Promoting anti-science via textbooks

[DW44]

A BIOLOGY textbook is normally expected to teach biology as science, meaning a scientifically based study of the structure, growth and origin of living things. But what if such a book instead says science must follow ideology and loudly denounces the core principles of biology, condemning these as wrong and irrational?

Published in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa last year, a biology textbook declares that “The theory of evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin in the 19th century, is one of the most unbelievable and irrational claims in history”. Ridiculing the notion that complex life evolved from simpler forms, it claims this violates common sense and is just as “baseless” as assuming that when two rickshaws collide “a motor car was evolved”.

Colliding two rickshaws will, of course, never result in a motor car. That’s common sense. But what does this have to do with the prokaryote-eukaryote transition (which the authors are trying to refute)? More importantly, common sense isn’t good enough for science. Didn’t common sense once tell you that the sun moves across the sky, the earth is flat, and that being out in the cold produced colds? Common sense didn’t tell you that smoking was dangerous. Evidence did.

A BIOLOGY textbook is normally expected to teach biology as science, meaning a scientifically based study of the structure, growth and origin of living things. But what if such a book instead says science must follow ideology and loudly denounces the core principles of biology, condemning these as wrong and irrational?

Published in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa last year, a biology textbook declares that “The theory of evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin in the 19th century, is one of the most unbelievable and irrational claims in history”. Ridiculing the notion that complex life evolved from simpler forms, it claims this violates common sense and is just as “baseless” as assuming that when two rickshaws collide “a motor car was evolved”.

Colliding two rickshaws will, of course, never result in a motor car. That’s common sense. But what does this have to do with the prokaryote-eukaryote transition (which the authors are trying to refute)? More importantly, common sense isn’t good enough for science. Didn’t common sense once tell you that the sun moves across the sky, the earth is flat, and that being out in the cold produced colds? Common sense didn’t tell you that smoking was dangerous. Evidence did.

Evidence through years of patient observation — not common sense — led to Darwin’s theory of evolution and to Newton’s laws of motion. Take them away and biology, as well as physics, instantly collapses into a meaningless jumble of facts. Robbed of fundamentals, biology ceases to be biology and physics ceases to be physics. They cease to be branches of science.

If the quoted textbook was just one of a kind, I would not have written this article. But almost all books have this attitude. Another KP textbook says “A person in a stable and proper state of mind” cannot accept the wild theories of Western science. By corollary, only mad people can. A physics textbook of the Sindh Textbook Board categorically states that the universe sprang instantly into existence when a certain divine phrase was uttered.

Anti-science does not live in our textbooks only. Many Pakistani science and maths teachers are uncomfortable with their vocations. Whether in schools or universities, they obtained their jobs by possessing requisite certificates and degrees. But not all agree with what they are paid to teach, or even understand it. It should surprise no one that most biology teachers in Pakistan either do not — or perhaps dare not — touch upon human evolution.

Other teachers also feel torn between science and faith. Qari N. was a mathematics professor at Quaid-i-Azam University and my neighbour in the QAU housing colony. He was a soft-spoken and deeply pious man who wore his shalwar well above his ankles and would rebuff customary embraces after Eid prayers, declaring them to be bid’at (an innovation, hence disallowed).

His PhD in mathematics notwithstanding, the gentle qari would say to his M.Sc students that although it was his job to teach, yet mathematics was not to be trusted. He rejected not just mathematics but all Western cultural contaminations, including modern medicine. A chronic diabetic, he refused to see a regular doctor and instead put his trust in a hakeem who prescribed several spoonfuls daily of pure honey. Sadly, I was unable to make it to his funeral because of my busy class schedule that day.

Ideological discomfort with science largely explains Pakistan’s total absence from the world of creative science or technology. But there are other competing reasons, foremost among which is corruption and extreme incompetence in the field of textbook publishing. I do not think there is another country in the world that miseducates its young so badly.

Over four decades, I have collected scores of school science textbooks, both Urdu and English. Most have been produced by the Punjab and Sindh textbook boards. You can guess how many copies need to be printed for a population of 200 million people, as well as imagine the profits from even a small markup. These are ideal conditions for corruption and incompetence to thrive in government education departments.

One year ago, my article ‘Burn these books, please!’ was published in this newspaper. It pleaded that our students should be kept away “from the rotten science textbooks published by the Sindh Textbook Board (STB), an entity operating under the Sindh Ministry of Education. Else yet another generation will end up woefully ignorant of the subjects they study — physics, mathematics, chemistry, and biology.”

The article caught the attention of the current Sindh secretary of education, a man who appeared committed to change. He invited me to be part of the Sindh government’s education advisory board, an honorary position which I instantly accepted. A Karachi-based philanthropist offered to underwrite expenses needed for a massive revamp of textbook development and also paid my airfare to attend a committee meeting. There was some excitement, and a faint ray of hope that one hoped was not that faint.

The first meeting was duly held, and then subsequent ones. Unfortunately, the committee’s secretary made sure nothing would really move. Many promises were made but none were kept, critical issues were left unaddressed, and endless bureaucratic hurdles were devised.

One year later I see that our efforts — including those of a US-based Pakistani academic — had been neatly sabotaged. Now I hear over the grapevine that the committee has been dissolved. It doesn’t matter if it has — the lack of seriousness was apparent from day one. When foxes are charged with protecting chickens, the outcome rarely surprises.

The Sindh education ministry is beyond reform. It cannot deliver good textbooks for Matric and FSc. Adapting, subsidising, and translating internationally produced ‘O’ and ‘A’ level science books — used presently by only a tiny sliver of upscale Pakistani schools — is the only reasonable way to go. Those who protest that this amounts to a Western cultural invasion should be asked to produce their own science. In the meantime they shouldn’t use electricity or mobile phones, and travel only on donkeys and camels. Instead of antibiotics or insulin they could, like my former neighbour, opt to use honey.possessing requisite certificates and degrees. But not all agree with what they are paid to teach, or even understand it. It should surprise no one that most biology teachers in Pakistan either do not — or perhaps dare not — touch upon human evolution.

Other teachers also feel torn between science and faith. Qari N. was a mathematics professor at Quaid-i-Azam University and my neighbour in the QAU housing colony. He was a soft-spoken and deeply pious man who wore his shalwar well above his ankles and would rebuff customary embraces after Eid prayers, declaring them to be bid’at (an innovation, hence disallowed).

His PhD in mathematics notwithstanding, the gentle qari would say to his M.Sc students that although it was his job to teach, yet mathematics was not to be trusted. He rejected not just mathematics but all Western cultural contaminations, including modern medicine. A chronic diabetic, he refused to see a regular doctor and instead put his trust in a hakeem who prescribed several spoonfuls daily of pure honey. Sadly, I was unable to make it to his funeral because of my busy class schedule that day.

Ideological discomfort with science largely explains Pakistan’s total absence from the world of creative science or technology. But there are other competing reasons, foremost among which is corruption and extreme incompetence in the field of textbook publishing. I do not think there is another country in the world that miseducates its young so badly.

Over four decades, I have collected scores of school science textbooks, both Urdu and English. Most have been produced by the Punjab and Sindh textbook boards. You can guess how many copies need to be printed for a population of 200 million people, as well as imagine the profits from even a small markup. These are ideal conditions for corruption and incompetence to thrive in government education departments.

One year ago, my article ‘Burn these books, please!’ was published in this newspaper. It pleaded that our students should be kept away “from the rotten science textbooks published by the Sindh Textbook Board (STB), an entity operating under the Sindh Ministry of Education. Else yet another generation will end up woefully ignorant of the subjects they study — physics, mathematics, chemistry, and biology.”

The article caught the attention of the current Sindh secretary of education, a man who appeared committed to change. He invited me to be part of the Sindh government’s education advisory board, an honorary position which I instantly accepted. A Karachi-based philanthropist offered to underwrite expenses needed for a massive revamp of textbook development and also paid my airfare to attend a committee meeting. There was some excitement, and a faint ray of hope that one hoped was not that faint.

The first meeting was duly held, and then subsequent ones. Unfortunately, the committee’s secretary made sure nothing would really move. Many promises were made but none were kept, critical issues were left unaddressed, and endless bureaucratic hurdles were devised.

One year later I see that our efforts — including those of a US-based Pakistani academic — had been neatly sabotaged. Now I hear over the grapevine that the committee has been dissolved. It doesn’t matter if it has — the lack of seriousness was apparent from day one. When foxes are charged with protecting chickens, the outcome rarely surprises.

