The following is an edited transcript from <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1895-president-trump-s-trip-to-the-world-economic-forum-explained-in-5-minutes?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">The Michael Knowles Show</a>.
* * *
What is the broader, deeper vision of the World Economic Forum? Bestselling author Yuval Noah Harari actually sums it up quite well. Harari is close to Klaus Schwab who, of course, was the longtime head of the World Economic Forum. Harari has effectively become the &#8220;court intellectual&#8221; of the WEF, and he has been unusually candid about what he thinks the future holds.
Harari has said openly that as we look into the future, the world is going to be run by artificial intelligence. Anything involving language — up to and including the Bible and religion itself — is going to be taken over by AI.
In his own words, Harari explains it this way:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Yuval Noah Harari speaking at the World Economic Forum just said that AI will soon take control of the Bible, and all the words written in it. The Bible absolutely accepts that challenge. Game on.
&#8220;The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth,… <a href="https://t.co/rA8S6YpQcT">pic.twitter.com/rA8S6YpQcT</a>
— Now The End Begins (@NowTheEndBegins) <a href="https://twitter.com/NowTheEndBegins/status/2013645014937604424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 20, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @NowTheEndBegins/X.com
I’ve thought about Yuval Harari for a while now, and he could not make himself seem more villainous if he tried. He leans into it. He’s auditioning to be the Bond villain. He presents himself as the herald of the end times.
Now, to be fair, he’s not totally wrong about the influence of AI. AI has crept into all of our lives in one way or another. And we even cooperate with it constantly. In that sense, he’s right. But he gets the fundamental things wrong.
First of all, he says Jews refer to themselves as “the people of the book.” That’s a half-truth. Some people say it today, but Jews did not originate that phrase. Do you know where “people of the book” actually comes from? It comes from Islam. It’s a phrase from the Qur’an, used to refer to Jews and Christians in an attempt to present Islam as part of that same tradition.
“People of the book” is a Muslim term that Jews — and some Protestants — later appropriated. But when you really get down to it, setting Islam aside entirely, Judaism and Christianity are not fundamentally religions of the book.
They are religions of sacrifice.
It is true that since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D., Jews gather and conduct religious services in synagogues. But before that, Judaism was a religion of Temple sacrifice. Christianity, crucially, is also a religion of sacrifice. The centerpiece of Christian worship is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: the Blessed Sacrament, Christ in the Holy Eucharist — body, blood, soul, and divinity.
None of this diminishes the importance of Scripture. But Pope John Paul II corrected this misunderstanding beautifully when he said that Christianity is not the religion of a book. It is the religion of the Word of God. We are the people of the Word. Yes, we have Holy Scripture — inerrant and authored by God — but the center point is the Word Himself: the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us.
<div id="attachment_1031405" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1031405" class="size-large wp-image-1031405" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2256691657-864x576.jpg" alt="Yuval Noah Harari, historian and philosopher, during the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2026. The annual Davos gathering of political leaders, top executives and celebrities runs from Jan. 19-23. Photographer: Krisztian Bocsi/Bloomberg via Getty Images" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2256691657-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2256691657-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2256691657-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2256691657.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Krisztian Bocsi/Bloomberg via Getty Images</div>
Once you understand that, Harari’s statement becomes even more jarring. He says that anything involving language, anything involving words, will be taken over and conquered by AI. But if the religion that animates our civilization is the religion of the Word — “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” — then what Harari is really saying is that AI is going to conquer God.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1895-president-trump-s-trip-to-the-world-economic-forum-explained-in-5-minutes?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show</a></h3>
Harari is a smart guy, so he may be aware that this is exactly what he’s saying, even if he doesn’t state it explicitly. And if he’s not aware of it, that somehow makes it even worse.
The belief that AI will conquer God is what a lot of liberal, humanist, materialist, and atheist globalists actually believe. This isn’t the product of a few years or even a few decades. It’s the culmination of centuries of liberal thought. They intend to make their own god, and AI will be that god. They will worship it.
It’s no different from the Old Testament, where pagans worshipped dumb idols that God repeatedly warned them not to worship, lest they become dumb themselves. And that’s exactly what’s happened.
That’s why all these fancy elites, who went to elite schools, who have lots of money and impressive jobs, seem so dumb. That’s why someone like Yuval Harari, who probably has a very high IQ and has read an enormous number of books, ends up saying things that sound so profoundly foolish.
And that’s why you end up needing a guy like Trump to barge in and tell them.

Opening Day Of World Economic Forum (WEF) 2026

World Economic Forum Speaker Says, ‘AI Will Take Over Religion’

World Economic Forum Speaker Says, 'AI Will Take Over Religion'

