A few years ago, Al Franken wrote a “satire on the breakdown of civility in public discourse.” He called it, Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot. Franken’s point was that Limbaugh became popular by polarizing people. Franken made that point by writing as polarizing a book as possible.
We see this polarization in the current presidential campaign. Obama has become popular because he promises a way out of the polarization. Hillary’s response is to polarize Democratic voters against Obama, and it seems to have worked: two weeks ago, polls showed that Hillary supporters would vote for Obama if he became the nominee; after the Texas-Ohio primaries, polls showed her supporters to be more hostile of him.
Where Al Franken got it wrong is in assuming that civil discourse has broken down in recent years. In fact, polarization has always been a part of American politics. Go back to 1884, when one candidate called the other “the continental liar from the state of Maine,” while the other labeled the first the father of a bastard child (“Ma, ma, where’s my pa? Gone to the White House, ha ha ha”).
Or go back to 1860, where some people were so unhappy with the election result that they tried to secede from the union. Now that’s polarization!
When we don’t have big issues, like slavery or war, to polarize about, we polarize about small issues, like should there be a national bank (1824) or should a Catholic be president (1928). No matter how important the issue, the debate was just as shrill because polarization is a key organizing tool in politics: you persuade potential followers to coalesce behind you by demonizing your opposition.
Basically aimed at making men fertile, it also has a buy cialis article canadian pharmacy for viagra role in hiking libido, upon which the person gets aroused for performing intimate acts. You can simply go with viagra generico 5mg any of the choice to take the right pharmaceutical is exceptionally vital. You have to refill them every month for the coming 4 to 6 months which will eventually cost more than a pump. viagra prices canada However, sometime later on these unwanted effects stop showing up. discount levitra http://davidfraymusic.com/david-frays-concert-at-municipal-theater-of-santiago-receives-praise/
It is often said that Republicans hope Hillary wins the Democratic nomination because she will be easier to demonize than Obama. And I’ve sometimes said I would rather have Hillary as president because, on the issues I work on, she will be easier to demonize than George Bush — whose initial appointments in charge of the EPA and US DOT both supported smart growth.
While I am willing to use polarization, my goal is to depolarize as many issues as possible, and the only way to do that is to depoliticize them. Socialists are fond of saying that everything is political, but that’s only because they try to make them political.
To a large degree, you get to make many personal choices in your life, such as the food you eat, the clothes you wear, and the type and location of the home you live in. You have freedom to make these choices because we have decided to leave these types of choices to the marketplace.
Though some people are trying to politicize some of these choices — eating foie gras, wearing fur, living in single-family homes — we are better off when such choices are left to individuals rather than the government. This is partly because politics reduces the civility of public discourse, but also because when the political process makes a mistake — which is often — the consequences are both greater and harder to fix than when individuals make mistakes in their day-to-day lives.
This all helps explain why I am an antiplanner. Government planning invariably becomes political, which means it invariably becomes polarized. Planners may not agree, but on most issues I think we are better off if debate remains civil and if decisions remain with the individual.
Though some people are trying to politicize some of these choices  eating foie gras, wearing fur, living in single-family homes  we are better off when such choices are left to individuals rather than the government
I, for one, am glad that some governments ban the consumption of cats and dogs by individuals. But then, I guess I’m polarizing like that.
Along those same lines: how does the Antiplanner feel about “individual” animals’ decisions not to be eaten or worn?
In the Antiplanner’s world, individuals should be able to poach, maim, torture, etc. any animal they want.
Why? Because that’s their right! They’re individuals! Anything else is polarizing!
Oh: and individuals should be able to destroy as much wildlife habitat as they want, too.
So go forth, good Antiplanners. Rape and pillage ’til your black hearts are content.
Not all legislation, especially criminal law related, is political, D4P. A certain degree of law is required to maintain our society and I don’t see the Antiplanner’s article arguing against that at all. He just believes that most of the items that are legislated are frivolous and unnecessary. Frankly, there’s quite a bit of evidence that backs that statement up. Where we may disagree with the AP is in what is frivolous and what isn’t.
