Who is America's God now? | Science

We estimate that human understanding can account for about 5% of the universe, and that is our own estimation, it’s probably even less. Within that five percent is something labeled “Dark Matter.” Which I learned is a fancy way to say “we have no clue what this is.”

There is clearly some kind of unknown energy holding the universe together, but we don’t know what it is.

Dark matter outweighs visible matter 6 to 1, which means most of what we “know,” we actually don’t know. So whether we label it energy or God, we agree that there is some unknown force holding our galaxy together and we can’t fully comprehend what/who it is. But many of us want to, desperately.

Most of the world is a cosmic mystery to us, just like it was to the Greeks when they were writing their myths, or the Hebrews when they passed down the story of creation. Each generation does its best to answer the questions:

  • Who am I?
  • Where am I?
  • What should I be doing here?

I believe there is a duality to reality — that material things have spiritual significance.

In realty, if a home was the site of a horrific event — murder, sexual assault, torture, etc. it is considered a “stigmatized property.” There are even some states that require horrific events to be disclosed to a potential buyer. In 2021, Realtor.com found that 80% of Americans wouldn’t live in a home where a murder took place. Why is that? There is no material explanation for that. Just because someone was murdered in a house doesn’t mean that the house itself should be affected once it’s been cleaned and cleared. But most of us knowthat isn’t the case. That is why we don’t want to buy the “haunted” home — because there is some unexplainable, non-material, energy there.

There are so many mysteries in this world that can’t be explained by only looking at the things we see. We also have to consider the things that we do NOT see, and how these two realities work together.

With science rapidly advancing, discussions of religion, faith and meaning have failed to keep pace. We can calculate lightspeed, but we can’t figure out how to keep our families together. Medicines extend our lives, but we don’t know how to fill the extra time.

Yet, if we can allow them to work together, science and faith are natural allies. At their best, they are both fundamentally based on an honest curiosity about the world–they both inspire endless questions and a general sense of awe about how masterfully this universe is put together.

In a culture that loves to talk about “following the science,” I say don't follow it, chase it.

We made a huge mistake pitting religion and science against each other — as if you had to choose just one of these lenses to view the whole world through. I guess we thought that material truth discounted a spiritual truth or vice versa, but that isn’t the case. The practical study of the material world is an amazing and extremely important endeavor. It has extended our life spans and taught us what our bodies are literally made up of. But science doesn’t comfort us in death. It doesn’t fulfill our need to belong. It doesn’t provide us with the meaning for our lives.

Similarly, religion doesn’t teach us how to transplant a lung, calculate velocity, or even how to get from one place to another.

It’s like science is a knife and religion is a spoon. You don’t eat steak with a spoon and you don’t eat soup with a knife.

It’s like science is a knife and religion is a spoon. You don’t eat steak with a spoon and you don’t eat soup with a knife. If you did, you would assume the utensils are irreparably broken.

Or worse, you would wonder why such a useless utensil even exists.

If America is facing an energy crisis, we should turn to science and the material world for solutions. But if America is facing a crisis of meaning, then we must turn somewhere else. It is a tragedy when a nation belittles the collective function of faith in society, or when they refuse to examine physical realities. It leaves us with only a fork for our soup and a spoon for our steaks. The scientific method can not produce proper values, nor can the Bible teach you how to split an atom. Yet we benefit from both.

There is archeological evidence that we may have started believing in the supernatural as early as the Paleolithic period over two and a half million years ago when we buried our dead in what looks like what may have been preparation for something after death. Of course, we don’t know for sure, but from what we can study, it seems like humans have been talking about God or gods for a VERY long time.

There are evolutionary anthropologists who argue that human beings evolved for belief in God. Evolutionary biologist Bridget Alex wrote in an article in Discover Magazine that there are three distinct human traits that make humans ideal candidates for belief in god — we look for patterns, we infer intentions, and we imitate.

Let me break these down:

Patterns:

We see patterns in the cycles of life — from the sun cycles and seasons to traffic patterns and those times we say to ourselves, “I know where this is going.” We probably DO know where it’s going, because we can recognize the patterns of how it has gone before.

Infer Intentions:

In a murder trial, we rely on the jury's ability to infer what cannot be seen, based on what can. It is a miraculous thing, and we do it all the time.

Imitation:

Humans learn by imitating. We learn to walk, talk, and eat just by watching other people and repeating what they do. If you have ever had the privilege of raising a child, you know babies just imitate everyone around them, and they actually never stop imitating. It just gets more complex.