Artificial Intelligence

Bible

Islam

Klaus Schwab

Koran

Michael Knowles

Scripture

Switzerland

World Economic Forum

It&#8217;s Christmas break, so it seems like an appropriate time <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-251222-member-exclusive?elementPosition=3&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">to discuss</a> one of my favorite books: “The Screwtape Letters,” by C.S. Lewis.
The book is all at once a deep rumination on religion, a high comedy rooted in the hilarity of both humanity&#8217;s flaws and Satan&#8217;s foibles, a tragedy about the nature of death, and a tale of redemption and everlasting life.
It is a spectacularly good book.
When you read “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Screwtape-Letters-Deluxe-C-Lewis/dp/0063487764/?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_w=hmHqX&amp;content-id=amzn1.sym.048a6e3c-8d40-4302-8312-26c626af6738%3Aamzn1.symc.050ea944-f1cf-4610-b462-3b604f2f4082&amp;pf_rd_p=048a6e3c-8d40-4302-8312-26c626af6738&amp;pf_rd_r=KNCVRDB5MGRR1B4K95QR&amp;pd_rd_wg=iizDa&amp;pd_rd_r=4e52d04f-0a0b-4d38-95e4-749c6da85b95&amp;ref_=pd_hp_d_btf_ci_mcx_mr_ca_id_hp_d">The Screwtape Letters</a>,” there are a lot of truly funny moments. Lewis himself said, though, “Of all my books there was only one I did not take pleasure in writing,” calling it ‘dry and gritty going.’ &#8220;At the time, I was thinking of objections to the Christian life and decided to put them in the form ‘That’s what the devil would say.’ But making goods ‘bad’ and bads ‘good’ gets to be fatiguing.”
The book is wildly entertaining because he is obviously writing in the voice of one of Satan&#8217;s minions. In Christian theology, Satan has a will of his own, and he&#8217;s rebelling against God, which makes him a really fascinating character.
Lewis opens the book with a couple of epigraphs, one by Martin Luther: “The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield the texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn,” and one by Sir Thomas More: “The devil, the proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked.”
The book is written from the perspective of Screwtape as letters to his nephew, Wormwood. Wormwood has been given the on-the-ground task of convincing a young man away from his incipient Christianity and Screwtape’s job to advise Wormwood on the best way to procure the young man&#8217;s soul.
This gives Lewis extraordinary leeway to stick and move with Satan, to make fun, to mock, to play with the entire idea. And what emerges is a great work of literature.
There are a bunch of large-scale arguments that Lewis makes in “The Screwtape Letters.” The first one is that Satan&#8217;s best weapon is the “real world.”
That is correct.
If you talk to secular people, they&#8217;ll always say that the spiritual world and God are unreal. The real world is the material world. But then, when you ask them about what&#8217;s important to them, they&#8217;ll talk about their feelings, which, of course, are inherently unreal in the same way the spiritual world is unreal.
This is a point that Lewis makes: the definition of “real” is capacious and changing on a regular basis among secularists. Lewis believes that man&#8217;s draw to the divine can be rooted in reason, and that reason actually guides you toward something beyond yourself. It guides you toward the transcendent.
That&#8217;s an idea that I heartily agree with. I believe that the notion of free will and free choice in the universe guides you toward the idea that there must be something beyond us, that there&#8217;s a logic to the universe that guides you to the question of questions: Who is the Chief Logician, who made the rules?
<div id="attachment_1018735" style="width: 391px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Screwtape-Letters-Deluxe-C-Lewis/dp/0063487764/?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_w=hmHqX&amp;content-id=amzn1.sym.048a6e3c-8d40-4302-8312-26c626af6738%3Aamzn1.symc.050ea944-f1cf-4610-b462-3b604f2f4082&amp;pf_rd_p=048a6e3c-8d40-4302-8312-26c626af6738&amp;pf_rd_r=KNCVRDB5MGRR1B4K95QR&amp;pd_rd_wg=iizDa&amp;pd_rd_r=4e52d04f-0a0b-4d38-95e4-749c6da85b95&amp;ref_=pd_hp_d_btf_ci_mcx_mr_ca_id_hp_d"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1018735" class="size-large wp-image-1018735" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/71NsTMMQuGL._SL1500_-381x576.jpg" alt="Credit: HarperOne" width="381" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/71NsTMMQuGL._SL1500_-381x576.jpg 381w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/71NsTMMQuGL._SL1500_-199x300.jpg 199w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/71NsTMMQuGL._SL1500_-768x1160.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/71NsTMMQuGL._SL1500_.jpg 993w" sizes=" (max-width: 381px) 100vw, 381px" /></a>Credit: HarperOne</div>
Lewis makes the same point, and then he says that the job of the secular materialist is to get you to focus on the thing-in-itself.
Screwtape says,
<blockquote>Even if a particular train of thought can be twisted so as to end in our favour, you will find that you have been strengthening in your patient the fatal habit of attending to universal issues and withdrawing his attention from the stream of immediate sense experiences. Your business is to fix his attention on the stream. Teach him to call it real life. Don&#8217;t let him ask what he means by real.</blockquote>
Thus, keep the person focused on the immediate and the now. There&#8217;s nothing that&#8217;s done this more than the internet age, where our attention spans have been reduced to the next 15 seconds. Sitting and ruminating on life leads you to higher ideas, and if you can prevent people from doing that sort of stuff, you end up with a very materialistic society.
So what exactly does reality mean? According to Screwtape,
<blockquote>People ought to be taught that in all experiences which can make them happier or better, only the physical facts are real, while the spiritual elements are subjective and in all experiences which can discourage or corrupt them, the spiritual elements are the main reality, and to ignore them is to be an escapist.</blockquote>
The idea is that when you&#8217;re thinking about death, the only thing that is real is the death itself. You&#8217;re not supposed to look at the spiritual element of death. Or, if you do look at something that makes you very happy, you&#8217;re not supposed to look at the spiritual element of what makes you very happy. Instead, focus on the pure materialism of the thing. The goal is to enmesh mankind in the world.
Screwtape says,
<blockquote>How disastrous for us is the continual remembrance of death with which war enforces. One of our best weapons, contented worldliness, is rendered useless in wartime. Not even a human can believe that he is going to live forever.</blockquote>
The material world, then, is the chief ally of Screwtape because people desire not to think of God. God is a distraction. God has obligations. God has duties. 
Screwtape says,
<blockquote>Human beings hate every idea that suggests Him just as men in financial embarrassment hate the very sight of a passbook. (meaning a checkbook.)</blockquote>
The idea is that if you&#8217;re not thinking about duty, and then you&#8217;re forced to think about duty, you don&#8217;t like it very much.
The other thing that Screwtape tries to get you to focus on is the future — at all times. If you can focus on the future at all times, then people will be very neglectful of the present.
So says Screwtape,
<blockquote>It&#8217;s far better to make them live in the Future. &#8230; The Future is, of all things, the thing least like eternity. It is the most completely temporal part of time — for the Past is frozen and no longer flows and the Present is all lit up with eternal rays. Hence the encouragement we have given to all those schemes of thought like Creative Evolution, Scientific Humanism or Communism, which fix men&#8217;s affections on the Future, on the very core of temporality. Hence, nearly all vices are rooted in the future.</blockquote>
The idea is, if you&#8217;re thinking about the future, then you&#8217;re not thinking about the spiritual consequences of the things you do in the here and now. You&#8217;re thinking about the material consequences of the things that you do in the here and now, and that allows you to do bad things in the name of a “better future.”
Screwtape says the best thing you can do is convince people that their utopian thoughts are the things that are mandated by God. So on the one hand, you try to get people sunk in reality, and this drives them away from God.
On the other hand, Screwtape advises Wormwood that people should be led to examine their own emotions constantly; if you can be narcissistic, checking yourself all the time, you&#8217;re going to end up without God.
Lewis teaches that very often in life, we engage at the beginning of a task with great enthusiasm, and then the enthusiasm wears away. This happens all the time with a variety of tasks, and once that happens, that is when you encourage people to look into being morose, look into being depressed, to reject the spiritual aspect of their duty, to stop trying to take joy in the spiritual aspect of what they&#8217;re doing, and instead focus on the fact that it&#8217;s just sheer drudgery.
Screwtape says that the rule of thumb for seducing mankind away from God is to encourage people to be unselfconscious when considering sin — to be unabashed, unashamed, blasé about your sin, but to be self-conscious and awkward when you consider acts of faith.
This is modern society in a nutshell. The more you sin, the prouder you should be. You should engage in festivals celebrating your sin. When it comes to going to church, you should be shy: “I don&#8217;t want to be judgmental; I&#8217;ll make you feel ashamed. But when it comes to my sin, man, I will tell you about my sins all day long because we can all be comfortable; we can be the boys when we&#8217;re talking about our sins.”
Screwtape also points out that one easy way to hell is to get people to disregard the individual human beings in front of them in the name of Mankind, writ large. This, obviously, is the project of the Left, which is willing to completely run over its neighbors in order to pursue a &#8220;better world&#8221; for everybody else.
The book has wonderful pieces of advice, even for people who are not totally religious, about how to act better in your inner world, how to treat other people better, and how to have better relations with your spouse.
It&#8217;s a beautifully written book.
* * *
<iframe loading="lazy" title="The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis | Ben Shapiro&#039;s Book Club" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pamEA0RlO7I?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

CS Lewis writing

One Of My Favorite Books: ‘The Screwtape Letters’

One Of My Favorite Books: 'The Screwtape Letters'

