to change their world view. If a person's world view is changed in a meaningful and profound way, this would be considered a conversion experience, which is a significant phenomenological event in itself.

So how does phenomenology and phenomenological experiences play into conversion? They are important because most conversions are due to experiences that challenge a persons beliefs, not second-hand information. A challenging phenomenological experience is the most powerful form of disconfirming information, and it is much harder to reinterpret, reject, or minimize. I will use my own conversion experience as an example to make this idea more concrete. I stopped believing in a theistic "God" not because of the facts and ideas that were hurled at me by some of the people I know. Rather, I stopped believing in God because a naturalistic point of view provided a better view of reality, and allowed me to handle personal issues that my previous beliefs couldn't.

My next post will be on what religious rituals have to do with phenomonology and creating zealous believers.

Challenging Proselytizers: Why I Approach Missionaries

Unlike most people, I find engaging missionaries on the street (or sidewalk) a productive and enriching activity. When I see two guys in suits wearing nametags trying to start conversations with people, I'll go up to them if I have the time. I feel obligated by my own worldview to challenge them in their beliefs so that they might grow and be better practitioners of their beliefs. I try to give them insight into a worldview that is completely foriegn to them, and hopefully it will result in the missionary having more empathy and understanding of a view of reality that they would otherwise not have.

I use two methods of talking about religion and worldview (I find the term "worldview" a better term, since it encompasses both religion and secular belief systems). The first is to discuss the phenomenological aspects of experience, especially religious experiences. Most religious people have had experiences that caused them to convert to their religious belief, or confirm a pre-existing religious belief. Similarly, most humanists, atheists, or other practitioners of secular worldviews (not to be confused with people who don't have an explicit worldview) have analogous experiences. The key point is that while the experience can be explained, there are aspects of that experience that cannot be conveyed to another person. My experiences that caused me to adopt a humanistic view of reality cannot have the same impact when described to another person.

The second thing I do is to respond to a request with an analogous request. For example, if I am asked to read the Bible or Book of Mormon and make up my mind about it, I will ask them to read Dawkins' The God Delusion, or Dennett's Breaking The Spell, and contemplate whether that is a more rational approach to belief. If they ask me to try to talk to God or pray for some divine revelation, I will ask them to try to look at some of the secular worldviews, and try to understand how those explain belief in God.

The goal in both of these is to avoid the standard rote arguments that have been rehashed for endless years, and to try to create a non-threatening way of engaging and challenging those who are trying to proselytize. In my experience, most every missionary I have used this on has enjoyed the conversation, and I feel that it has helped both parties get a better understanding of the other's worldview.

I will note this method is not good for the showy street preachers who preach hellfire and damnation on streetcorners. Those people aren't interested in rational discussion, rather they are using theatrics to try to provoke a response.

I would appreciate if anyone who has any other ideas for challenging missionaries in a non-advesarial way would post them in the comments.

In my next post, I'll talk about the psychological mechanisms underlying a "crisis of faith" and how it relates to conversion and growth in a persons world view.

Can Life Have Meaning Without a God?

One thing I encounter frequently is the argument that a meaningful life can only be derived from religious or metaphysical beliefs. I think this comes up because oftentimes the person making the argument had no meaning in their life until they found religion. I feel that I have found meaning in life without the need to defer to a metaphysical entity. I believe that the meaning of life is to continue living, growing, and improving. Life exists to beget new life, new ideas, and new creations.

So what does that mean on a personal level? It means that personally, you have to figure out your own meaning. One approach to do this is to ask yourself "What is my place in the world?", "What makes me feel fulfilled?", or "What would make me the best 'me' that I can be?". The problem with this approach would be the lack of a clearly defined personal meaning, or a clearly defined means of determining a personal meaning. The advantage is that the meaning I have found for myself is far more satisfying and personal than any purpose that a religion can offer.