Imitation was evolutionarily beneficial because it helped us advance. We didn’t have to re-make the wheel or re-discover fire with every new human being, we could just imitate whoever already knew, and pick up where they left off. In the same vein, when we saw that our ancestors' moral code was working, we would just imitate them. We reject inherited wisdom today in exchange for “change” and “new ideas.” But to just blindly reject our ancestor's ideas without thorough examination is not only foolish, it defies the natural human trait that got us this far.

Of course, we don’t just imitate each other. We imitate God, or at least we try to. Jesus was sinless, and great men throughout have done their best to imitate the way he lived — the story of his ministry is the PERFECT imitation. Which humans naturally respond to.

Religious instinct can even be seen in our brains. There is an entire field dedicated to studying this called Neurotheology — where the scientific method is applied to study spirituality through brain scans.

The scientists checked out the brains of everyone from nuns to Sikhs and to atheists, and it turns out our brains actually respond to religious rituals like prayer and meditation. You could understand that from a secular worldview, and propose that our brains have adapted to believing in God over time. Or as a religious person, it would make sense that — if God is real — he designed our brains in a way that we can connect with him.

The neuroscientist Andrew Nerberg wrote,

“If you contemplate God long enough, something surprising happens in the brain. Neural functioning begins to change. Different circuits become activated, while others become deactivated. New dendrites are formed, new synaptic connections are made, and the brain becomes more sensitive to subtle realms of experience. Perceptions alter, beliefs begin to change, and if God has meaning for you, then God becomes neurologically real.”

Listening to Andrew in long-form, it doesn’t seem that he is proposing that faith can be explained away as a trick of the mind, rather, he is observing that the human brain responds to faith as if it's part of its job. Knowing that tells us something about who we are.

That's pretty amazing to think about.

...believing in God has played a huge role in shaping the human race for a very long time.

From our biology to our brains, believing in God has played a huge role in shaping the human race for a very long time.

But now society is becoming less and less interested in religion. Have we evolved to keep up with a lack of faith or will we be left with biological and neurological processes with nowhere to channel them?

Thinking of humans as a broader society over a long period of time, should we be worried about basically quitting God cold turkey?

I think so.

But how much religion do we need? And what is a religion anyway?

The word religion has a multitude of connotations in America today — many are negative. It’s popular among the young, hip and well-connected to shake off the dusty title of “religious” in exchange for the less tainted title of “spiritual.” But the word religious, at least as it meant in the past, may be the key to understanding the seeming chaos of modern culture.

Although some may say that America suffers from a lack of religion, I say the opposite. I say America is hyper-religious and that is becoming our downfall.

We all have VERY different experiences with the word religion — both positive and negative. You have to think of “religion” as a tool. It can be used for good, as it has; or used for evil, as it also has.

Emile Durkheim, a french sociologist who is cited as one of the principal architects of modern social science defined “religion” as:

“A unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden — beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church.”

He said “church” but he wasn’t just talking about Christianity. “Church” was a kind of stand-in word for a religious community, which is a crucial part of the definition of religion itself.

There are other definitions of “religion” but I like his, so let’s use that.

For it to be a religion, it must have:

  • Things that are sacred
  • Things that you do
  • And both of those should work in conjunction to bind a community together.

That is how, even though there is no deity in Buddhism, it is considered a religion just the same as Islam or Christianity. Buddhist practices separate out the holy from the profane and create rituals based on that separation that unify a community of followers, thus it is a religion.

So with that definition of religion, I find it hard to believe that most Americans are truly not “religious” — it's just that many have not clearly identified what their religion really is.

When trying to understand America today, instead of thinking of our culture as non-religious–think of it as hyper-religious. As if religious inclinations are seeping into part of our society. In many ways, America suffers from religious inclinations behaving like trains off the track. The culture minimized traditional religion without accounting for the religious instinct. Now, that instinct spills into everything. It has nowhere else to go. Politics is a religion, race is religion, gender is religion, whether you vax and mask is a religion—religion is EVERYWHERE. If you consider every movement and every political belief as a religious struggle, it will help you understand why we seem to be behaving so irrationally.

Jordan Peterson says that ideologies function as crippled religions — they have the same kind of power but not the level of symbolic complexity. The ideas haven’t been tested and refined across time, so they usually aren’t as good. But they are still very powerful. There are ideologies in the United States that have taken a religious place in our culture.

So if we are religious, who is our “god?”