Ben Shapiro

Books

C.S. Lewis

Christianity

Great Britain

Judeo-Christian Values

Literature

World War II

It was quite possibly the most remarkable literary friendship of the 20th century. 
As young men, C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien both endured the utter devastation of trench warfare during World War I. Then, as unrivaled evil once again ravaged the European continent during the 1930s and ‘40s, these two Oxford professors produced epic works of fiction, masterpieces imbued with moral purpose and beauty.
Like many lovers of the classics, Joseph Loconte shares a lifelong fascination with Lewis and Tolkien. As a professor and scholar, Loconte marvels at how the writers produced their most beloved works in the dark crucible of World War II. So, why are their novels — and the films they inspired — still considered among the greatest of all time?
Glad you asked. This excerpt from Loconte’s new book, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-Middle-earth-Confront-Gathering-1933-1945/dp/1400247934/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.XOB86YWCWn1uj4Zfk3oqTB9WG9MQQbLwBASgkqr15NWkKfOSXC-5RpcIzhcqguAh6u2mAEA__rlmNbTJXc-q7fuDoUvDpYw_bftz3i-JMZz-OT115AAqgAplDhdZqNRi4ew80IZaX6eRtLnMMl14zg.GtxJWFQj59jzOCdkAcMWFPD19R7M4lvbo1EeMK8gFDA&amp;qid=1763159058&amp;sr=1-3">The War for Middle-Earth</a>,” may help light the way. — Joel Kneedler
* * *
<h3>Minds Lit by Fire</h3>
Halfway through the Great War, on November 30, 1916, a small group of European leaders managed to attend the funeral of Franz Joseph, ruler over the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In a ceremony scripted by the emperor before his death, the Grand Cortege carrying his coffin halted outside the Capuchin Monastery in Vienna, where all the Hapsburg emperors were laid to rest.
What transpired was a whisper from an earlier era, a nod to the transcendence of God and the frailty of men. The herald, on behalf of the emperor, knocked on the monastery door.
“Who is knocking?” shouted the abbot inside.
“I am Franz Joseph, emperor of Austria, king of Hungary.”
“I don’t know you.”
Again the herald shouted: “I am Franz Joseph, emperor of Austria, king of Hungary, Bohemia, Galicia, Dalmatia, Grand Duke of Transylvania, Duke of—”
“We still don’t know who you are,” interrupted the abbot.
At this moment the herald fell on his knees and in front of all assembled declared, “I am Franz Joseph, a poor sinner, humbly begging God’s mercy.”
“Enter then,” the abbot said. And the gates opened.
The funeral of the Austro-Hungarian emperor symbolized an outlook already in an advanced stage of decay. Settled beliefs about the religious dimension to human life were becoming unsettled. Assumptions about the moral life, about the existence of good and evil, seemed to have vanished into the killing fields of the 1914–18 war. By the end of the war, the emotional and spiritual lives of millions of ordinary Europeans were caught up in a no-man’s-land of doubt and disillusionment.
Two of the most influential writers of the twentieth century, J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis, were soldiers in the Great War. They fought in the trenches in France, what one contemporary called “the long grave already dug.” They emerged from the mechanized slaughter of that conflict physically intact—just barely.
No man could pass through the fires of the Somme and Arras and remain unchanged. For Tolkien, his war experience created an enduring sense of sadness. Yet he found that his imaginative cast of mind, his early taste for fantasy, was “quickened to full life by war.” For Lewis, the conflict deepened his youthful atheism: the growing conviction that if God existed, he was a sadist. Paradoxically, the war years launched Lewis on a spiritual quest, a desire for “Joy,” which ultimately led him on a remarkable journey of faith.
<div id="attachment_1000277" style="width: 394px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-Middle-earth-Confront-Gathering-1933-1945/dp/1400247934/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.XOB86YWCWn1uj4Zfk3oqTB9WG9MQQbLwBASgkqr15NWkKfOSXC-5RpcIzhcqguAh6u2mAEA__rlmNbTJXc-q7fuDoUvDpYw_bftz3i-JMZz-OT115AAqgAplDhdZqNRi4ew80IZaX6eRtLnMMl14zg.GtxJWFQj59jzOCdkAcMWFPD19R7M4lvbo1EeMK8gFDA&amp;qid=1763159058&amp;sr=1-3"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1000277" class="size-large wp-image-1000277" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Book-cover-Loconte-384x576.jpg" alt="Cover Design: Thomas Nelson" width="384" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Book-cover-Loconte-384x576.jpg 384w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Book-cover-Loconte-200x300.jpg 200w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Book-cover-Loconte-768x1152.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Book-cover-Loconte-1024x1536.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Book-cover-Loconte-1360x2040.jpg 1360w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Book-cover-Loconte.jpg 1365w" sizes=" (max-width: 384px) 100vw, 384px" /></a>Cover Design: Thomas Nelson</div>
The lives of these two men intersected after the war as they were launching their academic careers at Oxford University. They soon formed a bond of friendship that, given the reach and influence of their novels, must rank as one of the most consequential friendships of modern times.
There was nothing inevitable about it. Tolkien was a devout Catholic; Lewis an Ulster Protestant and lapsed Anglican. At their first English faculty meeting, they circled each other like tigers in the wild. Yet they soon discovered that they loved many of the same things: ancient myths, epic poetry, medieval stories of honor, chivalry, sacrifice, and war.
The theme of war would become a defining feature of their professional and literary lives. Their personal lives would be upended by two global conflicts. Barely twenty years after surviving what was the most devastating conflict in history, Tolkien and Lewis would watch in anguish as new forces of aggression gathered and dominated the geopolitical landscape of Europe.
In 1938, a year before the outbreak of the Second World War, author H. G. Wells terrified millions with a radio broadcast based on his novel The War of the Worlds, in which an imaginary Martian invasion devastates the earth. Art would imitate life. As British historian Niall Ferguson observes, “men proved that it was quite possible to wreak comparable havoc without the need for alien intervention. All they had to do was to identify this or that group of their fellow men as the aliens, and then kill them.” This was the terrible pattern in the aftermath of the First World War. Communism, fascism, Nazism: all produced political systems that drew their strength from their hatreds.
The totalitarian states of Europe and Asia, despite their differences, shared another unifying characteristic: a contempt for the democratic and religious ideals of the West. Their ambitions made another global conflict almost inevitable.
“If the first great war was the seminal catastrophe,” argues historian Sir Ian Kershaw, “the second was the culmination of this catastrophe—the complete collapse of European civilization.” Living and working in Oxford, England, Tolkien and Lewis found themselves at the storm front of this tragedy. Like no other conflict in Britain’s long history, the Second World War created an existential crisis. For many months the political survival of their island nation was an open question.
It was in the crucible of this experience that Tolkien and Lewis sought each other out. The horror of the First World War instigated a cultural backlash, setting loose forces that tore at the moral and spiritual foundations of Western civilization. Both men were determined to fight back. They formed the nucleus of a group of like-minded writers, all resolved to establish a beachhead of resistance in the war of ideas that was raging around them.
The onset of the Second World War created a profound sense of urgency. Tolkien and Lewis came to believe that the soul of their neighbor, as well as the soul of their civilization, hung in the balance. In ways not fully appreciated, the 1939–45 war utterly transformed their lives and literary imaginations. Their most beloved works — including The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity, and The Chronicles of Narnia — were conceived in the shadow of this conflict.
“Talent alone cannot make a writer,” observed Ralph Waldo Emerson. “There must be a man behind the book.” Behind the extraordinary works of Tolkien and Lewis stood a cloud of witnesses: individuals whose contributions to the literary canon of Western civilization provided the inspiration for their epic novels. Both authors instinctively looked to this inheritance and were nourished by it in wartime.
As a result, they acquired something that our modern era has mostly abandoned: perspective. By being rooted in the great books of the Western tradition, they knew where to look for wisdom, virtue, courage, and faith. Intimate knowledge of the past braced them for the crisis years of 1933–45. In this, they reinforced each other’s best instincts. “My entire philosophy of history,” Lewis once told Tolkien, “hangs upon a single sentence of your own.”
Could an entire philosophy of history be summed up in a single sentence? What sentence? It is from a passage in The Lord of the Rings, when Gandalf the Wizard explains to Frodo Baggins something of the ancient struggle for Middle-earth. “There was sorrow then, too, and gathering dark, but great valor, and great deeds that were not wholly vain.” Here is an approach to history — to the terrible history of the twentieth century — that invites reflection.
The lives of Tolkien and Lewis, after all, were embedded in this story when another disastrous war unleashed upon the earth a storm of human misery unsurpassed in the catalogue of world catastrophes. “Middle-earth, I suspect, looks so engagingly familiar to us, and speaks to us so eloquently,” writes biographer John Garth, “because it was born with the modern world and marked by the same terrible birth pangs.” We cannot fully appreciate the achievement of these two remarkable authors until we try to see the world as they experienced it. They possessed a deep awareness of life’s sorrows.
Yet this is only part of their story. Their experience of suffering was held in check by something stronger: gratitude. The Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero called this quality “not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others.” Like no other authors of their age, they used their imagination to reclaim—for their generation and ours—those deeds of valor and sacrifice and love that have always kept a lamp burning even in the deepest darkness.
* * *
Adapted from &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-Middle-earth-Confront-Gathering-1933-1945/dp/1400247934">THE WAR FOR MIDDLE-EARTH: J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis Confront the Gathering Storm, 1933-1945</a>,&#8221; by Joseph Loconte. Copyright 2025 by Joseph Loconte. Published by Thomas Nelson. Available wherever books are sold on November 18, 2025.
* * *
Joseph Loconte, PhD, is an author, historian, and filmmaker. He serves as Director of The Rivendell Center in New York City. He is a Presidential Scholar at New College of Florida and a Senior Fellow at the Sagamore Institute. Mr. Loconte’s commentary appears in outlets such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, National Affairs, The New Criterion, National Geographic, Law and Liberty, The National Interest, and National Review. For ten years Mr. Loconte served as a commentator for National Public Radio’s All Things Considered. A native of Brooklyn, New York, he divides his time between Washington, DC, and New York City.
* * *
<iframe loading="lazy" title="The War for Middle-Earth Book Trailer" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hAv3WNVeJIQ?start=5&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Tolkien Lewis II