I believe that the treatment of animals should not be left up to individuals, but should be regulated.
The Antiplanner believes that such regulation is frivolous.
I guess that ends the discussion.
PS: Show me some examples of the Antiplanner arguing that “A certain degree of law is required to maintain our society”.
As I have said before even suburbs don’t have to be hostile places to people and transit. I live in a single family house my self, yet do most of my traveling by foot or transit(train, bus). I only travel by auto about once a week and even then that’s carpooling.
D4P – PS: Show me some examples of the Antiplanner arguing that “A certain degree of law is required to maintain our societyâ€Â.
TexanOkie –
1. Protection of property rights, freedoms, market economics, etc.
2. The Constitution
I’d believe there would be much more if AP would discuss his thoughts on differing jurisdictions and federalism, because most of Randal’s convictions against government involvement by principle rather than economic sense, have to do with Federal-level government. However, the two listed above are huge, involving numerous legislative acts. However, the legislation to achieve those goals are a small minority of the legislation passed or attempted to be passed. Again, many of us may disagree with AP on what’s frivolous versus necessary legislation, but that does not detract from there being a certain degree of law advocated by the AP.
P.S. The Antiplanner thus far has shown a libertarian philosophy, not anarchist.
1. Protection of property rights, freedoms, market economics, etc.
But if government has to protect property rights, then they’re not really “rights” to begin with. Rather, they’re granted and protected by government, and thus, government can “take them away” if it wants to and people like the Antiplanner aren’t justified in complaining about it. If you’re gonna give government officials the power and discretion to protect “rights”, then you have to accept their use of discretion to curtail those rights when they see fit. You can’t have one without the other.
The same goes for “freedoms”. If government has to protect it, it’s not free to begin with.
The Antiplanner wishes to both consume his cake and maintain its full volume, simultaneously. Research suggests that such is not possible.
D4P-
I will not take it upon myself to guess how the Antiplanner feels about this issue, but I tell you how I feel. Legitimate governments exist to safeguard the rights of their citizens. The more a government infringes upon these rights, the less legitimate it is.
To take your argument to its logical conclusion, if a government engages in genocide, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this. The government granted its citizens the right to life and it is free to take this right away.
Yes, but protecting one person’s rights can infringe upon another’s, which means that the allocation of power to government to protect our rights necessarily means that government will have to curtail some people’s rights under certain situations. The Antiplanner does not seem to acknowledge or support this fact, which makes his position inconsistent.
For example: say I have a “right” to use my land however I want. Say that, in the course of such use, I harm my neighbors in some way. Do my neighbors have a right not to be harmed by me? If so, whose rights should government protect?
D4P: May I look into finding somebody in Venezuela who would like to trade citizenships with you? Your principles are gaining ground over there.
Sure. You might look for someone in Houston for all you anti-planning northwesterners to switch places with as well.
if government has to protect animal rights, then they’re not really “rights†to begin with
Eating or not eating dogs is then a custom, no different than the kind of tunic one habitually wears. Is it wise or proper for the State to ban the wearing of caftans? Or to mandate dashikis every Tuesday?
But really, it’s just lazy argument by D4P. The government, as conceived in the US Consitution, has a role to protect inalienable human rights. Those inalienable rights, endowed by the Creator, are often infringed by the customs or arogance of other men. Animal rights are a non-sequitur and not in the founding documents.
The degree to which government invents legal rights beyond inalienable ones leads to increasing corruption, suffering and polarity in a nation.
If rights are “inalienable”, they by definition don’t need protecting.
If something needs protecting, it’s alienable.
The degree to which government invents legal rights beyond inalienable ones
Government invented the “inalienable” rights too. It’s not as if the Founding Fathers transcribed the “we hold these truths” language from some authoritative, metaphysical source: they wrote it themselves. GOVERNMENT wrote it.