“God” could be money, politics, fame, social justice or anything that consumes your focus. Whatever wakes you up in the morning and keeps you awake at night, that’s likely your “god.”

In that way, it isn’t that modern America is godless, it is that we don’t know, or at least haven’t named, which god we serve.

If you don’t know which god you serve, or which religion you follow, it isn’t because you aren’t participating in that ancient, evolved human practice. It just means you aren’t really in control of it, which makes you vulnerable to a religion, or a “god” that is malevolent.

Emile Durkheim thought that religion was eternal, but the form it took may change over time — that human beings' religious instincts may be channeled in wholly new directions from one generation to the next. The old “gods'' would die, and new “gods” would take their place.

Reminder: this is “god” in air quotes — "god" as the object of your worship. You can make any person, place, thing, or idea, a “god” for you, and Durkheim noted that THAT “god” could change from generation to generation

So if the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was America’s God during our founding generation, who IS America’s “god” now?

In the Bible, there is a recurring false god in the Hebrew's neighboring lands named Baal, who just may be America’s “god” — at least in a conceptual way…

You may hear the word “Baal” and think of an ancient pagan deity, and in many ways, you're right. But the word Baal itself is not only describing a single god but a pattern of belief. In fact, there are multiple documented “baals''.” It is best to think of baal as a representation of idolatry, with multiple subcategories falling underneath it.

Idolatry means worshiping the wrong God, which is another way to say you’re devoted to the wrong principles, basing your life on a lie, or having your priorities out of whack. It’s going the wrong way, missing the mark, and aiming in the wrong direction.

Baal is a Hebrew word that basically means “owner” or “master.” It implies complete ownership in a very strong sense.

Baal is a Hebrew word that basically means “owner” or “master.”

In Hebrew, not only do the words have meanings, the letters within the words also have meanings — they create a word picture. Also, very important words have the opposite meaning if you read them backward.

It’s as if G-O-O-D meant good and D-O-O-G meant evil, but English isn’t quite as complex in that way.

Since the Hebrew alphabet has no vowels, the letters that comprise the word “ba’al” are the consonants bet and lamed.

We will call them “B” and “L”

So the opposite of Baal — “B L” is “L B”, which is the Hebrew word that essentially means “whole heart.”

The word Baal — “B L” means the exact opposite. It is the opposite of “all heart.” It is valueless and nihilistic. The word ba’al is describing a belief system that says “I am the center of a valueless existence.” That is the picture the word is painting; and that mental framework, or belief system, is being baked into our culture.

Our modern pitfall is believing, or acting as if we believe, that each of us is the god of a world without meaning — a world where there is no truth beyond our personal experience. A world without real value outside of where each of us personally assigns it. Each of us is encouraged to be the god of a meaningless reality.

We are increasingly embracing a subjective understanding of truth, goodness, and beauty. We war with each other like the gods of ancient myths. We determine the value of beliefs by force and coercion. Because we believe there is no objective truth, beauty, or goodness, our values are determined by a court of public opinion, rather than given to us by God, or even inherited from the wisdom of the past.

The court of public opinion is an unbridled and emotionally volatile democracy. It doesn’t matter what the facts of a case are. Truth is not the point. Truth is subjective, thus dead, but “my truth” is worth defending to the death. That is why misgendering someone is described now as violence, because it is an attack on the only real meaning left in the world--which, according to our culture, is what I decide is meaningful. That is how the spirit of idolatry — the spirit of baal is manifesting today.

This new way we look at the world is spiritual, not material. It’s religious, or else it’s insanity.

When someone is driving alone in their car with a mask on, this is no longer a decision based on logic, but on faith.

When a man declares himself a woman, and the culture clamors to affirm him, that isn’t science, that has no material justification, it is faith.

When someone is driving alone in their car with a mask on, this is no longer a decision based on logic, but on faith.

When it is widely accepted and repeated that racism is the connective tissue of modern American society, without requiring the facts to back this claim up, then what we are dealing with is a strongly held system of beliefs — a religion.

When the abortion debate no longer centers on the question “Is the baby alive?” but instead degrades into a discussion of the relative VALUE of that baby's life in comparison to the burden of the mother, then we know our culture has given itself over to value-less (God-less) understanding of the world. Or worse, we see ourselves as god.

The battle of our time is spiritual, not material. It’s a battle of beliefs.

As we devolve into a culture that accepts each of us as a kind of demi-god of our own reality, how could the entire foundation of our nation not fracture at the seams?