Tolkien, Lewis, And The Battle To Save Western Civilization

J.R.R. Tolkien

Oxford University

World War I

This evening, Members of Congress will come together publicly, not to debate or campaign, but to pray for America in a National Prayer Call.
In a first, the House Freedom Caucus and the Family Research Council will host a national call to prayer titled, “Congress Prays for America.” It will unite Members of Congress, Christian leaders, and Americans across the country to do what is desperately needed in this moment: humble ourselves before God and seek His guidance for our nation.
This couldn’t come at a more urgent time. In the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a young Christian leader who devoted his life to calling this generation back to truth and faith, our country is being forced to confront its spiritual crisis. Political violence, moral confusion, and hatred have filled the void where faith and grace once stood. It’s not just a political problem — it’s a spiritual one.
The answer to the kind of darkness America is facing won’t come from another government program or campaign speech. It will come from personal and corporate repentance, humility, and a national return to God.
That’s what this prayer call is about.
For decades, Washington has treated faith as something to be kept private — to be tolerated but never proclaimed. Lawmakers have been told that prayer belongs in the pews, not the halls of Congress. But America’s founders knew better. They opened every session of Congress with prayer because they knew the affairs of men could not prosper without the wisdom of Heaven.
When Congress prays, Members are reminded that we are not the ultimate authority — God is.
On Thursday night, Members will pray for an end to political violence. They will pray for our President, for Congress, for the people impacted by the ongoing shutdown, and for peace and protection in Israel.
The same faith that once guided the founding of this nation can still renew it today. We need a revival of courage, conviction, and compassion in our government. We need leaders who remember that the Constitution protects freedom of religion, not freedom from it.
That’s why this call matters.
When Members of Congress bow their heads together, they acknowledge that the power to restore this nation doesn’t lie in the levers of politics, but in the hands of Providence. God can bring revival to the very place where division has taken root: the United States Capitol.
This isn’t just a national prayer call from Congress. It’s a step toward something our country desperately needs — a spiritual revival and awakening. 
America’s hope doesn’t rest in Washington, but it can start there.
* * *
Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.
* * *
Correction: The previous title indicated a prayer meeting at the Capitol tonight. The prayer call is in fact a teleconference phone call, not an in-person meeting. The revised title reflects that change.

Aerial Shot of Colorful Evening Sky Behind Capitol Building and Washington Monument

Why We’re Hosting A National Prayer Call Tonight: ‘Congress Prays For America’

Why We’re Hosting A National Prayer Call Tonight: 'Congress Prays For America'

Capitol Hill

Christians

Congress

Family Research Council

Freedom Caucus

Opinion

Prayer

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington D.C.

This week, NFL fans launched a petition to have an alternate Super Bowl halftime show featuring country singer George Strait. 66,000 signatures so far. Roger Goodell, however, is not moved. It&#8217;s all in response to the NFL tapping Puerto Rican rapper Bad Bunny for America’s largest stage, giving a platform to a man who openly hates America. 
But not all Puerto Ricans share Bad Bunny&#8217;s sentiment. Samuel Rodriguez is a pastor of Puerto Rican descent who has advised three U.S. Presidents, been a prolific author and movie producer, and has a much different outlook on the United States. In fact, he says the rapper doesn&#8217;t come close to representing traditional Hispanic values. It&#8217;s certainly worth your time. —The Daily Wire
* * *
As an American of Puerto Rican descent, I live in tension. I admire Bad Bunny. He is a generational talent, creative, charismatic, and relentless. He rose from the barrios of Vega Baja to the summit of global culture. He did not inherit wealth or privilege. He succeeded through determination, resilience, and hard work. Even those who do not understand his lyrics recognize his artistry and marketing brilliance. He has become a global symbol of Latino influence.
My admiration, however, stops there. As the world prepares to watch his Super Bowl halftime show next February, my heart aches. For all his brilliance, Bad Bunny misunderstands both Puerto Rico and America. His refusal to stand for “God Bless America” during the Major League Baseball playoffs at Yankee Stadium was not an act of protest, it was a moment of detachment. Millions of us who cherish both the island and the mainland felt that sting. We love America; We appreciate its Christian foundation, promise, and opportunity. Simply stated, we believe God has blessed this nation.
Unfortunately, much of what Bad Bunny stands for and espouses in his music not only fails to resonate with many Hispanics in America, but it also fails to honor and understand the community’s deep love for this country.
<div id="attachment_990159" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-990159" class="size-large wp-image-990159" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2198989165-864x576.jpg" alt="SNL50: THE HOMECOMING CONCERT -- Pictured: Bad Bunny performs on Friday, February 14, 2025 -- (Photo by: Kevin Mazur/Peacock via Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2198989165-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2198989165-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2198989165-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2198989165.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Kevin Mazur/Peacock via Getty Images</div>
I will be the first to acknowledge that America is not perfect. But despite that, it remains blessed. This nation is not anti-immigrant. It supports legal immigration.
Hispanics know this better than anyone. Many of us lived that journey or watched our parents walk it. We support borders and order not out of cruelty but out of conviction. We believe in compassion expressed through law. <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/06/26/trump-harris-latino-voters-2024-election-pew" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.axios.com/2025/06/26/trump-harris-latino-voters-2024-election-pew&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1761311002633000&amp;usg=AOvVaw197pP1ngxt9G7_phoNF8Bb">Nearly half of Hispanic voters supported President Trump in 2024</a>. More than half of Hispanic men did the same. That was not betrayal. It reflected deeply held values.
These traditional Hispanic values — faith, family, and freedom — stand in contrast to much of what Bad Bunny promotes. His embrace of transgender ideology and sexually explicit performances does not represent the Latino family gathered around the table after Sunday church. We love God. We honor family. We understand freedom as responsibility, not rebellion. The Latino vote has not drifted to the Right, it has returned home to convictions that have always defined us.
Hispanics also see dissonance in Bad Bunny’s condemnation of capitalism, given that he lives from its blessings. He has praised socialist regimes such as Venezuela, yet his success story could not exist without the free market. He thrives in a system that rewards risk, creativity, and persistence. One cannot criticize capitalism while enjoying everything it provides.
The Hispanic future in America is not secular, cynical, or socialist. It is spiritual, hopeful, and devoted to freedom. We pray. We protect our families. We work hard. We still believe that God blesses nations that honor Him.
But before all of this, Bad Bunny must recognize one fundamental truth: He is an American. Every Puerto Rican is. We are born citizens of the United States. We do not need a passport to enter this nation, but we do need humility to understand what a privilege that is.
Bad Bunny may not need a passport, but he needs perspective. He needs humility. He needs clarity about what America truly represents for Puerto Ricans and for every dreamer who still believes this country offers the chance to rise.
America is not flawless. Yet it remains the most transformative and opportunity-rich nation in human history. My prayer is that when Bad Bunny steps onto that stage, gratitude will replace defiance — gratitude for a nation that gave a kid from Puerto Rico the chance to conquer the world.
 * * *
Samuel Rodriguez is the lead pastor of New Season and president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC). Rodriguez has advised three U.S. Presidents and is the first Latino to participate in multiple presidential inauguration ceremonies. He is also a best-selling author of 12 books and serves as producer of 7 faith-based films including &#8220;Breakthrough,&#8221; &#8220;Flamin Hot,&#8221; and &#8220;Dream King.&#8221;
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.

