God isn’t dead. He’s just too old and too out of date. He’s just so… so… unscientific.

At least that’s what Dan Brown, the author of “The DaVinci Code,” thinks. Brown has written a new book, “Origins,” that basically asserts that mankind no longer needs God, but can replace religion by developing a new form of “collective consciousness” with the help of artificial intelligence.

And so Dan Brown wants you and me to say to God what Donald Trump repeatedly declared on “The Apprentice” show before becoming president of the United States – “You’re fired.”

Brown doesn’t pussyfoot around with his hostility toward God or the notion of any kind of supreme being. “Our need for that exterior god, that sits up there and judges us… will diminish and eventually disappear,” he proclaimed.

Sadly, Brown’s sentiment is being echoed by many in our world today who believe God is irrelevant, irritating and downright inconvenient. He cramps our style. He gets in the way. He kills our buzz. In a time when intolerance and judging is condemned, we have judged that we don’t like the Judge; He’s intolerable.

If there were ever a mantra for today’s know-it-all generation, it’s “Don’t tell me what to do; don’t tell me what to think.” These are the people who are living examples of “Invictus,” the famous poem by William Ernest Henley: “I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul.”

This is the ultimate declaration of independence. It’s the arrogant message to God that says, “I don’t need you. I don’t want you. Take a hike. Leave me alone. Forever.” It’s the moral equivalent of giving God the middle finger.

In short, people who have jettisoned God are saying to Him, “Thanks, but I’ll take it from here. I’ll take my chances.” Or better yet, they follow the dubious advice of Frank Sinatra, “I did it my way.”

C.S. Lewis, the former atheist, reminds us that there are two kinds of people – one who says to God, “Thy will be done,” and one to whom God says, “thy will be done.” If we want to have nothing to do with God, then He, as the perfect Gentleman, will leave us to our own devises. He will set us free and let us suffer the consequences of our own choices. And it’s not pretty.

So if God isn’t ruling the universe, who is? Brown seems to think that humans are in charge. It’s as if we, ironically, have a kind of “divine right” to self-rule [now there’s a scary thought]. But it’s not that we cease to be “unspiritual.” Brown has conveniently come up with a new religion, of sorts. He said at a booksellers convention in Spain last year, “We will start to find our spiritual experiences through our interconnections with each other.” How comforting.

Instead of being in touch with our Creator, our new religion is one of being in touch with one another as creatures. Brown said that in the not-too-distant future, there will be the emergence of “some form of global consciousness that we perceive and that becomes our divine.” Perhaps we should all stand and sing in unison “We are the world” instead of “Kumbaya.” A group hug might even be in order.

Amusingly, Brown calls for greater harmony between the world’s great religions and those who profess no faith: “Our religions are much more similar than they are different.” With all due respect, this is one of the most ridiculous statements ever made. Belief in God and no belief in God are not similar; they are polar opposites. They are in conflict. Brown has violated the fundamental law [not theory] of non-contradiction: the principle that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. White isn’t the same as black. Light isn’t the same as dark. Right isn’t the same as wrong. Sorry, but it’s just stupid to think so.

But enough about logic. Let’s talk a moment about this “collective consciousness” thing. Basically, Brown believes that human beings, not God, determine what is right and wrong. Brown didn’t invent this concept; it’s the brainchild of Protagoras, a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher. Protagoras came up with the notion that man – not God – is “the measure of all things.” The belief that people, not God, determine the rules for society, is better known as humanism.

However, in order for humans to decide what is right or wrong, what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior, one needs to have standards. Enter the notion of majority rule. This idea says that if more people believe something is “right” than others, then the majority dictates. It’s a numbers game.

Sounds fair and reasonable, but is it? Not necessarily. Walter Williams gives us an important history lesson: “The Constitution’s Framers feared tyranny of the majority. Despite public consensus, there’s nothing inherently just or fair about majority rule. In fact, one of the primary dangers of majority rule is that it confers an aura of legitimacy and respectability on acts that would otherwise be deemed tyrannical…. James Madison said in Federalist Paper Number 10 that ‘Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but the superior force of an interested and overwhelming majority.’”

In other words, just because a majority of humans make up a new set of rules doesn’t guarantee that they are right, moral, safe, healthy, or wise. Madison was warning us about the dangers of majority, the exact thing that Brown is espousing as a new moral majority. Madison was telling us to beware of simpletons posing as sages.

The great irony is that in the new world order mere humans decide what is right and wrong as if they know it all, despite the fact that God alone is omniscient. One only need look at the life and logic of the former atheist, C.S. Lewis for insights into this foolishness. He admitted that, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”

Lewis had to come face to face with the fact that something or Someone greater than himself determined what was “straight” and what was “crooked.” If mankind played the “ought to” card, then who came up with the idea of “ought to” in the first place?

Apart from God, man has no clue what is crooked and what is straight; what is just and what is unjust; what is right and what is wrong. God isn’t optional. God is necessary. God isn’t a “might exist,” but a “must exist.” Without God, mankind wouldn’t be here. As it says in the Psalms, “It is He who has made us and not we ourselves.”

It truly is hubris for humans to think they are sovereign and in charge. It is nonsensical to believe God doesn’t exist, or if He does exist, He isn’t in control. Psalm 14:1 reminds us that, “The fool says in his heart there is no God.” Note that it doesn’t say that the fool says in his mind that God doesn’t exist. He knows that it’s illogical for the creation to exist without a Creator; for the universe to exist without a Unifier; for something to come from nothing. It’s not man’s mind, but his heart – his willfulness – that says that God doesn’t exist.

What Dan Brown is espousing is not a new or modern idea, but a very, very old idea. It’s what Satan said to Eve in the garden long ago – that men and women can become their own “gods.” Brown wants humans to replace God as the rule maker. But that is problematic. What if the majority of people agreed with Hitler that it was okay to kill Jews? Or the disabled, the “useless eaters,” as the Nazis referred to them? What if we agreed with Darwin that the “weak” among us should not be cared for but be allowed to die off (that includes a wide range of people, from those with Down Syndrome to MS to diabetes to cancer to spina bifida to cerebral palsy to multiple dystrophy to heart disease to visual impairment and many other disorders). Unchecked, majority rule can be deadly.

My good friend, Dr. Frank Turek summed it up well in his book, “Stealing from God”: “But what is the source of objective truth? It can’t be changeable, fallible human beings like you or me. It can only be God whose unchangeable nature is the ground of all moral value. That’s why atheists are unwittingly stealing from God whenever they claim a right to anything. There isn’t such a standard in the materialistic universe of atheism. So atheists must steal the grounds for objective moral rights from God while arguing that God doesn’t exist.”

The Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, warned us of the worldviews of people like Dan Brown. He said, “You should know this, that in the last days… people will love only themselves and their money. They will be boastful and proud, scoffing at God, disobedient to their parents, and ungrateful. They will consider nothing sacred…. They will be puffed up with pride, and love pleasure rather than God” (2 Timothy 3:1-4).

We would do well to push back on the notion that God is irrelevant. Men and women are limited in their knowledge, which is why we should never trust humans to rule in matters that belongs solely to God. Collective consciousness might sound harmless — it might even sound sophisticated — but in the end, it is a recipe for disaster. The kind of flawed collective consciousness Dan Brown advocates will lead to mass chaos. “As for God, His ways are perfect” (Psalm 18:30). Enough said.