Humanists also have their Babel-like, do-it-yourself kit religion. They call it science. It, too, reflects man’s continued rebellion. Modern man hopes to conquer the atom, space, and all disease and thus become immortal master of the universe. The materialist’s “heaven” is a peaceful cosmos populated by highly evolved, space-traveling civilizations that have restored paradise through super technology.
Rank materialism leaves the soul empty, but adding a touch of religion to science seems to fill the void while keeping faith “rational.” There is no more deadly delusion than a scientific religion. It is the delusion of Babel all over again, with advancing knowledge building the steps that both lead man to “heaven” and open to him the very powers of God.
One of Christian psychology’s major appeals to evangelicals is its false claim to being scientific. It fails, however, the litmus test of Exodus:20:24-26. Its altars are built of the cut and polished stones of human wisdom, its rituals are not found in Scripture, and self rather than God is the ruler. Moreover, on its altars burn the strange fires (Leviticus:10:1; Numbers:3:4) of humanistic theories unacceptable to man’s Creator.
Religious science is a major element in the environmental movement, where the earth is increasingly viewed as sacred. Ecotheology, says a Georgetown University professor, “starts with the premise that the Universe is God.” “If we must worship a power greater than ourselves,” was Carl Sagan’s advice at the height of his popularity, “does it not make sense to revere the Sun and stars?” No, it does not make sense for personal beings to revere impersonal things. They ought rather to worship their Creator. To draw closer to and thus better observe and worship the heavenly bodies was a major purpose of the Tower of Babel. Worshiping “Mother Earth” is the same folly and rebellion against the true God.
The environmental movement, too, is a humanistic attempt to restore the lost paradise of Eden without repenting of rebellion against the Creator. Concern for “endangered species” by those who believe in “natural selection/survival of the fittest” is an obvious contradiction. Only those stubbornly determined to remain atheists could persist in defending evolution, which works by wiping out weaker species, and at the same time express concern for endangered species, a concern that evolution itself rejects.