Division Series – Toronto Blue Jays v New York Yankees – Game Three

Bad Bunny May Not Need A Passport, But He Does Need Perspective

Donald Trump

Hispanics

Immigration

Music

Puerto Rico

Rap Music

Sports

Super Bowl

So, now what?
In the days since Charlie Kirk was assassinated, flags have been lowered, a suspect apprehended, and a grieving widow has bravely addressed the nation.
But again I ask, now what?
We have proven that as a people, we can kill one another. But how long must we wait until it’s proven we can heal each other&#8217;s hearts?
As enticing as it may be to fight fire with fire, taking up arms in rage would prove just as meaningless and ineffective as sitting back and doing nothing. Neither action matches the high moral standards of the man who was murdered.
I did not know Charlie personally, nor are my beliefs necessarily influenced by his own. Nevertheless, this week, I wept. Wept in a way I likely would not have had his death been the result of an illness or accident, because these tears were more than the reaction to a loss of life — they were the recognition that, for a moment, evil had triumphed over good.
Though malevolence is the price we pay for free will, fortunately, evil of this nature never wins. The gunman’s rifle did not backfire, but his nefarious plan, whatever it was, certainly will. The number of Charlie Kirks this action created is beyond measure.
Words seem so hollow now, but we must not underestimate their effect when compounded. The desired change begins in the heart, expands to the family, and then spreads to the community. Only after these three pillars are fortified will our nation persevere.
While we continue to grieve, and ask more questions than we have answers to, one thought draws comfort: knowing that God’s wisdom and His ways are infinitely higher than our own.
As painful as it is to think of a widowed wife and two fatherless children, as revolting as it is to see so many celebrate this heinous act of wickedness, we must remember, death for a Christian simply means a change of address, and Charlie’s new address is a permanent home the likes of which we can barely comprehend.
May God bless Charlie Kirk, his legacy, and the family he leaves with us here on Earth.

US-POLITICS-TRUMP-INAUGURATION

Charlie Kirk Is Gone. Where Do We Go From Here?

America

Charlie Kirk

Murder

Five days after I left my short stint heading news partnerships at X, a friend texted me with the details of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Assuming I was cooling off after a long period of eating, breathing and sleeping Elon Musk&#8217;s social platform, this note was intended as a simple ICYMI to someone who didn’t miss much – one that I am grateful to have received.
I didn’t know Charlie Kirk, but every aspect of my recent job was influenced by his work. X is the home of countless communicators aiming to follow Kirk&#8217;s pattern of boldness, eloquence, and clarity. I haven’t done the math, but my guess is for every 100 aspiring Charlies, none manage to fill the mold.
Opening X on my phone Wednesday afternoon ushered me into a world I feared was becoming extinct. Post upon post was an appeal to pray. Pray for Charlie. Pray for Erika. Pray for the children. Pray for the hearts, the minds of young people. Pray for a nation divided. Yes, there was a lot of other noise on X – there always is – but the call for prayers was overwhelming.
This was a different call to action than the one I remember witnessing when my Twitter use was beginning to take flight. In 2012, with a 6-year-old, 2-year-old, and 2-day-old at home, I scrolled through post after post after the December 14 shooting at Sandy Hook, encouraging us to shelve the thoughts and prayers and focus on solutions instead of platitudes. As an editor in the Wall Street Journal’s newsroom at the time, I tended to agree the thoughts and prayers line was getting a little old.
I relived that nine years later when a 15-year-old shot up Oxford High School, a short drive from my house. Ethan Crumbley&#8217;s bullets killed and injured classmates, including one who had sat in the backseat of my car on road trips to gymnastics meets. Prayers seemed like a slice of the equation, but damn we needed to do something about guns.
In our world, there is an urgent need for prayerful petitions and also a need for action. But, there is a pecking order.
Utah County Sheriff Mike Smith explained that pecking order Friday during a press conference. After running through the predictable lists of shoutouts to law enforcement and public officials, he paused before saying, “Most of all, I would like to thank the public and specifically I would like to thank the public who turned to prayers and who turned to positiveness for us … we needed those prayers. That’s what we needed to get through this.”
If social media is, as Utah Governor Spencer Cox deemed it during the same event, “a cancer,” its rot lies in its stubborn insistence on trying to replace real life. These platforms can be a tool for good, enabling free speech and breaking down geographic, generational and socioeconomic barriers that limit or prevent physical relationships. However, these platforms – like most media – have little appetite for nuance and too often trick us into thinking that words only have meaning if they are shouted in a digital town hall.
This is delusional. And it is in delusion where evil most comfortably resides, camouflaging itself as anything it can to make its work feel less evil. Anyone who has been introduced to the advice C.S. Lewis’s senior devil Screwtape passes along to his nephew Wormwood, knows that evil is most content when it is considered banal and impotent.
Charlie Kirk’s assassination, specifically its aftermath, reminds us of two important things. One, even the best of us can’t always stand in the way of evil. And, the most effective way to confront evil is by doing the thing that feels most powerless in the fog of war: prayer.
While evil doesn’t walk around wearing a nametag saying “Hello, My Name is ____,” its influence and presence leaves an unmistakable mark in its wake. Cunning and relentless, evil tends to be as persistent as it is crafty. Evil will strike again and that strike will catch us by surprise like it did on 9/11 and nearly 24 years later on 9/10.
In this instance, we are wise to take advice ladled out on X in the wake of a martyr’s death. “Pray, fool, pray.” For our fight is not against flesh and blood but powers and principalities working to tear our union apart.
Imagine a world where social media, for all its ills, drives us to the increasingly unfamiliar spot of being on our knees in a relatively powerless position. That world gives us hope when we realize that being on our knees is actually the most powerful posture there is.
* * *
John D. Stoll is a writer based in Rochester, Mich. He worked for 13 years at Wall Street Journal as a reporter, editor and columnist, leaving in 2020. He most recently ran news partnerships at X.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