The Sindh education ministry is beyond reform. It cannot deliver good textbooks for Matric and FSc. Adapting, subsidising, and translating internationally produced ‘O’ and ‘A’ level science books — used presently by only a tiny sliver of upscale Pakistani schools — is the only reasonable way to go. Those who protest that this amounts to a Western cultural invasion should be asked to produce their own science. In the meantime they shouldn’t use electricity or mobile phones, and travel only on donkeys and camels. Instead of antibiotics or insulin they could, like my former neighbour, opt to use honey.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/news/1300118/promoting-anti-science-via-textbooks

Absolutely shocking and a damning indictment of our education system. In all the hoopla about lack of access to education, the issue of what's being taught to those who do have access to education often gets overlooked. Surely at some point we should say enough, shouldn't we? I understand the obsession Pakistanis have with incorporating religion in any and all aspects of life but surely sanitizing science textbooks, which should consist solely of cold hard facts backed by evidence, to account for religious beliefs at the expense of factual accuracy is taking things too far. He makes a pertinent point about the impact of this being clear by Pakistan's almost complete lack of any major achievements in the field of science and technology. Is it really acceptable to incorporate theology into science textbooks? Despicable.
[MENTION=22846]Nostalgic[/MENTION]

 

[speed]

Good stuff, theory of evolution is bs.

 

[Pakpak]

Source: http://www.dawn.com/news/1300118/promoting-anti-science-via-textbooks

Absolutely shocking and a damning indictment of our education system. In all the hoopla about lack of access to education, the issue of what's being taught to those who do have access to education often gets overlooked. Surely at some point we should say enough, shouldn't we? I understand the obsession Pakistanis have with incorporating religion in any and all aspects of life but surely sanitizing science textbooks, which should consist solely of cold hard facts backed by evidence, to account for religious beliefs at the expense of factual accuracy is taking things too far. He makes a pertinent point about the impact of this being clear by Pakistan's almost complete lack of any major achievements in the field of science and technology. Is it really acceptable to incorporate theology into science textbooks? Despicable.

[MENTION=22846]Nostalgic[/MENTION]

Sadly, not surprised. And it reflects in the state of our uneducated country. The reply above me is another example.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Which text books are these?

What educational system does Pakistan follow? Like India has CBSE, ICSE, state board....

What kind of students have access to these books?

 

[Indiafan]

Good stuff, theory of evolution is bs.

Yep. And the sun goes around the earth. And 2+2=5

Here's a thing. You cannot reject a thing just because you dislike it. People who did in the past are laughed at by the next generation. Science and theories don't care about people's feelings and beliefs

 

[srh]

O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women. And fear Allah , through whom you ask one another, and the wombs. Indeed Allah is ever, over you, an Observer.

Surah An-Nisa 4:1

 

[DW44]

O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women. And fear Allah , through whom you ask one another, and the wombs. Indeed Allah is ever, over you, an Observer.

Surah An-Nisa 4:1

By all means put that in the Islamic studies textbook(not that I appreciate it being taught to impressionable children but this being the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, every minor victory is a huge milestone) where the standard of evidence is low enough to be satisfied by a simple "have faith" but don't put that in Biology or Chemistry textbooks that answer to a higher standard of evidence where for anything to be accepted as fact, a direct cause and effect relation must be established based on verifiable empirical evidence.

 

[hussain123]

Darwins theory of evolution is a competitive theory it is not a universal truth or law based on hardhitting empirical evidence.it is debatable whether the manner in which it is outrightly dismissed without any plausible reasons is right.

 

[srh]

Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?

Surah Al-Anbya 21:30

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

This is absolutely ridiculous & horrible.


As a Muslim I believe in Evolution. My religious belief may collide with Darwin's views in some way but it may agree with Darwin on some aspects of his theory.


But there is no need at all to mix religion with science and so such commentary in science books giving your insight.



Just teach the students what Darwin said and what did his contemporary scientists/biologists/geneticists and those after him said. And what the scientific evidence says in this regard.



We will be well off and well served if we only discuss, teach and elaborate religion in Islamiat only. That too minus giving own extremist fanatic angles using label of Islam.




What JI is doing through PTI is shutting down brains of young boys and girls. With this direction and attitude you will develop Anti-Science students. Muslims will remain backward, won't be able to compete with developed world and won't achieve anything in world.



As a Muslim what you contribute to the world also matters while balancing worldly and religious life side by side.


When Prophet of Islam Pbuh asked Non Muslim War Captives to teach muslim kids in order to get released earlier than what education was that ? Surely worldly.


When He Pbuh said gain knowledge even if you have to go to China did he mean only knowledge of Quran and Hadith ? No. Islam may not have reached China than.



Moudoodi and his Ideological brothers worldwide are termite for Muslims and Muslim growth.

 

[JaDed]

Once we start colonizing on diff planets hopefully this debate of religion will end once and for all.Religion has been there for 200 k years and probably something else will come up then.

Organized Religion isn't equivalent to GOD not sure how hard that is to grasp.

 

[Tera Gawaandi]

I also do not believe in Evolution and moon landing.

 

[HussainRx8]

How did you not know this? This is done wittingly by the Pakistani elites to keep the masses uneducated and disenfranchised.

 

[enkidu_]

Some genuine intellectuals like Karl Popper and Wittgenstein also didn't "believe" in the evolution theory, or at least the neo Darwinian version, because they thought that it wasn't "scientific" for the reason it wasn't "refutable" - it's a wider epistemological debate.

But I do agree with the very last paragraph of the gentleman.

 

[The_KING]

Good stuff, theory of evolution is bs.

Erm it isn't

 

[world cup captain]

You simpy cannot put indept biology with religion and especially in a country where any thought, rational or not, that goes against religion is criticized to the extent where it cannot be developed upon.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

You simpy cannot put indept biology with religion and especially in a country where any thought, rational or not, that goes against religion is criticized to the extent where it cannot be developed upon.

Aesay he chalne dein phir ?

 

[world cup captain]

Aesay he chalne dein phir ?

No, certainly not, but for a change to come in such a magnitude, the system has to change completely. Right now, the education system is dominated by religion and the only way to change that is to make the system much more secular. How many Pakistanis would actually like to adopt such a system? However, if private schools could start such a trend, then it would eventually follow into public schools.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

No, certainly not, but for a change to come in such a magnitude, the system has to change completely. Right now, the education system is dominated by religion and the only way to change that is to make the system much more secular. How many Pakistanis would actually like to adopt such a system?

What the OP has mentioned is actually a CHANGE. In which direction you can see it.


I have also studied Darwin's theory few years ago in Pakistan at the same levels but my textbooks did not have this.



PTI has got to stop making such compromises with JI at the expense of future of Pakistan Youth. They have to draw lines wrt compromises with JI.



If Majority of KPK wanted JI or JUI F and there ideology than they would have chosen them. Majority did not vote for PTI to enforce JI or JUI F agenda.



These people claim to be Lovers of Prophet Muhammad Pbuh and Islam but they are actually hypocrites and fanatics. Those who fail to acknowledge Army soldiers killed by Terrorists as Shaheed and call even the dogs killed by America as Shaheed.


This Modoodi is presented as some great Islamic Scholar but He is an absolute disgrace. He defamed Prophet Pbuh. In One of his book he says that Prophet Pbuh fought wars in self defence rather than initiating Wars. (Absolutely true). Than He negates himself in later half of the book and lies about Prophet Pbuh and Islam saying that Islam spread through power of Sword. Through force people converted to Islam. Hence Jehaad Jehaad is tge order of the day. This is what terrorists Worldwide are trying to achieve under the umbrella of Islam with Weapons and playing in the hands of others thinking this is how Islam will win the World and this is how Prophet Pbuh and his followers spread Islam.


This is such a weak argument. As if Islam has no wisdom and no evidence to support its Truthfulness, Completeness and it does not have living examples of role models for society to inspire others to convert to Islam rather Naoozbillah it is such a weak religion and belief system which can only win over people by the fear and threat to adapt to it otherwise Sword, Bullet, Grenade, Bomb or Succide bomber will take their life so better become Muslim to prolong your physical life.



This is Syed Abul Atta Modoodi Rehmatullah Aleh who gives the World this pathetic false picture about the greatest Human being and the greatest Prophet Pbuh.



Now the next demand of JI is that in every Class from 1 to 10 in School there should be a Teacher for Religious Education. Some One who has gained religious knowledge through religious institutes. So that they can inculcate Modoodiat as the 6th Pillar of Islam and raise a voilent extremist generation through the exact Doctrine with which JI etc joined hands with Zia ul Haq under the Dollar Rain to give rise to Fitna e Talibaan which is biting Us to this very date.

