J-bob sent me a list of links about Josh Fox’s numerous lies about fracking. At one of them, I read an illuminating piece by Tom Shepstone excerpted here:
The truth is irrelevant for their purposes, only material to be cut from or pasted into the script when convenient. It reminds me of a forum discussion, in which I was engaged recently, where an anti-natural gas commenter argued the following:
Weak-minded individuals confuse facts with truth. Facts are merely data points, and data can be used to support just about any argument you care to make. When people want to distract you from a critical issue, they often attempt to push the debate into factual minutia. It’s a common rhetorical tactic in today’s American public forum.
Sadly, this is how so many of our activist friends think. It’s all about the narrative, the story and the theater for them – a way for them to tell us what they believe, rather than what they know. The entire debate, for them, is anything but a review of the evidence, the logic or the science. No, it’s about what they imagine to be true, what they have faith to be true. Facts that contradict are just distractions to them because they are committed, heart and soul, to one set of beliefs about what they see and don’t care to know anything else. Their minds have been captured in an ideological perspective that allows no dissent and dismisses all criticisms, all facts to the contrary and all possibilities of any other view.
Shepstone is talking about the fracking debate, but we’ve seen the same thing from Gore-acles, Obama-philes, Pro-Aborts, Atheists and on and on.
It reminds me of something Dinesh D’Souza wrote about life after death:
The bottom line is that the atheist has no better proof that there isn’t life after death than the believer has that there is. Both groups are claiming knowledge that neither group actually possesses. For the atheist, no less than for the believer, it is entirely a matter of faith.
This equivalence between atheism and belief might seem equally damaging to both positions, but in fact it poses a much bigger problem for atheism.
First, the faith of the believer at least has a plausible source. That source is divine revelation as expressed in a sacred text. So the believer is trusting in what is held to be an unimpeachable source, namely God.
From where, by contrast, does the atheist get his faith? Who or what is the atheist trusting for the determination that there is no afterlife? To this, the atheist typically replies that he is trusting in reason. …
[But] there are no controlled empirical experiments that can resolve the issue one way or the other. Consequently atheists [say,”The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.” … But this position] confuses “what is known by a given person under the circumstances” with “what is or is not the case.” …
“Not found” is not the same thing as “found not to exist.” … On the basis of the available facts, not only does the atheist not know what happens after death, he cannot possibly know. The absence of evidence is evidence of nothing. …
Atheists like to think of themselves as the party of reason, advancing views that are based only on facts and evidence [when in reality they too hold] a faith-based position.