US-POLITICS-SHOOTING-KIRK

X’s Algorithm At Its Best: A Push For Thoughts And Prayers

assassination

Social Media

Twitter

Jesus Christ always spoke and acted out of love, but He never sugar-coated the truth. His words, beliefs, and actions offended so many people that His enemies ultimately executed Him because of them. And He warned his followers, “If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first” (John 15:18).
That warning must have been tough for His disciples to hear. It’s tough for us to hear now.
Yet, we’ve seen that special hatred reserved for people of faith at work in the recent attack on Catholic children and teachers in Minnesota and the assassination of Charlie Kirk in Utah.
This brand of hatred is oddly impersonal. It’s aimed at truth itself — maybe, at Truth Himself — and all who dare to speak the truth to people who “preferred darkness to light” (John 3:19).
How did our culture get to this place?
Not so long ago, men and women of courage, integrity, and firmly held religious convictions drew praise and admiration. Today, they are labeled “haters” who must be silenced, stopped, even killed — just for believing truth exists outside of what you and I think. For believing truth is rooted in God, objective, and binding for all peoples for all time. For daring to defend religious views on human gender and sexuality or the dignity of unborn children.
To those who have bought into the lie that we can and should “live our own truth,” we who hold these religious convictions are the problem. But it is not religious conviction that is harming society; it is the lack of it. Our culture has never been more secular, and it has never faced so many problems. Why can’t we be honest and admit that pushing God to the margins has been an absolute disaster?
We see this in the collapse of family life, the breakdown of marriage, children being raised without fathers and mothers, and the epidemic of loneliness that leaves so many people isolated and despairing.
At the same time, there has never been a greater acceptance and celebration of lifestyles that run contrary to faith. Yet, instead of producing the promised peace or joy, they make the problems facing young people — anxiety, depression, and despair — far worse. And remarkably, the faithless double down and blame these issues on religion.
Our darkness will never turn to light until we accept the fact that these struggles are fundamentally and profoundly spiritual rather than political. The more we reject God, the more our culture’s anger, confusion, and despair will deepen. We don’t need less of God — we need more.
If the world were not so gripped by darkness, we might see more clearly that what we are doing is not working. Humanity has lost its way, but Christ came to rescue us because of His deep love. Still, many prefer darkness. The Gospel unmasks us and calls us to change. In the end, we must choose: to step into the light or to cling to the shadows.
Immaculée Ilibagiza, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide, chose the light.
I met with Immaculée the day after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, and though neither of us knew him personally, we spoke sadly of his loss as a defender of the truth.
We also spoke at length about her life’s tragedy: in 1994, after 91 harrowing days in hiding, Immaculée emerged to learn her entire family, except for one brother, had been brutally murdered along with nearly one million of her friends, neighbors, and countrymen. But, by God’s grace, she chose forgiveness and love as her path forward through the sorrow, anger, and unspeakable loss.
Today, Immaculée shares her story as a means of helping others overcome hatred with love through conversion of heart. She radiates the light of Christ, and her life’s story is a witness to the beauty of the truth.
May we, like her, take hope in the promise of the Gospel: “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (John 1:5). May this same light shine once again, breaking through our shadows and darkness, bringing God’s peace, presence, and love to our country and our world.
Father Dave Pivonka, TOR, is President of Franciscan University of Steubenville.
<div>
<div id="post-body-text">
<div class="ep1tdco0 css-fgibv1">
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
</div>
</div>
</div>

Crucifix on the wall

The Light Shines In The Darkness

Catholic Church

Priest

Like many of you, I’m exhausted by the endless cycle of outrage.
Every viral clip is designed to shock us, every headline crafted to rile us up. We spend our days reacting to the brokenness of the world instead of daring to imagine something better. Caught in this endless cycle of reaction, we think we’re fighting the good fight. But we’re not. Reaction is not a strategy, it’s a stall.
Giving in to the rage is not enough to save Western civilization. If we really care about preserving what’s good and true and beautiful in the West, then the work can’t stop at identifying what’s wrong. We have to start creating what’s right. And that responsibility doesn’t only belong to content creators online. It belongs to every single one of us, wherever we are, with whatever influence God has entrusted to us.
We don’t need more rage. We need builders.
The Left understands this. Some six decades ago, the American Communist Party wrote a terrifying long-term playbook for cultural change, and Leftists have worked tirelessly to implement it ever since. That’s why we find ourselves here today, in a society that calls good evil and evil good.
The other side may have gotten a head start. But we still have time to write a different story. Doing so will require ordinary people like you and me to courageously decide to live differently from those who came before us.
That begins with what I like to call quiet acts of courage. These aren’t the kind of moments that will make headlines or go viral on TikTok, but the kind of decisions that ripple outward and change the world.
It’s raising your hand in class when your professor spreads propaganda and calmly offering the truth. It’s choosing to go to church on Sunday morning when the culture tells you faith is outdated and pointless. It’s daring to actually fall in love, commit to marriage, and start a family in an age that glorifies hookup culture and selfishness. It’s choosing to seek out real sources of truth online instead of letting yourself be spoon-fed the easy and ever-present propaganda of mainstream media.
Each of these decisions may seem small, but together, they can be revolutionary. They chip away at the lies holding our society hostage. They model for the next generation what it looks like to live with integrity and courage. And collectively, they create a culture worth defending.
That’s where I hope the Isabel Brown Show comes in.
I will always call out evil for what it is. But this show, and this community we’re building together, is about something more than rage or reaction. It’s about sketching a blueprint for a new American Dream — one rooted in faith, family, and truth — that we can pass on with pride.
So, here’s my challenge to you: stop letting the worst people set the agenda. Start living as though your choices matter — because they do.
Let’s go on offense, with quiet acts of courage that will echo for generations. Together, we’ll create a new American Dream.

IB Flag Image

Is The American Dream Dead?