 

[Markhor]

Textbooks should inform not indoctrinate. What kind of education system allows kids who grow up with such distorted world views ?

Pakistan Studies is the worst example of indoctrination. From what I've heard and read, its a subject meant to be a mixture of social sciences and to inform pupils about the cultural, religious and politicial history of Pakistan.

Yet the textbooks read like something from Pravda at the height of the Soviet Union. No attempt made to present different perspectives of conflicts and major events, no attempts at serious historiography - just crude nationalism and religious chest thumping.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

Textbooks should inform not indoctrinate. What kind of education system allows kids who grow up with such distorted world views ?

Pakistan Studies is the worst example of indoctrination. From what I've heard and read, its a subject meant to be a mixture of social sciences and to inform pupils about the cultural, religious and politicial history of Pakistan.

Yet the textbooks read like something from Pravda at the height of the Soviet Union. No attempt made to present different perspectives of conflicts and major events, no attempts at serious historiography - just crude nationalism and religious chest thumping.

Agree 100 % with all you said.


And this :



I hope you can still read Urdu

 

[world cup captain]

What the OP has mentioned is actually a CHANGE. In which direction you can see it.


I have also studied Darwin's theory few years ago in Pakistan at the same levels but my textbooks did not have this.



PTI has got to stop making such compromises with JI at the expense of future of Pakistan Youth. They have to draw lines wrt compromises with JI.



If Majority of KPK wanted JI or JUI F and there ideology than they would have chosen them. Majority did not vote for PTI to enforce JI or JUI F agenda.



These people claim to be Lovers of Prophet Muhammad Pbuh and Islam but they are actually hypocrites and fanatics. Those who fail to acknowledge Army soldiers killed by Terrorists as Shaheed and call even the dogs killed by America as Shaheed.


This Modoodi is presented as some great Islamic Scholar but He is an absolute disgrace. He defamed Prophet Pbuh. In One of his book he says that Prophet Pbuh fought wars in self defence rather than initiating Wars. (Absolutely true). Than He negates himself in later half of the book and lies about Prophet Pbuh and Islam saying that Islam spread through power of Sword. Through force people converted to Islam. Hence Jehaad Jehaad is tge order of the day. This is what terrorists Worldwide are trying to achieve under the umbrella of Islam with Weapons and playing in the hands of others thinking this is how Islam will win the World and this is how Prophet Pbuh and his followers spread Islam.


This is such a weak argument. As if Islam has no wisdom and no evidence to support its Truthfulness, Completeness and it does not have living examples of role models for society to inspire others to convert to Islam rather Naoozbillah it is such a weak religion and belief system which can only win over people by the fear and threat to adapt to it otherwise Sword, Bullet, Grenade, Bomb or Succide bomber will take their life so better become Muslim to prolong your physical life.



This is Syed Abul Atta Modoodi Rehmatullah Aleh who gives the World this pathetic false picture about the greatest Human being and the greatest Prophet Pbuh.



Now the next demand of JI is that in every Class from 1 to 10 in School there should be a Teacher for Religious Education. Some One who has gained religious knowledge through religious institutes. So that they can inculcate Modoodiat as the 6th Pillar of Islam and raise a voilent extremist generation through the exact Doctrine with which JI etc joined hands with Zia ul Haq under the Dollar Rain to give rise to Fitna e Talibaan which is biting Us to this very date.

I glad to see that you did not encounter the same issues mentioned in OP. I was referring to the teachers not actually teaching anything specific to evolution which is the backbone of biology. I personally can't speak for anyone else, but in Pindi bio was pretty much as good as nothing.

Anti-science does not live in our textbooks only. Many Pakistani science and maths teachers are uncomfortable with their vocations. Whether in schools or universities, they obtained their jobs by possessing requisite certificates and degrees. But not all agree with what they are paid to teach, or even understand it. It should surprise no one that most biology teachers in Pakistan either do not — or perhaps dare not — touch upon human evolution.

 

[Syed1]

Kafi nazuuk surat-e-haal hai..

Evolution isn't a theory but an accepted scientific fact. It has even been measurably observed within insects who have tiny lifespans.

The only place were evolution collides with religion is on the introduction of human beings.

 

[DW44]

No, certainly not, but for a change to come in such a magnitude, the system has to change completely. Right now, the education system is dominated by religion and the only way to change that is to make the system much more secular. How many Pakistanis would actually like to adopt such a system? However, if private schools could start such a trend, then it would eventually follow into public schools.

Not a public/private school issue. Private schools that offer O/A Levels already offer quality education because the O/A Level curriculum and textbooks are both quality. Private schools that offer Matric/FSc stream don't really have much wiggle room since they don't control the curriculum(the federal and provincial boards do) and they can't use O/A Level textbooks because unlike O/A Levels, your choice of books is limited to official textbooks since Matric/FSc is all about rote learning and exams are drawn directly from the official textbooks instead of just testing the students on concepts contained in these books.

 

[godzilla]

nothing wrong with it at all. different people around the world have every right to identify and live by their own social philosophy and way of life.

what is unacceptable is the imposition of alien thoughts onto a people who dont ascribe to them. thats what extremism is, and secular extremism is as heinous and repulsive as those extreme ideologies it hypocritically criticised for attempting to impose a minority view on a majority in opposition.

 

[endymion248]

nothing wrong with it at all. different people around the world have every right to identify and live by their own social philosophy and way of life.

what is unacceptable is the imposition of alien thoughts onto a people who dont ascribe to them. thats what extremism is, and secular extremism is as heinous and repulsive as those extreme ideologies it hypocritically criticised for attempting to impose a minority view on a majority in opposition.

What does high-school level science have to do with philosophy or way of life?

 

[DW44]

nothing wrong with it at all. different people around the world have every right to identify and live by their own social philosophy and way of life.

what is unacceptable is the imposition of alien thoughts onto a people who dont ascribe to them. thats what extremism is, and secular extremism is as heinous and repulsive as those extreme ideologies it hypocritically criticised for attempting to impose a minority view on a majority in opposition.

Scientific facts are absolute, not subject to change according to people's social philosophies or ways of life. Most countries in the world are able to preserve their way of life without having to lower the quality of education they provide their children with by distorting facts to accommodate their irrational beliefs.

I don't see how secular extremism figures into a discussion over the quality of scientific textbooks in Pakistan where there's no space for extremism of any kind bar the Islamic variety so I fail to see the connection. Besides, secular extremism isn't really a thing. It's a strawman created by religious extremists and their moderate apologists by drawing false equivalencies between the actions of these extremists and those who oppose them.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Evolution does have a scientific basis but Darwinism esp Social Darwinism has too many holes, not to mention having racist elements within.

Pakistan should look into the school text books but there is no need to accept the secular and disputed elements of Darwinism.

99% of Pakistani's believe in Creation from a high power (God), they should follow their school of thought not what a few secular extremists in the country want them to.

 

[Robert]

Social Darwinism has been thoroughly debunked.

The modern thesis of Darwinism has a mountain of evidence supporting it, from numerous scientific disciplines.

It is entirely possible for a religious person of intellectual rigour to accept Darwinism, by treating religious texts as metaphor instead of literal truth.

 

[godzilla]

Scientific facts are absolute, not subject to change according to people's social philosophies or ways of life. Most countries in the world are able to preserve their way of life without having to lower the quality of education they provide their children with by distorting facts to accommodate their irrational beliefs.

I don't see how secular extremism figures into a discussion over the quality of scientific textbooks in Pakistan where there's no space for extremism of any kind bar the Islamic variety so I fail to see the connection. Besides, secular extremism isn't really a thing. It's a strawman created by religious extremists and their moderate apologists by drawing false equivalencies between the actions of these extremists and those who oppose them.

Scientific facts are absolute, obviously. But application, contextualisation and promulgation of them by and large is categorically subjective. It's not objective and stinks of agenda to ignore that fact when it's suits.

Agree that most countries in the world ought not to have to lower the education of their children by distorting facts. I think your ironic God complex though prevents you from identifying what is and is not irrational. It's a typical straw man argument to portray bigotry and hate mongering as the domain of 'the other', whilst justifying a domain of absolutism for militant and oppressive secularism - which is undeniably extremism, by definition.

Anytime anyone, whether religionists or not, political or not, secular or not, seeks to enforce their view of the world onto another, that is oppression and extremism. And for most people who have the integrity of honesty, they would reject that injustice no matter what colour its proponent, and wouldn't presume their view of the world is the only view that can lead to a society in which people might choose to live peacefully.