…just waiting to hear more about North Dakota’s problem with sprawl and dire need for urban planning. Fargo does have the 3rd largest concentration of Microsoft employees in the country, after all.
A check of Bismarck, ND on Google Earth reveals a number of what appear to be new “cookie cutter” subdivisions on what appears to have been farmland, all around the city.
D4P: I already live in a low regulation area, not the Northwest. I only use the Northwest and California because they have a regulatory climate that is conducive to real estate speculation.
“Rather, they’re granted and protected by government, and thus, government can “take them awayâ€Â
Who would really do any meaningful productive work under such a societal arrangement?
Let’s take my example. I work in cancer research. Why should I work to develop new cancer treatments? To make money? Yes, but money is only the exchange medium for other things like, yes, goods and property. If I have to work a large portion of my life to find myself in a situation where “government (that is, the public) can take what I worked for away†then why do it? For what reward? Under such an arrangement, I say “dear public: no deal, you can cure your own cancers, I will not spend ¾ of my life doing that for you, if I’m going to be left at your whim to take the rewards back â€Â.
And this is why such political systems, where the individual and his property is an expendable resource at the whim of perceived public goals, eventually fail. Because these systems provide little incentive to do any meaningful and productive work. Why is it that Europe is stagnant compared to the US, in spite of admittedly having a better qualified human capital? Having lived and worked in both continents I am convinced of the anwser: greater individual freedom, less collective action.
D4P said: “Say that, in the course of such use, I harm my neighbors in some way. Do my neighbors have a right not to be harmed by me? If so, whose rights should government protect?â€Â
—————–
The societal contract is that the collective/majority does not gang up on the individual, or a minority, for minor gains.
Otherwise, any activity that you do affects, in most cases negatively, your neighbor, or everybody else on the planet for that matter. The question is where is the line drawn. My very breathing emits, say, CO2, which, according to prevailing collective opinion, harms the planet. So strictly speaking, the public has no interest in my very existence.
Successful societies draw this line much more towards individual freedom and have a group mentality where the group is willing to take minor inconveniences to accommodate individual freedom and also fully compensate the individual in the rare cases when such freedom property etc. is violated for public gain.
Sure, if there’s nothing at stake the collective/majority will grant any individual freedom, that’s a no brainer.
Successful societies draw this line much more towards individual freedom and have a group mentality where the group is willing to take minor inconveniences to accommodate individual freedom and also fully compensate the individual in the rare cases when such freedom property etc. is violated for public gain.
“Planning” in the United States is consistent with this notion.
“…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR [i.e not government] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed…”
-paragraph two of the United States Declaration of Independence
Good grief. People (i.e. government) WROTE the “by their Creator” language.
Are you suggesting the “Founding Fathers” excerpted “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” from the Bible?
D4P: Is that what the document says? No. It says they were endowed by their Creator. Not endowed from their Bible. Not endowed by their Judeo-Christian God. But from a source beyond the power of men, whatever that may be, whether an actual supernatural being or a system of deduced ethics through time that has proven beyond the control of men.
Liberal Fascism* is both polarizing rhetoric and marginalizing, which are tactics introduced to Murrican politics in the mid-70s. So is junk science, etc.
Using dog-whistle phrases like ‘liberal fascists’, in certain circles such as decision-makers, academia, and civil society in general, marginalizes the person using the phrase, BTW.
DS
*http://tinyurl.com/2xneb5
** http://tinyurl.com/ynkkg7
It says they were endowed by their Creator
But that’s just their words. They could have just as easily NOT said that.
Just because The Founding Fathers™ say something doesn’t make it so.
For one thing, they probably would have said that slavery is a good thing, and that the dark-colored residents of Africa weren’t actually human beings.
There was actually phrasing in the earliest drafts of the Declaration that decried the practice of slavery as an infringement upon those very rights they outlined in the second paragraph, and it was the one line item which delayed the signing of the document from its July 1st benchmark date. The document had to be signed unanimously to be adopted, by order of a floor motion at the continental congress. It was only because of compromise to bring in 4 of the 5 southern congressional delegates and remove the portion that the document was ever adopted.