Communism

Isabel Brown

Marriage

In a recent Daily Wire piece, we argued that discoveries in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-modern-physics-points-to-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener">modern physics point directly to God</a>. In a follow-up, we exposed how some scientists are trying to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-multiverse-scandal-how-academia-is-redefining-science-to-avoid-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener">redefine science</a> — not to advance knowledge, but to sidestep the inconvenient possibility of a Creator.
Believe it or not, there’s another tactic in the academic playbook that’s even more brazen. When there is crystal clear evidence for God or some other thing scientists don’t want to acknowledge, they don’t confront the facts, but spin them. Instead of admitting that design implies intelligence, they claim that the incredible design in our universe is evidence for an infinite chaotic multiverse.
We’ve seen this kind of reasoning before. When facts contradict the narrative, the narrative doesn’t change. Instead, the clear implication of the facts gets twisted.
Defund the police, and then crime explodes? Just say that the real problem is a lack of community programs. Teen mental health collapses after a wave of gender surgeries? The experts insist we need to start even younger.
The pattern is the same: take evidence that clearly undermines your position and spin it as if it supports your position.
Surprisingly, this tactic isn’t limited to politics or culture. It’s happening in the heart of elite physics departments.
You’d think that physicists would stick to hard evidence and cold logic. But when modern science starts pointing toward a designer, objectivity disappears. What follows is a breathtaking exercise in mental gymnastics, and a revealing glimpse at how far some atheist scientists are willing to go to protect their belief that God doesn’t exist.
Let’s take a closer look.
Modern academic culture begins with a core assumption: God does not exist. The universe is purely material, blind, and meaningless. Nature has no goals, no plans, no mind. Against this backdrop, it becomes inconvenient when modern physics uncovers something that looks suspiciously like evidence for a Creator.
In the 1970s, physicists made a startling discovery: the basic structure of our universe depends on a set of precise numbers, known as the constants of nature, built into the laws of physics. These include values like the strength of gravity and the charge of the electron. If some of these were even slightly different, the universe wouldn’t work. No atoms. No stars. No galaxies. No life. Just chaos.
This phenomenon is known as “fine-tuning,” and it’s not about minor coincidences. The numbers are astonishingly precise. In some cases, the odds of getting the right value by chance are worse than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.
So, what’s the simplest, most reasonable explanation? These numbers were set deliberately. That an intelligent cause fine-tuned the universe to produce complexity, order, and structure. In other words, fine-tuning is exactly what you’d expect to see if the universe were intelligently designed.
This was a problem for atheist scientists committed to a godless universe. They couldn’t deny the fact of fine-tuning — the evidence was too overwhelming. So instead, they did what academics often do when facts threaten cherished dogma: they twisted the interpretation.
Their explanation for fine-tuning? The multiverse.
Here’s the basic idea. Some theories in physics, like eternal inflation, suggest the possibility of an infinite number of universes. Now imagine, they say, that each of those universes has different laws and constants. If that’s true, then it’s no surprise that we find ourselves in one that works. After all, we couldn’t exist in any of the countless dud universes without atoms, stars, or life.
Sounds clever. But even if you accept the assumption that an infinite number of unobservable universes exist, there’s still a bigger problem: what’s the actual scientific evidence that the universal laws of nature vary from one universe to another? After all, they’re called “constants” for a reason. Every measurement and observation we have tells us that these numbers don’t change.
Here’s where it gets wild.
One of their main arguments for why the constants must vary is the fact that our universe is fine-tuned. That’s right. The very evidence that screams design is now used to argue for infinite cosmic randomness.
MIT physicist Max Tegmark, writing in <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0302131" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Scientific American</a>, makes this move explicitly. He uses fine-tuning itself as evidence for a multiverse with varying constants:
“Cosmologists infer the presence of Level II parallel universes by scrutinizing the properties of our universe. These properties…have exactly the values that sustain life. That suggests the existence of other universes with other values.”
Let that sink in. The very fact that our universe is perfectly calibrated for life is now used as evidence that other, totally different universes must exist. First, the multiverse was a way to explain away fine-tuning. Now, fine-tuning is offered as proof of the multiverse.
What’s the logic? Since they’ve already ruled out an intelligent cause, the constants must vary — because there’s simply no other way to explain why these numbers are so perfectly set. That’s what passes for logic in elite academia.
How did this inversion become acceptable in a field that prides itself on rationality? Because the foundational assumption is never questioned: God cannot exist. And sometimes, physicists say this outright.
In response to the <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/fine-tuning-argument-for-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fine-tuning argument</a> for God, Perimeter Institute physicist Lee Smolin writes the following:
“This argument is valid only if there is no way to explain how the laws of nature might have been chosen except by invoking the action of some entity outside our universe. You may recall the principle with which I started this book: there is nothing outside the universe. As long as there is a way of answering all our questions without violating this principle, we are doing science and we have no need of any other mode of explanation.”
Smolin isn’t making a scientific argument. He’s laying out a philosophical bias. And he’s clear about it. On the very first page of the book, he boldly writes: “It cannot have been made by anything that exists outside of it, for by definition the universe is all there is, and there cannot be anything outside it.”
In other words, the existence of God isn’t ruled out by evidence. It’s ruled out by definition.
If you start your investigation by excluding the possibility of God, then yes, an infinite number of other universes with different constants becomes necessary. Not because the evidence points there, but because no other option is allowed. But ask yourself: is there any more absurd conclusion to draw from one perfectly ordered universe than the claim it suggests an infinite number of chaotic ones?
Science is supposed to follow the evidence, not twist it to fit a predetermined worldview. And if your worldview forces you to reinterpret what the evidence plainly shows, maybe it’s time to question the worldview.
Start with an open and honest question: Does the universe show signs of an intelligent cause? Once you do, the answer becomes clear. Fine-tuning is not evidence for a multiverse. It is powerful <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/does-god-exist" target="_blank" rel="noopener">evidence for God</a>.
Rabbi Elie Feder, PhD, and Rabbi Aaron Zimmer, host the “Physics to God” podcast.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Artificial intelligence science fiction

How Scientists Are Working Overtime To Deny God

Crime

Physics

Science

Transgender

The intelligentsia is always telling us to “follow the science.” But what happens when “the science” starts undermining academia’s deeply-held beliefs? Suddenly, the definition of science changes — or we’re told we misunderstood it all along.
If you’ve followed the debates over climate change or gender ideology, this story might sound familiar. But what may surprise you is that the same tactics are now at work in elite physics departments around the world. Even the most brilliant minds aren’t immune to bias — or to pushing a philosophical agenda under the guise of objectivity.
So, how is this playing out in the world of advanced physics?
Atheist scientists hold one belief above all: God is fiction. Why? Because God isn’t science. And only scientific claims can be true. Science, they say, explains the universe through natural, blind forces. This picture of reality is supposed to be testable and falsifiable.
But are they still living up to that standard?
In recent decades, physicists uncovered something remarkable. Nature’s laws contain fundamental constants, specific numbers that determine how particles like electrons behave. For years, no one knew where these mysterious numbers came from. Then came the scientific discovery that many of them are finely tuned. Change them even slightly, and the universe as we know it wouldn’t exist. No atoms. No stars. No life.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial&amp;_gl=1*r8odly*_gcl_au*MTQ5MDUzNjQ0NC4xNzQ1ODQ0MzMyLjEwNDAyMzM0NDQuMTc0NzY1MzIxNy4xNzQ3NjUzMjE3*_ga*MTM1OTk4Njg2NS4xNzA2NzE2NTAy*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NTEyOTIzMDQkbzMyJGcxJHQxNzUxMjkyOTI5JGo1NyRsMCRoMA.." target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-75638">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
The implication was hard to miss. An intelligent cause had <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/fine-tuning-argument-for-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fine-tuned</a> the constants to produce a complex, structured universe. That conclusion sounded uncomfortably like God. And many atheist physicists wanted nothing to do with that.
Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind, himself an atheist, explained the fear:
Physicists dislike mixing religion into physics. I think they were somewhat afraid that if it was admitted that the reason the world is the way it is has to do with our own existence, that that could be hijacked by the creationists, by the intelligent designers. And of course, what they would say is, “Yes, we always told you so. There is a benevolent somebody way up high in the universe who created the universe exactly so that we could live.” I think physicists shrank at the idea of getting involved in such things.
But if the evidence pointed to God, scientists had a choice: follow it, or explain it away.
Enter the multiverse: an infinite set of unobservable universes, each with different laws. If the multiverse exists, then finding ourselves in a fine-tuned universe isn’t all that surprising. With infinite tries, some universes are bound to support life. And naturally, we’d only ever find ourselves in one of those.
Sounds clever, but here’s the problem: science requires observation and testability. One of the most renowned physicists of the prior generation, Richard Feynman, stated clearly: “All scientists will agree that a question — any question, philosophical or other — which cannot be put into the form that can be tested by experiment…is not a scientific question.”
By definition, an infinite number of unobservable universes can’t be tested by experiment. By Feynman’s standard, and that of virtually all scientists for the past 300 years, the multiverse is not science.
So, what does academia do when faced with this problem? It tries to change the rules.
Physicist Bernard Carr openly argues for redefining science: “It is surely dangerous to impose a philosophical prescription that prevents scientists from changing the border of their field. As Susskind cautions, it would be a pity to miss out on some fundamental truth because of an over-restrictive definition of science.”
In other words: if the multiverse doesn’t fit the definition of science that’s guided discovery since the Enlightenment, no problem — just redefine science.
As if redefining science weren’t bad enough, some scientists go further. Johns Hopkins physicist Sean Carroll boldly claims that falsifiability was never a requirement of science:
The ways in which we evaluate the multiverse as a scientific hypothesis are precisely the ways in which hypotheses have always been judged. The point is not that we are changing the nature of science by allowing unfalsifiable hypotheses into our purview. The point is that “falsifiability” was never the primary criterion by which scientific theories were judged (although scientists have often presented it as such).
So, Feynman got it wrong. Einstein too. Generations of scientists? All mistaken. Or so we’re now told.
How long before textbooks are rewritten to teach students that science doesn’t require testing, observation, or falsifiability? We’ve seen this play before, and it doesn’t end well.
This isn’t just semantics. Redefining science erodes public trust in real, tested science. If untestable multiverse theory now falls under the esteemed banner of science, how is anyone supposed to tell the difference between the real thing and its impostor version?
Fortunately, some scientists have sounded the alarm about these shifts. George Ellis, a leading physicist, has warned bluntly:
The foundations must be respected if one is to preserve the core features of science that have led to its phenomenal success: that is, the feedback from reality to theory provided by experiment and observational testing. One abandons that at one’s peril&#8230;it is dangerous to weaken the grounds of scientific proof in order to include multiverses under the mantle of “tested science”.
Ellis is right. If science is to remain credible, scientists need to stop playing word games. Fine-tuning in our one, ordered universe is a real scientific discovery. But it most certainly doesn’t point to an infinite, chaotic multiverse.
The bottom line? The <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/is-the-multiverse-real" target="_blank" rel="noopener">multiverse isn’t science</a>. It’s a speculative philosophical idea — and not even a good one. Passing it off as science is dishonest. These scientists are hijacking the credibility of science to promote a weak philosophical theory that can’t stand on its own.
We’re not saying God is a scientific theory. That would be dishonest. What we are saying is that science<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-modern-physics-points-to-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> points to God</a>. Because when you follow the evidence, the most straightforward explanation for fine-tuning is an intelligent designer.
And if academics really believe in “following the science,” then maybe it’s time they followed it themselves — all the way to God.
Rabbi Elie Feder, PhD, and Rabbi Aaron Zimmer, host the “Physics to God” podcast.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Space warp travel trough universe

