That's their problem, not ours. While we certainly understand why many people are taking anti-religious stances these days, that does not mean that a science-based system has to defer to religions, considering all of the territory traditionally claimed by religions to be off-limits to anybody who is thinking rationally. The function of a belief system is to organize thoughts into a productive framework for healthy living. So the principles of natural law have to be compressed into practices, and expressed as advice. To package up all of the advice, we can then construct an imaginary person who understands the principles, and who can explain them to us on demand. The utility of bringing all of the advice together into an imaginary person is that it gives us the ability to check for consistency, and to interpolate between known points. In other words, simple facts are just facts, and do not suggest other facts, but humans can induce patterns and deduce implications. So if we plug the facts into an imaginary human, we can then expect the human to start inducing and deducing, thereby extracting additional value from the information. Of course, we're actually the ones doing the inductions and deductions, but the imaginary person serves as the vehicle that gets these processes moving for us. To go beyond the limitations of fallible mortals, we then imagine an impossibly perfect human, who knows all of the principles, and can make them uncommonly clear. Such a conception is something that we can continue to develop over a period of time, making the imaginary person better and better, as we learn more about the kinds of words we should be putting into that person's mouth. As this conception emerges, what is it? We could coin our own term for it, but the bare-faced fact is that it will be functionally identical to existing conceptions of God. The only difference is that this conception reduces to natural law, and we can examine the derivation of the personification, modifying it with new scientific findings as they become available. But in practice, it will walk and talk just like God. In our opinion, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck, and if it walks and talks like God, then it is God. Calling it by any other name doesn't change the nature of the thing, and insofar as there are well-known problems with personifications, it is more useful to blatantly state that we're contemplating conceptions of an all-knowing deity, such that we remember the problems that need to be addressed. Then we can add stipulations that this conception of God is not to have such problems. For example, we might find existing theologies to be intolerant of new views. So we stipulate that this imaginary person is open to all views, while (somehow) possessing the wisdom to keep it all straight. And then we query the construct for how it would treat a new view in question. But if we refuse to personify the principles, because we don't want to commit the same errors as existing religions, we will simply develop no clear concept of what we're talking about, while if we do personify the principles and don't acknowledge that such is religious thinking, we're liable to commit all of the same errors, for all of the same reasons.