Even if I were agree with the core of your post, it's ignorant and deplorably hypocritical. There is no space for any form of extremism in a civilised world.

 

[DW44]

Scientific facts are absolute, obviously. But application, contextualisation and promulgation of them by and large is categorically subjective. It's not objective and stinks of agenda to ignore that fact when it's suits.

Not true. A diode or a step down transformer behaves the same way in Pakistan as it does in the Netherlands. Contextualization and application of scientific phenomena absolutely isn't subjective. There are no borders, geographical or religious to science. The facts and the scope within which they apply is constant.

Agree that most countries in the world ought not to have to lower the education of their children by distorting facts. I think your ironic God complex though prevents you from identifying what is and is not irrational. It's a typical straw man argument to portray bigotry and hate mongering as the domain of 'the other', whilst justifying a domain of absolutism for militant and oppressive secularism - which is undeniably extremism, by definition.

It is indeed an unfortunate tendency to portray bigotry and hatred as solely the domain of the other but I don't see how that's relevant in a society where only one group wields the power to act on their bigotry and hatred. Even if we accept your premise that secular extremism even exists, a claim that seems rooted in an inadequate understanding of what secularism actually entails given the use of terms like absolutism, militant and oppressive in the context of secularism, it's a non issue in a country where even moderate secularism or, for that matter, any ideology that is not Islam, has no room whatsoever to exist even on the tiniest scale much less grow strong enough to develop an extremist element.

Anytime anyone, whether religionists or not, political or not, secular or not, seeks to enforce their view of the world onto another, that is oppression and extremism. And for most people who have the integrity of honesty, they would reject that injustice no matter what colour its proponent, and wouldn't presume their view of the world is the only view that can lead to a society in which people might choose to live peacefully.

The very basis of secularism is to let the religionists do their own thing within the confines of their own private space so long as the state doesn't endorse it. I agree that most people with any semblance of integrity would reject this injustice you refer to but the issue here is that this injustice is a hypothetical one. I can't, for the life of me, think of many secular states that commit such injustices even occasionally. Even India, the secular country that comes closest to being an absolutist my way or the highway type secular state taps into it's religious side while blatantly ignoring it's secular constitution when it comes to committing such injustices. This being a discussion primarily concerning Pakistan, secular extremism is about as relevant as factoring in pestilence and famine into a discussion about the issues facing modern day Germany.

Even if I were agree with the core of your post, it's ignorant and deplorably hypocritical. There is no space for any form of extremism in a civilised world.

There really isn't, hence my opposition to this act of extremism by the Pakistani government, specifically the various education boards.

 

[Nostalgic]

Source: http://www.dawn.com/news/1300118/promoting-anti-science-via-textbooks

Absolutely shocking and a damning indictment of our education system. In all the hoopla about lack of access to education, the issue of what's being taught to those who do have access to education often gets overlooked. Surely at some point we should say enough, shouldn't we? I understand the obsession Pakistanis have with incorporating religion in any and all aspects of life but surely sanitizing science textbooks, which should consist solely of cold hard facts backed by evidence, to account for religious beliefs at the expense of factual accuracy is taking things too far. He makes a pertinent point about the impact of this being clear by Pakistan's almost complete lack of any major achievements in the field of science and technology. Is it really acceptable to incorporate theology into science textbooks? Despicable.

[MENTION=22846]Nostalgic[/MENTION]

No wonder engineering campuses across the country are infested with maulvis and have contributed more than a few recruits to extremist outfits.

 

[godzilla]

apologies for not being clever enough to break up the quote:

Not true. A diode or a step down transformer behaves the same way in Pakistan as it does in the Netherlands. Contextualization and application of scientific phenomena absolutely isn't subjective. There are no borders, geographical or religious to science. The facts and the scope within which they apply is constant.

in the case of that example, its true. but that doesnt mean you can extrapolate that to all science in all realms. mathematics it can be argued, is absolute, by definition. evolutionary theory, or string theory, or multiverse theories, most medical theories etc etc are not diodes in the netherlands, however, but they do all fall under the category of science. so science is not a monolith that is all objective, and does not (ironically) evolve. thats not to say any of those example theories are not true, mind, but one cannot claim that outside of strict conditions that they are absolute in their application. thats the contextualisation and application that is entirely subjective. there are an infinite number of counter examples to your diode.

It is indeed an unfortunate tendency to portray bigotry and hatred as solely the domain of the other but I don't see how that's relevant in a society where only one group wields the power to act on their bigotry and hatred. Even if we accept your premise that secular extremism even exists, a claim that seems rooted in an inadequate understanding of what secularism actually entails given the use of terms like absolutism, militant and oppressive in the context of secularism, it's a non issue in a country where even moderate secularism or, for that matter, any ideology that is not Islam, has no room whatsoever to exist even on the tiniest scale much less grow strong enough to develop an extremist element.

its entirely and obviously relevant when thats the principle position from which your whole criticism is formed. an objective position is to consider a society producing text book material according to their beliefs. a hypocritical one is to critique their doing so from a position of presumed authoritative superiority. the immense pompousness by secular societies, in not being able to see a shimmering reflection of precise reciprocity of social authoritarianism in other societies is unfortunately and regrettably all too predictable.

the claim that secular extremism does not exist seems almost insanely bizarre. just as it seems entirely convenient to eradicate the de jure and de facto differences in strata of religionist societies, and consider them all using the most extreme right leaning lens possible, the opposite is applied when it comes to the mirror - secularism seems suddenly departed from its demonstrable and corporeal application, and is instead presented as its leftist (impossibly) tolerant ideal. if one extremism exists, so does the other by almost identical parallel, if we are to be consistent in judging the real as opposed to the ideal.

more simply put, in your own words: 'in a country where even moderate religion or, for that matter, any ideology that is not secularism, has no room whatsoever to exist even on the tiniest scale much less grow strong enough to develop an extremist element.' hopefully its easy to see how ridiculous that statement is when the shoe is on the other foot. and of course, thats precisely fertile conditions for extremism to develop - the last twenty years is a sad but perfect illustration of it.

The very basis of secularism is to let the religionists do their own thing within the confines of their own private space so long as the state doesn't endorse it. I agree that most people with any semblance of integrity would reject this injustice you refer to but the issue here is that this injustice is a hypothetical one. I can't, for the life of me, think of many secular states that commit such injustices even occasionally. Even India, the secular country that comes closest to being an absolutist my way or the highway type secular state taps into it's religious side while blatantly ignoring it's secular constitution when it comes to committing such injustices. This being a discussion primarily concerning Pakistan, secular extremism is about as relevant as factoring in pestilence and famine into a discussion about the issues facing modern day Germany.

india is a poor example to use, and again here you seem to be unable to distinguish between ideal and reality when it suits you. whether constitutionally india is secular or not is irrelevant, politically and pragmatically it is not. the relevant comparison is to use the same yardstick with which you measure pakistan, which labels itself an Islamic republic, but more importantly is considered to be such by its citizens. self identified secular countries are essentially but not exclusively the secular west. there you can see the very obvious glaring hypocrisy in your position of judgementalism: "The very basis of secularism is to let the religionists do their own thing within the confines of their own private space so long as the state doesn't endorse it" - as imposed by the state. a position of proposed indifference can never practically be perfectly indifferent, and its definitions and parameters necessarily demand an explicitly non-indifferent social philosophy that is then enforced, just like in any other society. secularists seem incapable of taking an objective position with regards to this, and view that practical indifference so to speak as a position as close to objective neutrality as possible. thats just not true - its only true if you happen to hold the same philosophical position - a separation of church and state is not a neutral position, and to impose it on a society that doesnt agree with it is oppression, by definition.

its obvious following that assertion why it is relevant to this discussion, because this discussion has at its fulcrum an imposition of an alien social philosophy to the vast majority of the society in question.

the difference between both our positions is that my perspective can be applied to all humanity and all societies, whether religionist, secular, atheist or whatever; yours is predicated on a position of judgemental self appointed superiority, and applies only to non-secular societies, which your posts reek of disdain for.

There really isn't, hence my opposition to this act of extremism by the Pakistani government, specifically the various education boards.