Society is fracturing over the most central problem: Who do we serve?

Catch up with the rest of the "Who Is America's God Now?" series here:

This post is part of a series by Glenn and Mikayla G. Hedrick exploring Who is America's God now?

America is currently standing at a fork in the road. Which path we take will determine our fate as a nation.

One path is “we try something entirely new,” as in “not the Constitution,” and the other path is “we go back towards the Constitution,” says Glenn Beck.

The stakes for this decision are higher than they’ve ever been.

“We're deciding this year whether or not our kids are going to grow up in a country that gives them the opportunity to be themselves and to move forward and chart their own course, or we're going to continue to live in a place where we're not sure if our kids are going to have a better life than we did,” Glenn warns.

Regardless of who you vote for, Glenn says that one thing applies to everyone: “You’ve got to get involved this year,” which includes voting.

Election Day is rapidly approaching, and it will undoubtedly be a night that goes down in history, which is why BlazeTV will be broadcasting it live.

“We’d love to share it with you,” says Glenn.

Go to BlazeElection.com for exclusive access to our election night broadcasting. Your BlazeTV+ subscription also gives you access to all BlazeTV content as well as Blaze News.

“Sign up and be a part of the family as we go through this together,” invites Glenn.

Get $40 off your first year of BlazeTV+ with code ELECTION.

TOP THREE craziest leftist reactions to Trump's McDonald's visit

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Over the weekend, President Trump visited a McDonald's in Bucks County, Pennsylvania to serve up some french fries to hungry supporters.

MAGA fans from across the country came to celebrate and support Trump, quickly swamping the small town with a tide of Trump merch. With a roaring crowd outside, Trump cooked up some crispy fries and served them to a small selection of supporters through the drive-thru window, creating a light-hearted, fun momenta pleasant break from the turbulent election cycle.

Naturally, the Left quickly swooped in to rain on Trump's parade. From unsubstantiated fact-checks to overused insults, here are the craziest reactions to Trump's McDonald's trip:

Fact check on Donald Trump's claims about Kamala Harris

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

While working his brief 15-minute shift, Donald Trump quipped that he's now worked at McDonald's longer than Kamala Harris, referencing the Vice President's unsubstantiated claim that she worked at McDonald's one summer during college. McDonald's further substantiated Trump's claim by indicating that there are no existing records of Harris's employment, though they admit that records from the pre-digital age may not have survived to the present day.

Despite the lack of evidence, left-wing media outlets, such as the Washington Post, were quick to defend the Vice President. Their argument essentially put Trump's word against Harris's, suggesting that Trump was deliberately lying to defame the Vice President, while simultaneously treating Harris as a more credible source.

Pointing out the obvious fact that this was a political stunt

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

In what is likely the least informative journalistic piece of the century, MSNBC made the "shocking discovery" that Donald Trump didn't actually work at McDonald's and that the entire event was for his campaign. It's unclear what detail gave this away to the "ever-vigilant" reporters at MSNBC. Maybe it was the fact that McDonald's was closed for the event, or the lack of employees within the restaurant, or possibly it was the crowd of cheering fans outside. Thank you captain obvious, the event was a carefully coordinated and secure political event. The former President who has had several assassination attempts on his life did notwork in an unsecured restaurant, dealing with countless unknown people.

Truly "top-notch" reporting by MSNBC.

Calling Trump supporters "weird"... Again.

LOGAN CYRUS / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times had to really scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with something to paint Trump's fast food fiesta in a negative light. Instead of attacking Trump, they went after his supporters who lined the street to cheer on their favorite presidential nominee. They went so far as to describe the event as a violent riot full of unhinged and uneducated fanatics. The New York Times even quoted a pro-Harris protester who showed up to the event and suggested that "Jan. 6 was maybe a trial run ... and now they’re a lot more organized — and a lot angrier.” The insults didn't stop there. They dredged up the archaic and cringeworthy Tim Walz original calling the Trump supporters "weird." This "zinger" doesn't have the punch the New York Times wanted it to have, and came across as a sad attempt to bring Trump down in one of his high points in his campaign.

RIGGED: Kamala Harris attempts to sway Fox interview in her favor, STILL falls short

Paul Morigi / Contributor | Getty Images

The election is mere weeks away and Kamala Harris just had her first adversarial interview since she began campaigning.

