Abstract
In this article, inspired by the theories presented in the methodology of science and the philosophy of science, the process of changing religious beliefs in the study of religions is explained. Accordingly, Popper's falsifications view is similar to the common view of theologians and rationalists, who consider religious discussions and debates the main and effective factor in changing people's beliefs. In contrast to this view and relying on historical evidence, the change in the worldview of religious people has been considered similar to the change in the scientific paradigms of scientists from the perspective of Thomas Kuhn. In this way, it has been shown that, contrary to the traditional view of theologians, people do not change their beliefs (religion and sect) solely through theoretical discussions and theological proofs and refutations but are influenced by various social and psychological factors. It has also been shown that different religions and sects have incomparable worldviews, and, as a result, theological disputes are considered polemical debates between the two parties. Accordingly, in religious studies, Kuhn's perspective can be used to explain how individuals' religious attitudes change. Also, within the framework of faithism in the philosophy of religion, the question is answered: How do individuals choose their fait?
 
Keywords:
Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Religion, Studies of Religions, Thomas Kuhn, Paradigm, Faithism
*   *   *
Extended Abstract:
 
Introduction
In this article, the question in religious studies is answered: What happens when individuals or societies change their religion and religion, but other individuals and societies remain steadfast in their inherited religion?
 
Materials and Methods
This article has attempted to show that the process of conversion (change of religion in different individuals and societies) is similar to part of Thomas Kuhn's theory in the philosophy of science and that the change of religion and religious people can be viewed from an extra-religious perspective, such as the rejection and acceptance of scientific paradigms by scientists.
 
Discussion
This article, inspired by Thomas Kuhn's perspective, considers the worldviews presented by different schools of thought as different intellectual paradigms and claims that in justifying individuals' change of religion, one cannot rely solely on the effectiveness of theological arguments. It is necessary to pay attention to crises that arise from historical, social, and psychological factors. Accordingly, just as in the philosophy of science, the positivism and Popper's falsificationism cannot properly explain the structure of scientific revolutions in an interdisciplinary manner in the philosophy of religion and the study of religions, religious debates, and theological refutations and responses cannot be considered the main factor in changing religion and denomination.
 
Accordingly, this article, inspired by Kuhn's theory, answers the question: In the view of faithism, how does a person searching for faith decide to "Jumps" in a faith? Two perspectives—the traditional and paradigmatic perspectives—can be proposed regarding the process of changing people's beliefs.

A) Traditional view: In the methodology of science, Popper tried to present rational principles for choosing scientific theories. In his view, a scientific theory is refuted by observing examples of contradictions. This view is similar to the method of theologians who try to make religion over other matters in a reasonable way by writing books on refuting or proving religions and sects.
B) Paradigmatic view: This view can be put forward, inspired by Thomas Kuhn's theories, in contrast to the common view of theologians. In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he does not consider scientists impartial and fair people who apply the scientific method to discover facts to get closer to the truth.

Kuhn uses the term "scientific paradigm" to explain his theories. A scientific paradigm is "a set of beliefs, values, issues, and methods shared by the scientific community". Accordingly, a similar concept can be called an intellectual paradigm (religious and religious), a set of theories, beliefs, issues, and methods shared by a school of thought. Here, spiritual and religious experiences among followers of a religion should also be considered part of their paradigm, which plays an important role in maintaining followers of a religion in their beliefs. Accordingly, the "worldview" of religions has been considered comparable to scientific paradigms.
When the fundamental assumptions of a paradigm are challenged, that paradigm is in a critical state. When a new paradigm can explain data and phenomena with greater comprehensiveness, coherence, simplicity, beauty, and convenience, the previous theory is discarded, and the new theory is accepted. Like Kuhn's view, changing religion is a kind of intellectual revolution that causes an individual to move from one worldview to another. In general, the factors that cause individuals to change their religion and beliefs can be expressed as follows: 1. Support from the ruling power; 2. Emotional and psychological factors; 3. Failure to respond to the needs of the time and the existence of social crises; 4. Accumulation of religious errors and lack of knowledge of the errors of other religions
Kuhn believes that paradigms are incommensurable. That is, there is no impartial criterion by which paradigms can be measured, and, ultimately, there is no rational or empirical argument to prove the superiority of one paradigm over another. According to Kuhn, there is an "incommensurability of criteria" and "concepts" and "methodology" between the two paradigms. If this theory is accepted in the field of religions, theological disputes between different religions will be fruitless due to the incommensurability of religious paradigms. In other words, accepting the incommensurability of religious worldviews (paradigms) similarly means that theological discussions are polemical.
Accordingly, all the theological works mentioned below are subject to category mistake:

a) Books that attempt to prove their own beliefs through the sayings and works of other schools. That is, 1) Works that prove the reasons for the legitimacy of an intellectual paradigm through propositions in the rival paradigm and 2) Works that prove the legitimacy of a paradigm based on fabricated evidence in the rival paradigm.
b) Works that demonstrate the invalidity of the rival paradigm by showing the contradictions and irrational content they accept.
c) Books that ridicule the thoughts, words, and actions of the elders and followers of other schools of thought.
d) Books that believe in conspiracy theories explain how another school of thought was based on them.
e) Books that falsify events in support of a school of thought.
f) Books written to refute and prove the beliefs of other religions and sects.
g) Highlighting those who oppose our religion and sect have converted and silenced those who have left our religion and faith.

 
Conclusion
Therefore, just as in the philosophy of science, the positivism and the falsificationism of  Popper cannot correctly explain the structure of scientific revolutions. In the philosophy of religion and the study of religions, religious debates, theological refutations, and answers cannot be considered factors in changing religion and faith. Therefore, in the conflict between reason and faith, rational arguments and religious proofs, refutations, and debates do not play a major role in changing religions