 

[godzilla]

btw i think the author is misguided if he thinks the lack of pakistani science nobel prize winners is because of school grade text books. its very obviously because a long line of governments have chronically underinvested in education, both school level and upper.

if the author doesnt even know that, it says a lot more about his tone and agenda than anything else.

see if you can find the flag:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_spending_on_education_(%_of_GDP)

 

[DW44]

in the case of that example, its true. but that doesnt mean you can extrapolate that to all science in all realms. mathematics it can be argued, is absolute, by definition. evolutionary theory, or string theory, or multiverse theories, most medical theories etc etc are not diodes in the netherlands, however, but they do all fall under the category of science. so science is not a monolith that is all objective, and does not (ironically) evolve. thats not to say any of those example theories are not true, mind, but one cannot claim that outside of strict conditions that they are absolute in their application. thats the contextualisation and application that is entirely subjective. there are an infinite number of counter examples to your diode.

It’s true for physical sciences. The laws of nature don’t vary to account for cultural sensitivities or context. You seem to be confusing physical sciences with social sciences which do, indeed, vary in their application based on cultural differences across different parts of the world. Evolutionary theory, multiverse theory and most medical theories are constant, it’s the degree to which they’re accepted and applied that varies and that has more to do with the fact that there are cultures and religions whose very foundations are invalidated if these theories are accepted as fact hence the aversion to accept them fully as evident by the irrational claim in our textbooks that the theory of evolution is nonsense. Contextualization and application is subjective only for social sciences. There’s very little room for contextualization to begin with in the physical sciences and as far as variations in application go, those are down mostly to the limitations of those applying them, not science itself.

its entirely and obviously relevant when thats the principle position from which your whole criticism is formed. an objective position is to consider a society producing text book material according to their beliefs. a hypocritical one is to critique their doing so from a position of presumed authoritative superiority. the immense pompousness by secular societies, in not being able to see a shimmering reflection of precise reciprocity of social authoritarianism in other societies is unfortunately and regrettably all too predictable.

the claim that secular extremism does not exist seems almost insanely bizarre. just as it seems entirely convenient to eradicate the de jure and de facto differences in strata of religionist societies, and consider them all using the most extreme right leaning lens possible, the opposite is applied when it comes to the mirror - secularism seems suddenly departed from its demonstrable and corporeal application, and is instead presented as its leftist (impossibly) tolerant ideal. if one extremism exists, so does the other by almost identical parallel, if we are to be consistent in judging the real as opposed to the ideal.

Please. First, don’t presume to know the principle position from which my opinion is formed. Secondly, there’s very little room for objectivity in this case because scientific texts, unlike the humanities or arts, cannot be modified to accommodate the beliefs of a society if that means declaring established scientific principles invalid because they don’t fit into the society’s religious narrative and the let’s all be friends, all beliefs are equal and yours are just as valid as mine approach doesn’t work there. That secular societies don’t see “a shimmering reflection of precise reciprocity of social authoritarianism in other societies” is because there’s no precise reciprocity there. It’s utterly ludicrous, not to mention hypocritical in the extreme, to claim, without any proof or examples no less, that secular societies are exactly as socially authoritarian as their religious counterparts despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is no comparison between, say, France, the go to example of an “extremist” secular state for those with religious inclinations, and Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, two of the more representative examples of conservative religious societies.

It seems bizzare to those who are staunch in their religious convictions because they need a proverbial boogeyman to justify their own brand of extremism. Unfortunately, actual examples of extreme secularism are few and far between. In Pakistan for instance, where I live and which is an especially extreme society even by the standards of religious societies, anyone who espouses any of the following values is labelled a liberal/secular extremist: women’s rights, religious tolerance; preference for introspection over irrational patriotism, separation of state and religion, increased role of state for levelling inequalities, a less ambitious foreign policy among many other things. Ignoring the various strata of religionist societies might have something to do with the fact that the discussion was about a particular religionist society, not religionist societies in general and the society in question happens to be one of the most extreme on the face of the planet so it’s natural that it would be criticized for being so. That you extrapolated it to apply to religionist societies in general and from there you made the connection that if someone considers a particular religious society to be extreme, they do so for all while holding their preferred system to a lower standard is simply a case of false attribution based on a series of unfounded assumptions with very little basis in fact.

more simply put, in your own words: 'in a country where even moderate religion or, for that matter, any ideology that is not secularism, has no room whatsoever to exist even on the tiniest scale much less grow strong enough to develop an extremist element.' hopefully its easy to see how ridiculous that statement is when the shoe is on the other foot. and of course, thats precisely fertile conditions for extremism to develop - the last twenty years is a sad but perfect illustration of it.

Except the shoe is never practically on the other foot, only in long winded strawman arguments that are purely hypothetical and stretch the bounds of what is realistic. Secularism is not an ideology in the same way a religion like, say, Islam is. A Muslim in a secular state is just as free as one in an Islamic state to practice his religion. The opposite, unfortunately is not true. There’s no equivalency to be drawn between secularism and religion as an ideology which is what your entire argument is premised on since the two are very different in nature. The former is limited in scope to maintaining a wall of separation between church and state. The latter, on the other hand, goes a little bit beyond that and seeks to control people’s personal lives and experiences, impose a particular set of values on all regardless of their beliefs (as opposed to secularism which offers room for people to live by their own values without the state officially endorsing any one of them over the others) and doesn’t tolerate dissent. I’m yet to hear of any secular state that routinely sentences people to death for opposing and/or criticizing the separation of church and state.

india is a poor example to use, and again here you seem to be unable to distinguish between ideal and reality when it suits you. whether constitutionally india is secular or not is irrelevant, politically and pragmatically it is not. the relevant comparison is to use the same yardstick with which you measure pakistan, which labels itself an Islamic republic, but more importantly is considered to be such by its citizens. self identified secular countries are essentially but not exclusively the secular west. there you can see the very obvious glaring hypocrisy in your position of judgementalism: "The very basis of secularism is to let the religionists do their own thing within the confines of their own private space so long as the state doesn't endorse it" - as imposed by the state. a position of proposed indifference can never practically be perfectly indifferent, and its definitions and parameters necessarily demand an explicitly non-indifferent social philosophy that is then enforced, just like in any other society. secularists seem incapable of taking an objective position with regards to this, and view that practical indifference so to speak as a position as close to objective neutrality as possible. thats just not true - its only true if you happen to hold the same philosophical position - a separation of church and state is not a neutral position, and to impose it on a society that doesnt agree with it is oppression, by definition.

its obvious following that assertion why it is relevant to this discussion, because this discussion has at its fulcrum an imposition of an alien social philosophy to the vast majority of the society in question.

the difference between both our positions is that my perspective can be applied to all humanity and all societies, whether religionist, secular, atheist or whatever; yours is predicated on a position of judgemental self appointed superiority, and applies only to non-secular societies, which your posts reek of disdain for.

India is actually a very good example here because it demonstrates amply that the kind of extremism that you’re trying to prove exists in the context of secularism is nothing more than a poorly thought out strawman. The extremist elements there do what they do in contravention of their secular constitution in the name of their religion because the secular constitution doesn’t offer them any room to interpret it in a manner that could be considered extreme. A position of proposed indifference may not necessarily be perfectly indifferent practically but given the alternative, a position of overt partiality towards one group with utter disregard for all else is an objectively inferior option so even an imperfect stance of indifference is preferable. It is not ‘oppression’ to prevent the state from endorsing a religion because the majority wants it, it’s making sure that the majority doesn’t oppress the rest using the legal tools it would have at its disposal if the state adopted an official religion. In a republic, which is what Pakistan claims to be (on paper, it’s more of a theocracy in practice), certain basic issues are insulated from the whims of the majority because their very reason to exist is to keep the excesses of the majority in check. The majority in my country demands a lot of things that any even halfway respectable state would deny them. The right to forecefully convert and marry minor non-Muslim girls is a right our “majority” has been throwing a hissy fit over recently after it was revoked due to gross abuses.
It is not, in any way, ‘obvious’ following any of your assertions why a discussion on a largely imaginary phenomenon like secular extremism is relevant to a society that is extreme in the opposite direction especially considering that most of the aforementioned assertions are based on unfounded assumptions, shaky logic and unrealistic hypothetical scenarios.,

 

[godzilla]

It’s true for physical sciences. The laws of nature don’t vary to account for cultural sensitivities or context. You seem to be confusing physical sciences with social sciences which do, indeed, vary in their application based on cultural differences across different parts of the world. Evolutionary theory, multiverse theory and most medical theories are constant, it’s the degree to which they’re accepted and applied that varies ...

well thats precisely the point isnt it? theres no presuming in where your opinion comes from, its patently obvious in the seething comments. most of those theories are constant? what on earth are you talking about? thats just unadulterated ignorance. the irrational claim that evolution is nonsense? which theory of evolution? micro? macro? application from t=0? medical theory is almost exclusively the one most obvious example of 'evolutionary'
change, with the vast majority of it still unchartered. multiverse theories are constant? do you even know what they are? empiricism claims that evolutionary theory is demonstrable in concept in many various environments. but its an exactly reciprocal argument of the one that you repetitively criticise that leads secular societies to claim its as factually applicable in all environments - thats not rational, its emotional. again, thats not to say that it is wrong, but to claim some kind of superiority of knowledge of the origin of life based on a general unproven extrapolation of a proven concept is delusional, dishonest and grossly hypocritical.

all societies show aversion to theories that they feel undermine their philosophy, or in more neutral terms, they view as wrong. theres nothing wrong with that, and your claim to know more than the rest of humanity what is right and wrong is what makes your argument biased, oppressive, intolerant and bigoted.

