Who or what is God?

The scientific elite offer themselves as substitute for God

Quotes and comments;

1. "And even though some may find it distressing that science recognizes no god, forcing it to do so will only produce bad science." (editorial rant in Nature/1.)

- People who say 'science' doesn't recognize any god don't know how to write. Science isn't a person and can't recognize anything.

- Scientists who believe they don't recognize any god are mistaken; they recognize themselves as god. The idea men (some elites) can do whatever they want is evidence some people imagine they are god; that they have some right to play god over other people. This belief in no way allows them to escape god; in fact they've made themselves god... and all the rest of us must obey them, and suffer their assaults on us.

- This is an interesting bit of bravado. Why does the author of this piece of religion bashing personify science? Why doesn't he say scientists instead of science? If he did (and he should have) his sentence would read 'scientists recognize no god.' But this would be both false and a bit too bold I guess. The only correct way for the sentence to be written is; 'many scientists don't recognize a god.' (But even that would be false as they recognize themselves, or the State, as god.) The claim that to recognize god leads to 'bad' science is simply false. So the whole thing ends up being nonsense.

- the rest of us are expected (of course) to recognize the new god of science, or scientism, or the scientific elite... however you want to describe it. (And yes I do find that distressing.) The secular elite have worked hard to destroy language; to use words as weapons. They've succeeded in destroying words like god and religion; and so we must use other words; creator, belief system, world view, etc. Instead of using the word God we can use the term 'ultimate authority' - for this is what God is. God is the ultimate authority, and lawmaker. So when evolutionists say they don't recognize any god they're just blowing smoke; they recognize themselves and they recognize the state. We all bow the knee; some to false gods (like the state, like human desire) and some bow the knee to the creator of heaven and earth. Take your pick.

- If people like this are going to use the word god we have eveery right to demand they define the word they're using. To the Christian God refers to the supreme being portrayed in the bible; to man's creator and savior. Since the materialist doesn't believe that, he needs to define god in secular terms or not use the word. No one can escape the doctrine of God; man either accepts the creator or makes a god out of some other idea, or institution. Ultimate authority is an inescapable concept. There are basically 3 options; the creator, the self, or other men. Modern man is a polytheist, and he holds both Self and the State (other men) to be gods. (These aren't the only gods modern man has. The minor gods include; science, democracy, sports, sexual perversity, etc.)

Note;
1. Tony Reichhardt, “Religion and science: Studies of faith,” Nature 432, 666 - 669 (09 December 2004); doi:10.1038/432666a.
2. Dictionary definitions of god;
- something that dominates: something that is so important that it takes over somebody's life ( informal )
worshiping the false god of fame. (Encarta)
- a person or thing of supreme value (Mirriam/Webster)
- A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard. Webster's/1913.
- Any person or thing exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good. W/1828
3. Some other definitions of god; ultimate authority; source of law; who or what you'd like to have defend you in a fight; source of greatest power.
- as there is only one true God (the creator of heaven and earth) there is only one true definition. (Definition is the wrong term.) If men reject the Creator they must come up with substitutes. These substitutes must to some extent take the place of god in terms of attributes; and so have power, authority, rule, knowledge, etc.
- the problem with what we might call 'Greek' philosophy is that definitions tend to be generic, or nominal. Biblical Christianity on the other hand gives concrete definitions. Greek definitions tend to be idealistic, a matter mainly of words and names, of imaginary conceptions. Under the Greek influence language degenerates into a word game. (e.g. god can stand for almost anything, whereas in Christianity God must have only one definition.)
4. A major problem that arises when people reject the true God, is that they replace Him with a false god. (e.g. Statism, scientism, Materialism, etc.)
4. I get tired of the false claim science only began to develop under atheists. (I guess this nonsense is what passes for scholarship in the modern university.) Scientific study was alive and well before Darwin ever came on the scene.