On March 13th, 2008, TexanOkie said:
D4P: Is that what the document says? No. It says they were endowed by their Creator. Not endowed from their Bible. Not endowed by their Judeo-Christian God. But from a source beyond the power of men, whatever that may be, whether an actual supernatural being or a system of deduced ethics through time that has proven beyond the control of men.
Yes, this is what the document says, a document still written by HUMANS as the socially-constructed basis of what rights and freedoms people have in the U.S. Other countries have different constitutions and formulations, but all based on rules and documents written by men, NOT gods. The Constitution is to be revered, but it is NOT supernatural. It is still enforced ultimately by guys with guns, presumably operating under the control of those elected to legitimate government power. I see why libertarians have trouble with this fundamental fact of human existence, since it exposes their basic philosophy as nothing more than wishful thinking utopianism.
Hopefully the Constitution grants rights and freedoms based on what works best given human nature, but the concept of “natural rights” is an oxymoron since human society still must enforce or protect such rights based on constitutions and other founding documents, hopefully through legitimate authority (what constitutes “legitimacy” is another thread). There ARE basic laws of nature and ecology (like gravity) but most human social rules operate in our own mini-universe called “society.”
P.S. You’re right. They just as easily could have NOT said that. But these were bright men and I sincerely doubt any portion of this treasonous document was written or adopted lightly.
Also, you’re correct in that the Founding Fathers saying something doesn’t make it so. The listed rights are self-evident, as they pointed out. They are true whether the Founding Fathers said so or not.
Which brings to light something else: just because the government may, according to you, grant or not grant certain rights does not discredit the rights BECAUSE they are unalienable and self-evident. I can’t really say it any better than the Founding Fathers did. There are deeper differences here than semantics and politics. There are fundamentally different world views. Neither of us will win this argument until the fundamental differences are at least understood, if not altered.
Secular Humanism, the view many of the posters here seem to adhere to, has just as many kinks as other prevailing world views.
I’ve been to North Dakota on numerous occasions. There is no shortage of agricultural land. There is also no real threat that Bismarck, Fargo or any other lesser city will pave over the countryside with “cookie-cutter” subdivisions”.
Median home prices plunged in many of California’s most populous counties in February, with Southern California leading the slide with an overall drop of 17.9 percent compared to a year earlier
I guess California must have just loosened their land use regulations and opened up a bunch of land to development.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/ap_on_bi_ge/california_homes_prices
Fast rising prices create bubbles that burst in the short term. One must look at the mid-long term trends. And that trend is always up and up. Once more: the more restricted the supply the higher the price.
The Antiplanner said:
“This is partly because politics reduces the civility of public discourse…”
After reading the full range of the responses that were made to this post and to many other past ones, I would heartily agree.
The discussion thread also went off onto such topics as the Founders and American government. I would suggest that part of the reason why they devised the framework of government that they did was to try to create a polity where who was in charge didn’t quite matter so much. It was an attempt to bleed off and grind down the intensity of politics so that Americans could get on with their lives without having to worry so much about others would who strive to control the guns of government so that they could bully them around.
Arguably, Madison and the others foresaw that angry groups would try to wear down this regime precisely because it made things hard to accomplish and because issues large and small really did matter far too much to them.
If the framework of government which America has lived under since the Founding were to fail, I believe that the ultimate cause will be precisely because the endless array of political interest groups will have succeeded in invading the lives of common Americans to a point where they decide it is time to pick up their guns and revolt.
Ettinger said: Successful societies draw this line much more towards individual freedom and have a group mentality where the group is willing to take minor inconveniences to accommodate individual freedom and also fully compensate the individual in the rare cases when such freedom property etc. is violated for public gain.
D4P said: “Planning†in the United States is consistent with this notion.
Really?