[/QUOTE]and that has more to do with the fact that there are cultures and religions whose very foundations are invalidated if these theories are accepted as fact hence the aversion to accept them fully as evident by the irrational claim in our textbooks that the theory of evolution is nonsense. Contextualization and application is subjective only for social sciences. There’s very little room for contextualization to begin with in the physical sciences and as far as variations in application go, those are down mostly to the limitations of those applying them, not science itself.

yes - and thats subjective, thats the point. are you making some kind of claim that secular societies have a monopoly in correct and agenda free application? if so, you are delusional and must have been living in some massive rock made of self pity the past few decades.

Please. First, don’t presume to know the principle position from which my opinion is formed. Secondly, there’s very little room for objectivity in this case because scientific texts, unlike the humanities or arts, cannot be modified to accommodate the beliefs of a society if that means declaring established scientific principles invalid because they don’t fit into the society’s religious narrative and the let’s all be friends, all beliefs are equal and yours are just as valid as mine approach doesn’t work there. That secular societies don’t see “a shimmering reflection of precise reciprocity of social authoritarianism in other societies” is because there’s no precise reciprocity there. It’s utterly ludicrous, not to mention hypocritical in the extreme, to claim, without any proof or examples no less, that secular societies are exactly as socially authoritarian as their religious counterparts despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is no comparison between, say, France, the go to example of an “extremist” secular state for those with religious inclinations, and Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, two of the more representative examples of conservative religious societies.
[/QUOTE]
have you been asleep for the past year? are you entirely unaware of the totalitarianism that is being bemoaned and protested every single day in secular western societies. are you oblivious to the enforced and militarised enforcement of freedom that secular democracy is purported to bring to the rest of the world? the assertions ive put forward are no more ludicrous than the ones you have. no proof or examples? they are literally ubiquitous to anyone who can see beyond the tears in his own mirror.

you appear to be incapable of understanding that the application of theory that you yourself highlighted is open to misuse, is something that you might be misusing. you seem to be hiding behind some asinine presumption that [all] "science" is some kind of binary monolith when it comes to your assertions of how it should be taught, despite these possibilities of misuse. your whole position is hypocritical to an absolute extreme that no matter what i write i think is impossible for you to see.

the difference is our positions as i mentioned before is that im a humanist - my view of the error of these societies, both east and west, both religionist and secular are a function of humanity, corruption and politics. yours is a position of irrational, emotion filled hate and bigotry.

It seems bizzare to those who are staunch in their religious convictions because they need a proverbial boogeyman to justify their own brand of extremism. Unfortunately, actual examples of extreme secularism are few and far between. In Pakistan for instance, where I live and which is an especially extreme society even by the standards of religious societies, anyone who espouses any of the following values is labelled a liberal/secular extremist: women’s rights, religious tolerance; preference for introspection over irrational patriotism, separation of state and religion, increased role of state for levelling inequalities, a less ambitious foreign policy among many other things. Ignoring the various strata of religionist societies might have something to do with the fact that the discussion was about a particular religionist society, not religionist societies in general and the society in question happens to be one of the most extreme on the face of the planet so it’s natural that it would be criticized for being so. That you extrapolated it to apply to religionist societies in general and from there you made the connection that if someone considers a particular religious society to be extreme, they do so for all while holding their preferred system to a lower standard is simply a case of false attribution based on a series of unfounded assumptions with very little basis in fact.

you dont have a monopoly of living in pakistan or understanding its culture and philosophical strata. your criticism you can back away now from is a thinly veiled critique of islam in this case, in the name of and from the perspective of a secularist preferred ideology. if you don't want a discussion on what is obviously a principle running through your posts but want to describe your own life experience in terms of specificity - youre welcome to it, but not sure why you think anyone thinks you are important enough to want to listen to your diatribe.

you pick the right person in the vast majority of countries in the world including teh uk, usa, france etc etc and if they are massively self infatuated and a minority, they will describe their society as one of the most oppressive in the world. thats neither here nor there. theres plenty of people in any of those societies who are perfectly happy living in their societies.

im afraid your assertion that my generalising of the discussion is a case of false attribution and founded on assumptions, i would suggest you re-read your own posts. there is no specificity that has been lost in the course of my 'generalisation' - ive been precisely inclusive of your premise.

Except the shoe is never practically on the other foot, only in long winded strawman arguments that are purely hypothetical and stretch the bounds of what is realistic. Secularism is not an ideology in the same way a religion like, say, Islam is. A Muslim in a secular state is just as free as one in an Islamic state to practice his religion. The opposite, unfortunately is not true.

this view is so myopic its almost laughable. firstly, you are wrong. by most accounts, muslims are free-er to express their religion in secular societies than in islamic societies, at least up until a few years ago. secondly, now thats certainly not necessarily the case.

its only hypothetical when its an opposing argument, isnt it? the whole 'strawman argument' accusation is so de rigeur for a weak defence its hardly worth referencing anymore.

de jure and pragmatically, secularism is precisely an ideology like religion. your counter example, forgive me for saying, is pathetic. 'free to express' is such a subjective assessment that it exposes just how blinkered your argument is. go to any secular society and dig out minorities, whether they be minorities of religion, politics, race, class, sexuality and so on and ask them how free they feel.

There’s no equivalency to be drawn between secularism and religion as an ideology which is what your entire argument is premised on since the two are very different in nature. The former is limited in scope to maintaining a wall of separation between church and state. The latter, on the other hand, goes a little bit beyond that and seeks to control people’s personal lives and experiences, impose a particular set of values on all regardless of their beliefs (as opposed to secularism which offers room for people to live by their own values without the state officially endorsing any one of them over the others) and doesn’t tolerate dissent. I’m yet to hear of any secular state that routinely sentences people to death for opposing and/or criticizing the separation of church and state.

im sorry, this is too inane to respond to seriously, beyond what ive already written. suffice it to say, if thats what my argument is based on, yours is based on the opposite for which you give such weak anecdotal, impractical and idealistic examples that its astonishing. in terms of death sentences, as if that is your self appointed standard of freedom, are you entirely oblivious of the wars and murder of millions of people in the last two decades carried out by the bastions of secular free societies?

India is actually a very good example here because it demonstrates amply that the kind of extremism that you’re trying to prove exists in the context of secularism is nothing more than a poorly thought out strawman. The extremist elements there do what they do in contravention of their secular constitution in the name of their religion because the secular constitution doesn’t offer them any room to interpret it in a manner that could be considered extreme. A position of proposed indifference may not necessarily be perfectly indifferent practically but given the alternative, a position of overt partiality towards one group with utter disregard for all else is an objectively inferior option so even an imperfect stance of indifference is preferable. It is not ‘oppression’ to prevent the state from endorsing a religion because the majority wants it, it’s making sure that the majority doesn’t oppress the rest using the legal tools it would have at its disposal if the state adopted an official religion. In a republic, which is what Pakistan claims to be (on paper, it’s more of a theocracy in practice), certain basic issues are insulated from the whims of the majority because their very reason to exist is to keep the excesses of the majority in check. The majority in my country demands a lot of things that any even halfway respectable state would deny them. The right to forecefully convert and marry minor non-Muslim girls is a right our “majority” has been throwing a hissy fit over recently after it was revoked due to gross abuses.
It is not, in any way, ‘obvious’ following any of your assertions why a discussion on a largely imaginary phenomenon like secular extremism is relevant to a society that is extreme in the opposite direction especially considering that most of the aforementioned assertions are based on unfounded assumptions, shaky logic and unrealistic hypothetical scenarios.,

its not any form of argument to claim ("without proof or example") that a secular society is ideal, but we must judge religionist societies by their practitioners which we can further claim are appropriate representatives of that faith. and its no argument to claim strawman hypotheticals when you bandy around secular hypotheticals yourself. secular extremism not only is a definite reality but is directly responsible for more human misery, oppression and death in recent history than any other social philosophy. that to an unbiased mind does not disqualify secularism from being a perfectly good system of social engagement, but to deny it is just so blatantly dishonest and/or ignorant, theres no point in further discussion.