Last week, Harris sat down with Fox News journalist Bret Baier for an interview plagued with difficulties from the beginning. As Glenn recently pointed out, it seemed like Harris had done her best to ensure the interview was intentionally rigged against Baier. Despite being in front of Baier's diverse audience, she did not seem too interested in taking the opportunity to sell herself to a new demographic. Instead, Glenn hypothesized she was just after a quick soundbite to pander to her faltering core supporters.

However, the interview blew up in Kamala's face, and the American people took notice. Here's a rundown of Kamala's first Fox interview:

Rigged Interview

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Harris and her team did everything possible to throw Bret Baier off his game and derail the interview in her favor. It started when Harris's team informed Fox that the interview, which was originally supposed to be an hour, would be cut in half. This left Baier scrambling to reformat his interview to better fit the new time requirement. Then Harris arrived at the interview ten minutes late, further shorting the interview.

The purpose behind Harris's tardiness became apparent during the interview. Every time Baier asked a question, Harris would launch into a lengthy word salad. Baier was forced to interject just so he was able to ask more than a couple of questions. Harris even pushed back, calling out Baier's interruptions, which of course, just wasted more time. Clearly, Harris or her staff realized that she could not sustain a hostile interview for any extended period, which is why Harris tried to filibuster away as much of the interview as possible.

When the brief interview was nearing the end of its allotted time, Harris's staff began signaling to Baier to end the interview. Despite the change in plans and late arrival, her staff was determined to end the interview as quickly as possible.

Harris's Agenda

CHRISTIAN MONTERROSA / Contributor | Getty Images

From the beginning of the interview, Harris was hostile. She was immediately adversarial and would spin every question into a criticism of Trump, no matter how pointed Baier's question was. Several times Harris had emotional outbursts, spewing classic anti-Trump rhetoric, regardless of its relevance to the question asked. Glenn pointed out that this was the reason Harris took this interview. Recently, many of her core supporters have been faltering as her sudden burst of televised appearances has revealed her paper-thin platform. She took this interview to get a good clip of her passionately bashing Trump on Fox News. This would bolster her core demographic, which she desperately needs.

Harris's Fumbles

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite her best efforts to sway the interview in her favor, Baier still managed to pin Harris several times. Harris kept dodging tough questions Baier threw her way with the same tactic: she would promise to "follow the law" then deflect the question back on Trump. One of the more memorable instances of Harris's evasion strategy was when she was questioned if she supported prison inmates having access to taxpayer-funded transgender surgery. Harris insisted she would "follow the law" and then explained that Trump had followed the same law while he was in office. This response was, in essence, a non-answer. Harris was ignoring the obvious fact that as President, she would influence what the law would be and how it is enforced.

Harris's other major blunder occurred after Baier asked her how her presidency would differ from Biden's and how she would "turn the page" on our current situation. In classic Harris fashion, she immediately deflects on Trump, framing our current situation as somehow a byproduct of Trump simply existing within the political sphere. This convoluted web she spun was so twisted that Harris herself lost track of what she was saying gave up, telling Baier, "You know what I'm talking about." Baier admitted he was just as lost as she was, and she simply went back to attacking Trump.

POLL: Are your kids eating POISON?!

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

More Americans than ever are sick, life expectancy is falling, and our children are in rough shape... What happened!?!

In his newest TV special, Glenn delves into the toxic garbage that the FDA allows to be put into our food and the devastating effects it has on our bodies. The stats are staggering: nearly one-third of all Americans have at least one chronic disease, almost40 percent of school-aged kids have a chronic disease, and U.S. life expectancy is at a 20-year low and is still plummeting. Not to mention the skyrocketing rates of ADHD and Autism diagnoses in our children.

Why does the FDA allow our food to be poisoned? Glenn unveils that the FDA is owned by the monopolistic food manufacturers that put the products in the food and by Big Pharma which sells the cure. In fact, 46 percent of the FDA's budget is paid for by food manufacturers, and a whopping 6,500 FDA jobs are funded by Big Pharma. On top of that, it's up to the food manufacturers to run tests, gather data about the safety of their food, and present it to the FDA. Seems like a conflict of interest, don't you think?

Glenn wants to know what you think. Do you/your kids eat foods with toxic ingredients such as artificial food dyes? Do you trust the FDA to keep your food safe? Can the system be fixed? Let us know in the poll below:

Do you/your kids eat foods with toxic ingredients such as artificial food dyes?

Do you trust the FDA to keep your food safe?

Could Trump/RFK Jr. fix/replace the FDA?