So is,
Mr. Jones who is denied permit to remodel his old house (yes the one his very grandfather built in 1932) because his neighbors who moved in during the last decade and remodeled and expanded their houses “find the Jones’ property traditional, cute and charming, pleasant to the eyeâ€Â, they don’t want to forfeit the charming historical view whenever they drive by Mr. Jones’ house. So they got together and implemented a historical building plan to prevent Mr. Jones from remodeling his house…
…while the person down the corner seeing this, is sweating to gather enough money fast enough because his building is already 60 years old and is now getting into the radar of the public whim as the historical building ordinance is due for revision (read expansion) in the next year.
…or Mr. Smith who has been living on the old family 160 acre farm, who now has 2 kids but cannot divide his lot into two 80 acre parcels and build a new house for his other kid, because the new house will be visible (at a 1 mile distance) from the ridge trail that a lot of smart growth advocates use for recreation. Meanwhile his immediate neighbor, who won the city hall lottery, possibly with some help from friends, subdivided his land into ¼ acre lots.
Is it any wonder that productive people, as they become engulfed in collectivist social philosophy, will regress to European levels of enthusiasm for productive work? Where will the technological advances come from? Collective dirigisme? People who aspire to live in ever smaller apartments and drive ever smaller cars, eventually leading to public only transportation?
Once more: the more restricted the supply the higher the price
Yep. Communities should stop imposing minimum lot sizes and maximum densities.
For once, we seem to agree!
Neil Meyer wrote at No. 35 writing of our framework of government:
“It was an attempt to bleed off and grind down the intensity of politics so that Americans could get on with their lives without having to worry so much about others would who strive to control the guns of government so that they could bully them around.”
Glad to see someone here remembers the words of George Washington in his farewell address concerning the dangers of faction.
NM also wrote:
“If the framework of government which America has lived under since the Founding were to fail, I believe that the ultimate cause will be precisely because the endless array of political interest groups will have succeeded in invading the lives of common Americans to a point where they decide it is time to pick up their guns and revolt.”
What if they don’t revolt? De Toqueville warned of the type of despotism democracies had to fear:
“…an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their (the citizen’s, ed.)gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.
Democracy in America , vol. II, Chap. 6 (1840)
Though one could say that the whole founding of the United States of America was a power grab in it self. An other thing to consider is Native Americans were here for a long time and have never fairly compensated.
Well for that matter this whole blog is based on a false premise. If the Anti-planner were honest he’d be pushing for the reconstruction of more rail lines.
This thread sure seems polarized
TexanOakie said:
Which brings to light something else: just because the government may, according to you, grant or not grant certain rights does not discredit the rights BECAUSE they are unalienable and self-evident.
Your characterization of what you think I said is NOT what I said. What I object to is the religious veneration you give to said rights, which still must be enforced by government and law, ultimately by guys with guns in some extreme cases. Fortunately 98%+ of the time, they are simply in force because most of us as both individuals and as a society agree that they are valid.
I haven’t seen any evidence that you really understand what may seem to you be the contradictory notion that people ARE individuals AND members of society at the same time–in my view, a fundamental irrefutable fact of human existence–unlike dim bulbs such as Maggie Thatcher who said “there is no such thing as society” because said fact interfered with her preferred philosophy.
In those extreme cases such as Brown vs. Board of Education, the Voting Rights Act, and many other examples, “natural rights” (sic) DON’T ENFORCE THEMSELVES, BUDDY, e.g., the law including civil rights/liberties sometimes must be backed up with naked government force, e.g., “the law” if you will. One of the reasons that the vast majority of U.S. citizens–and I might add most normal people around the planet, too–agree to varying degrees that said rights also work because they are generally a proven fit with the proven nature of individuals and with individuals within overall human society.
I strongly suggest you read (conservative libertarian-leaning on many issues) UC Berkeley philosophy professor John R. Searle, who originally in much of his work was battling the more irrational literary academic multi-culturists (who think everything is a manifestation of what we think), maintains that there are many things discoverable outside human society, such as gravity, germs, and other physical natural laws and ecological principles (like the hydrological cycle, DNA, etc.)