 

[Syed1]

btw i think the author is misguided if he thinks the lack of pakistani science nobel prize winners is because of school grade text books. its very obviously because a long line of governments have chronically underinvested in education, both school level and upper.

if the author doesnt even know that, it says a lot more about his tone and agenda than anything else.

see if you can find the flag:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_spending_on_education_(%_of_GDP)

Doesn't matter even if we start spending more most of it will go into the pockets of corrupt bureaucrats and politicians.

Wholesale upgrade of the educational system is required, focusing on curriculum, teacher attendance and training and standardized learning methods. Right now you get education based on your parent's social status, this is a completely unacceptable situation which keeps the poor as poor and makes the rich get richer.

Unfortunately for our politicians having an illiterate and subservient population is the only way these Bhuttos and Sharifs get elected time and time again.

I'm happy that atleast in KPK there has been massive improvement on the educational front, but it is still the start of the journey with many miles to go. No hope from the rest of the three provinces.

 

[DW44]

well thats precisely the point isnt it? theres no presuming in where your opinion comes from, its patently obvious in the seething comments. most of those theories are constant? what on earth are you talking about? thats just unadulterated ignorance. the irrational claim that evolution is nonsense? which theory of evolution? micro? macro? application from t=0? medical theory is almost exclusively the one most obvious example of 'evolutionary'
change, with the vast majority of it still unchartered. multiverse theories are constant? do you even know what they are? empiricism claims that evolutionary theory is demonstrable in concept in many various environments. but its an exactly reciprocal argument of the one that you repetitively criticise that leads secular societies to claim its as factually applicable in all environments - thats not rational, its emotional. again, thats not to say that it is wrong, but to claim some kind of superiority of knowledge of the origin of life based on a general unproven extrapolation of a proven concept is delusional, dishonest and grossly hypocritical.

all societies show aversion to theories that they feel undermine their philosophy, or in more neutral terms, they view as wrong. theres nothing wrong with that, and your claim to know more than the rest of humanity what is right and wrong is what makes your argument biased, oppressive, intolerant and bigoted.

and that has more to do with the fact that there are cultures and religions whose very foundations are invalidated if these theories are accepted as fact hence the aversion to accept them fully as evident by the irrational claim in our textbooks that the theory of evolution is nonsense. Contextualization and application is subjective only for social sciences. There’s very little room for contextualization to begin with in the physical sciences and as far as variations in application go, those are down mostly to the limitations of those applying them, not science itself.

I probably used the wrong word here, it should have been universal, not constant but either way, it's clear what I mean and my point still stands. Which particular version of the theory of evolution is right or wrong is so far beyond the scope of this discussion it's not even funny considering that the textbook in question outright claims that the very idea of evolution is nonsensical and unbelievable. Again, you dwell too much on the word constant which was simply a case of the wrong choice of word. Yes, medical theory is constantly evolving but it's not changing to account for people's cultural preferences. People in Pakistan still get breast, testicular and ovarian cancers despite the mention of any of those parts of the anatomy being taboo because science doesn't care if you're squeamish about the mention of reproductive organs. At some point in this post my use of the phrase false attribution is going to get repetitive because you have done that in virtually every other sentence. How is the universal demonstrability of evolutionary theory reciprocal to my argument when my whole argument is that it's not something you can dismiss out of hand due to the sheer volume of evidence that supports it? Is the presence of overwhelming evidence not covered by the term demonstrability? It may not work the same way in all environments in the sense that it's effects may vary based on geographical and climactic factors but that's neither here nor there because that does nothing to negate the notion that it's universal and it's happening constantly. No one is exempt because their culture or religion says it's bunkum. Pakistanis, Saudis and other religious folk around the world who deny it and seek to propagate that view still have tail bones the same way baby murdering atheists do. I don't see which extrapolation of unproven concepts you're referring to since my perceived position of superiority is based not on the extrapolation of any wild theories but on the fact that the viewpoint I'm opposing outright denies, without leaving room for any argument to the contrary, a well known and widely acknowledged scientific fact. There's no need to take a condescending tone. I'm well aware of what the multiverse theory is or I wouldn't have mentioned it. In any case, that too, while constantly evolving, doesn't vary in terms of it's salient features depending on the cultural preferences of where it's being discussed.

All societies may show aversion to theories that challenge their outlook on life but not all of them outright deny science and incorporate this denial into their education system. The ones that do are doing a disservice to their future generations and to their culture by perpetuating the existence of superstition and fallacies instead of trying to improve it by accepting that there may be room for inquiry where their beliefs clash with scientific facts and being open to new knowledge may help better them.

have you been asleep for the past year? are you entirely unaware of the totalitarianism that is being bemoaned and protested every single day in secular western societies. are you oblivious to the enforced and militarised enforcement of freedom that secular democracy is purported to bring to the rest of the world? the assertions ive put forward are no more ludicrous than the ones you have. no proof or examples? they are literally ubiquitous to anyone who can see beyond the tears in his own mirror.

Are you seriously comparing the severity of the totalitarianism being protested in secular western countries to that of the totalitarianism that has been accepted as a fact of life for decades in religious states such as Pakistan because if so, it's nothing more than either an intellectually dishonest or genuinely ignorant false equivalency. What enforced and militarized enforcement of freedom? Are they branding Christians and Muslims with crucifixes and crescents, making them register with the government and legislating to criminalize their religious practices? There's no country without it's share of issues but the oversimplification of "all countries have their issues" to make ludicrous claims that put the likes of Sweden on the same plane as, say, Somalia is just as intellectually dishonest as claiming that one system is perfect while the other has absolutely no redeeming features whatsoever, a claim, by the way, I have not made though you seem to be attempting to attribute it to me.

you appear to be incapable of understanding that the application of theory that you yourself highlighted is open to misuse, is something that you might be misusing. you seem to be hiding behind some asinine presumption that [all] "science" is some kind of binary monolith when it comes to your assertions of how it should be taught, despite these possibilities of misuse. your whole position is hypocritical to an absolute extreme that no matter what i write i think is impossible for you to see.

How on earth do you take away from whatever I've said that I'm denying the possibility of scientific theories being open to abuse? First, that's not my position at all, let me be very clear on that. Secondly, that's not even relevant here because much like scientific theories, authority is just as open to abuse which is precisely what's going on here in the name of cultural preservation by an Islamic state mandating not only that scientific facts that conflict with the state religion be excised from textbooks but that they be denied vehemently. I continue to be astounded by the inferences you're drawing, or perhaps forcing in order to make a point that you would otherwise be unable to make if you considered only what I've actually said and not make up random claims which you then attribute to me. I don't recall claiming that science is a binary monolith that is static. I did however say that it is universal and the salient features of any scientific theory remain the same regardless of where one is.

the difference is our positions as i mentioned before is that im a humanist - my view of the error of these societies, both east and west, both religionist and secular are a function of humanity, corruption and politics. yours is a position of irrational, emotion filled hate and bigotry.

For a humanist, the arguments you make come across very much like better articulated versions of those made by Islamists. I generally agree that the failings of both eastern and western society are a result of human imperfection, corruption and politics, among other things. That last bit is important because those other things are what's at play here, the most significant of them being, in the Pakistani context, a cultural aversion to confront challenges to the society's belief systems instead of facing them head on and proving them right or wrong. If you've drawn a different inference, once again, you either misunderstood my argument or, the more likely case, are falsely attributing an opinion I never expressed or hold.

you dont have a monopoly of living in pakistan or understanding its culture and philosophical strata. your criticism you can back away now from is a thinly veiled critique of islam in this case, in the name of and from the perspective of a secularist preferred ideology. if you don't want a discussion on what is obviously a principle running through your posts but want to describe your own life experience in terms of specificity - youre welcome to it, but not sure why you think anyone thinks you are important enough to want to listen to your diatribe.