The Multiverse Scandal: How Academia Is Redefining Science To Avoid God

Academia

universe

For years, we’ve been told that science made God unnecessary.
Atheism had won. God was for the weak-minded. Rational people read Richard Dawkins and watched Neil deGrasse Tyson and Alex O’Connor. Religion, they said, was just a fairy tale.
But as science progresses, that story is beginning to unravel.
Far from removing the need for a Creator, modern physics increasingly points toward one.
Why? Because the deeper scientists dig into the universe’s fundamental laws, the more they encounter a startling truth: the universe appears to be fine-tuned. Not vaguely-tuned, but astonishingly, exquisitely, fine-tuned.
But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. To understand what fine-tuning actually means, let’s first look at how this discovery came about.
At the foundations of our universe, physicists discovered about 25 physical constants — unchanging numbers that define the structure of reality. You might not have heard of numbers like the fine-structure constant or the cosmological constant, but they are crucial. They determine how atoms hold together, how stars form, and how fast the universe expands.
The big question was, how can physicists explain these strange numbers? Before the discovery of fine-tuning, physicists had two unsatisfying possibilities: either the constants are just brute facts with no explanation, or some deeper law might eventually explain all their seemingly random values.
Since these solutions were neither satisfying nor plausible, Richard Feynman — one of the most celebrated physicists of his time — called explaining the constants “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics.”
Then came fine-tuning.
Scientists slowly realized that if some of these constants were even slightly different, the universe would be completely chaotic, lacking all complexity and structure. No galaxies, no chemistry, no life. It’s almost like the values of the constants have a purpose in producing our complex universe.
Take the cosmological constant. Its value is about 10 to the power of negative 122. That’s a decimal point followed by 121 zeros and then a 1. If it were even a bit lower or higher, the universe would either collapse back on itself or expand so rapidly that no structures would ever form.
Does that seem like a cosmic accident? No one — not even atheist physicists — thinks that. It’s a bit like finding a safe with a trillion-digit combination already set perfectly. That’s not something anyone can reasonably attribute to blind chance.
Once fine-tuning was discovered, the two earlier explanations — that the constants are brute, necessary facts or the result of an unknown deeper law — became nearly impossible to defend. These ideas were only somewhat plausible back when the constants seemed arbitrary, and the challenge was simply to explain their mysterious values. But neither pure necessity nor blind mathematical inevitability accounts for why the constants fall exactly where they do. To continue placing faith in those explanations, despite what fine-tuning reveals, is to ignore the weight of the new evidence.
So, what’s the alternative?
One explanation is <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/fine-tuning-argument-for-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener">straightforward</a>: the universe is fine-tuned because it has a fine-tuner. An intelligent Creator set the parameters needed for generating a complex and ordered universe that’s full of atoms, molecules, planets, stars, galaxies, and life.
At this point, critics often respond: “You’re just using God to fill in the gaps! That’s the old ‘God of the gaps’ fallacy.”
But that misses the point. This isn’t about ignorance. It isn’t a case of “We don’t know, so it must be God.” This is all about what we do know. We know the values of the constants. We know they are fine-tuned. And we know that when a system is exquisitely calibrated, it suggests an intelligent calibrator. That’s not filling a gap in our knowledge — it’s drawing a clear inference from established scientific evidence.
Yet, for many in the scientific community, the idea of God isn’t seen as a legitimate option — not because science rules it out, but because of prior philosophical prejudices. So, instead, they turn to an alternative: the multiverse.
The multiverse hypothesis posits an infinite number of unobservable universes, each with different physical laws and constants. In such a scenario, anything that can happen does happen — somewhere. Of course, in an infinite multiverse, there would be at least one universe with just the right conditions for life — and that’s the one we happen to observe. After all, we couldn’t exist in any of the countless, lifeless universes where complexity never forms.
This is sometimes presented as a clever way to explain fine-tuning without God. But that impression fades once you consider what an infinite multiverse actually implies.
Physicist Alan Guth said it best: “Anything that can happen will happen; in fact, it will happen an infinite number of times.” So, in an infinite multiverse, there are universes where George Washington is still alive. Where you’re president. Where unicorns are real. Where Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs exist.
We’re not joking. That’s what the theory implies.
After all, in an infinite collection of universes, every possible arrangement of atoms must exist somewhere. With infinite universes, science begins to blur into science fiction.
The trouble is, no one has ever observed another universe. By definition, an infinite multiverse is untestable, unfalsifiable, and unobservable. It’s not a scientific theory in the usual sense — it’s philosophical speculation dressed up as science, aimed at avoiding the clear implications of fine-tuning. And that’s just the beginning. From here, the <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/is-the-multiverse-real" target="_blank" rel="noopener">problems with the multiverse</a> only get worse.
So, let’s consider where this leaves us.
On one side, theists point to the measurable, precise fine-tuning of nature’s constants. We observe one universe — ours — and it appears finely set up for atoms, planets, stars, and life. On the other side, atheists propose an infinite number of unobservable universes to avoid the possibility that ours was fine-tuned.
Now, ask yourself: which seems more rational?
Science has brought us to a turning point. The fine-tuning argument is no relic of ancient theology. It’s a modern, scientifically-grounded case for an intelligent cause of the universe. The resistance it provokes stems not from a lack of evidence, but from discomfort with what the evidence implies.
In the end, modern physics offers us a glimpse into the deep structure of reality. And what we find is not chaos, but extraordinary order and purpose. The universe is fine-tuned. Fine-tuning points to a Fine-Tuner. If we’re serious about science, we must be equally serious about following the evidence wherever it leads — even if it <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/3-proofs-of-god-from-science" target="_blank" rel="noopener">leads us directly to God</a>.
Rabbi Elie Feder, PhD, and Rabbi Aaron Zimmer, host the “Physics to God” podcast.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Low Angle View Of Silhouette Man Against Star Field

Why Modern Physics Points To God

Outer Space

Menu

God