Consistent with this science-based view, Searle also shows that there are some principles that human society, laws and government should follow because they work, because they’re consistent with our individual and social nature (e.g., as imperfectly reflected in the Constitution and Bill of Rights). I’m sure Searle would concede the “natural” nature of human nature as a rhetorical point, but Searle, like me, doesn’t add any supernatural religious baggage because HUMAN ACTION in some form of law and government is necessary to make said rights and liberties a reality. In other words, within the physical limits of nature we control our own fates, not some supernatural force! (though “endowed by their Creator” is a useful phrase when arguing with Bible- or Koran- or Torah-thumping types).
“I think we are better off if debate remains civil and if decisions remain with the individual.”
Nice try A.P. You attack, polarize, and often write with little civility. To your defence so does everybody else involved with this blog. No person on this page has the moral high ground, especially you!
Highwayman,
What is the “false premise” that is blog is based on? And for that matter, why would the Antiplanner be more “honest” in pushing for the reconstruction of more rail lines? He has made his thoughts quite clear on this issue over the course of several posts.
What polarizes things is the drive to solve every issue with one single mandatory plan. Then the only practically meaningful pursuit for the individual is to try to steer the master plan to his benefit. That is, politics.
If planning did not exist we would not be here arguing, we would probably devote our energy to more productive tasks, and there would be little need for this blog.
Then the only practically meaningful pursuit for the individual is to try to steer the master plan to his benefit. That is, politics.
Golly. I just pictured the shiny, puffy-clouded world implied in the alternative: In the alternative, everyone looks out for the collective, common good, and no one steers transactions to their own benefit.
See, everyone is able to calculate Pareto optima for an infinite number of possibilities and degrees of rationality for a myriad of agents, thus the collective is raised up by a clean, well-manicured white male hand! Jeepers that’s soothing. All my fear has gone away.
DS
“If planning did not exist we would not be here arguing, we would probably devote our energy to more productive tasks, and there would be little need for this blog.”
Yes, there would be little need for the Antiplanner blog. But if planning didn’t exist we wouldn’t be more productive. We’d be pissing of our neighbors and taking everybody to court. You libertarian types live in the same fantasy world as the communist. It’s a good theory but (unfortunately) fails in practice, because many might not be involved in more productive tasks, but more destructive ones. Human nature can be a bitch to overcome. This is precisely why we plan!
msetty:
I never made any implications that these rights enforce themselves. Nonetheless they are there. Government can protect them or hinder them, meaning is is the enforcer (according to the Founding Fathers) as you say, but it is not the provider. In the same respect that you object to my supposed “religious veneration”, I object to yours. The only difference is your set of assumptions comes from a faith in science. I’m not saying science does not answer many questions and provide explanations for most observable phenomena. I am saying that science does not answer every question. By it’s own definition it can’t. Ultimately all assumptions – directly or indirectly – people make in their daily lives as individuals that guide their behavior, thought and action, which define and guide the subsequent complex web of interaction that constitutes society (I DO understand that there is society – it consists of individuals), are dependent on faith in something. Not necessarily God. It can also be human reason (the basis for your notion of science), mysticism, what-have-you. So please don’t object to my religious venerations when you are just as dependent on faith as I am.
P.S. and off-topic: Randal, great choice of topic and whatnot for this post. Just look at the number of responses it’s gotten. 😀
TexanOkie:
Not necessarily God. It can also be human reason (the basis for your notion of science), mysticism, what-have-you. So please don’t object to my religious venerations when you are just as dependent on faith as I am.
Well, no…”faith” with evidence from the scientific method, which is subject to change and improvement when better theories and evidence come along?????!! You are certainly confused if you cannot distinguish between science and religion, e.g., religion requires willing suspension of disbelief even if there is NO evidence whatsoever of what one has “faith” in. You’ve made no argument that leads me to change what I previously said.