Indeed I don't, but this is an A to B argument and between the two of us, there's very little doubt over who is better positioned to know about the cultural nuances of Pakistani society based on, if nothing else, the sheer amount of time spent across most of the country. My criticism, originally was directed more at the blind adherence of people to Islamic principles than at Islam itself which is something I tend to criticize openly on this forum without ever having to veil anything. I, as a citizen and resident of Pakistan, am well within my rights to take issue with a blatantly misguided attempt at cultural preservation by sacrificing the integrity of our education system. Islam was not even part of the debate until you turned this into an argument over secular extremism vs Islamism. This is a forum. The whole point of fora is for people to discuss things, which is exactly what was going on here until you made your entry. Discussions usually involve sharing of opinions which, in turn, are informed by personal experiences so I don't see why you would possibly take exception to that in the first place, not to mention that no personal experiences were shared on this thread in the first place unless you have an issue with my opinions in general, not at all an uncommon occurrence here, and decided to take the opportunity to have a personal dig with all that spiel about secular extremism when it was completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

you pick the right person in the vast majority of countries in the world including teh uk, usa, france etc etc and if they are massively self infatuated and a minority, they will describe their society as one of the most oppressive in the world. thats neither here nor there. theres plenty of people in any of those societies who are perfectly happy living in their societies.

And they'd be laughed off if they, sitting in the UK, USA or France, claim their society to be the most oppressive in the world in a world where the likes of Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia exist, societies that are genuinely oppressive, as opposed to the hugely imperfect but still relatively egalitarian societies in the countries you mentioned. Off course in a place dominated by conservative Islamists the opposite argument will naturally have more traction as is the case here but on any objective measure, a comparison between an Islamic state and a secular one, and I'm referring to those that actually exist as opposed to your hypothetical oppressive secular extremist states, is a non starter.

im afraid your assertion that my generalising of the discussion is a case of false attribution and founded on assumptions, i would suggest you re-read your own posts. there is no specificity that has been lost in the course of my 'generalisation' - ive been precisely inclusive of your premise.

Considering that virtually every argument you made is premised on falsely attributing some patently ridiculous claims to me, several of which actually run contrary to my beliefs including several expressed here, it's a bit hypocritical of you to be accusing me of false attribution. I have limited myself to responding only to what you're claiming and what you're attributing to me without digressing even slightly from the topic at hand.

this view is so myopic its almost laughable. firstly, you are wrong. by most accounts, muslims are free-er to express their religion in secular societies than in islamic societies, at least up until a few years ago. secondly, now thats certainly not necessarily the case.

How is that no longer the case? Bar some extreme examples, how are Muslims in secular societies any less free than non Muslims in Islamic societies? Are you telling me that you're less free in Britain than the Christian woman in Pakistan who is on death row thanks to a law where the entire burden of proof is an accusation? I can't, for the life of me, see the likes of the Tories protesting and demanding that parliament be dissolved if they outlawed forced conversions of Muslim minors to Christianity. That is happening here as we speak.

its only hypothetical when its an opposing argument, isnt it? the whole 'strawman argument' accusation is so de rigeur for a weak defence its hardly worth referencing anymore.

It's hypothetical when it's completely unsupported by any relevant real world examples, mainly because there are none.

de jure and pragmatically, secularism is precisely an ideology like religion. your counter example, forgive me for saying, is pathetic. 'free to express' is such a subjective assessment that it exposes just how blinkered your argument is. go to any secular society and dig out minorities, whether they be minorities of religion, politics, race, class, sexuality and so on and ask them how free they feel.

Having lived for a reasonably long duration in a secular society, as a Muslim Pakistani no less, and a Muslim one, it's hard to overstate just how ridiculous that argument and any attempt to compare the oppression in one to the other is. I'll just attribute this to your lack of experience living in an actual religious state coupled with an unfortunate tendency of western, more specifically British, Muslims to overstate the degree of oppression in secular states and understate the same in religious ones despite usually having little experience of actually living in the latter.

its not any form of argument to claim ("without proof or example") that a secular society is ideal, but we must judge religionist societies by their practitioners which we can further claim are appropriate representatives of that faith. and its no argument to claim strawman hypotheticals when you bandy around secular hypotheticals yourself. secular extremism not only is a definite reality but is directly responsible for more human misery, oppression and death in recent history than any other social philosophy. that to an unbiased mind does not disqualify secularism from being a perfectly good system of social engagement, but to deny it is just so blatantly dishonest and/or ignorant, theres no point in further discussion.

Bit rich of you to complain about lack of examples when you're yet to produce a single credible example of secular extremism and of all the cases of false attribution, this one has to take the cake. At no point did I claim that secular societies are ideal and should be judged by a different standard to religious ones. My argument is simple enough. In my opinion, and this bit is important because you seem to be suggesting that if my opinion is part of my argument, the argument is automatically invalidated while the same standard doesn't apply to your arguments, a secular society is preferable to a religious one because the latter only caters to a particular segment of the society while the latter, at least in theory if not necessarily always in practice, seeks to cater to as many people as possible without actively impinging on the rights of any one group or exalting one set of beliefs over all others at an official level. If you take issue with that, it's pretty clear what the motivation for that is.

 

[yasir]

Darwins theory of evolution is a competitive theory it is not a universal truth or law based on hardhitting empirical evidence.it is debatable whether the manner in which it is outrightly dismissed without any plausible reasons is right.

Really, Which is the other Theory that is embedded in Evidence? - Can you provide some reference. Nobody is can dismiss Religion if it carries evidence. The war of intellectual is fought on evidence, not on democratic or emotional front. You can never build intellectual empire if emotions and superstition triumph evidence!!!

 

[Itachi]

Scientific facts are absolute, not subject to change according to people's social philosophies or ways of life. Most countries in the world are able to preserve their way of life without having to lower the quality of education they provide their children with by distorting facts to accommodate their irrational beliefs.

I don't see how secular extremism figures into a discussion over the quality of scientific textbooks in Pakistan where there's no space for extremism of any kind bar the Islamic variety so I fail to see the connection. Besides, secular extremism isn't really a thing. It's a strawman created by religious extremists and their moderate apologists by drawing false equivalencies between the actions of these extremists and those who oppose them.

Scientific facts aren't absolute. Everything depends upon the frame of reference.

Every theory comes with a set of constriction.... Some obligations which are need to assume to make that theory work.

Darwins evolution theory has its own short comings. I am not saying, I don't believe in it.
.... But to mention a theory as absolute facts will be going too far ahead.

 

[DW44]

Scientific facts aren't absolute. Everything depends upon the frame of reference.

Every theory comes with a set of constriction.... Some obligations which are need to assume to make that theory work.

Darwins evolution theory has its own short comings. I am not saying, I don't believe in it.
.... But to mention a theory as absolute facts will be going too far ahead.

Again, I probably chose the wrong term. Universal is what I meant, not absolute as in static or free of any limitations. My point is that while scientific theories, including Darwin's, have their limitations and shortcomings, those shortcomings and limitations don't mean that scientific processes come to a screeching halt at Pakistan's borders. By all means teach children about the limitations and shortcomings of these theories but don't tell them that these theories are absolute rubbish and there's no room for discussion in that. You can't use cultural sensitivities as a reason for outright denying what is fairly well established science.

 

[The_KING]

Evolution is a fact.

 

[godzilla]

I probably used the wrong word here, it should have been universal, not constant but either way, it's clear what I mean and my point still stands. Which particular version of the theory of evolution is right or wrong is so far beyond the scope of this discussion it's not even funny considering that the textbook in question outright claims that the very idea of evolution is nonsensical and unbelievable. Again, you dwell too much on the word constant which was simply a case of the wrong choice of word. Yes, medical theory is constantly evolving but it's not changing to account for people's cultural preferences. People in Pakistan still get breast, testicular and ovarian cancers despite the mention of any of those parts of the anatomy being taboo because science doesn't care if you're squeamish about the mention of reproductive organs. At some point in this post my use of the phrase false attribution is going to get repetitive because you have done that in virtually every other sentence. How is the universal demonstrability of evolutionary theory reciprocal to my argument when my whole argument is that it's not something you can dismiss out of hand due to the sheer volume of evidence that supports it? Is the presence of overwhelming evidence not covered by the term demonstrability? It may not work the same way in all environments in the sense that it's effects may vary based on geographical and climactic factors but that's neither here nor there because that does nothing to negate the notion that it's universal and it's happening constantly. No one is exempt because their culture or religion says it's bunkum. Pakistanis, Saudis and other religious folk around the world who deny it and seek to propagate that view still have tail bones the same way baby murdering atheists do. I don't see which extrapolation of unproven concepts you're referring to since my perceived position of superiority is based not on the extrapolation of any wild theories but on the fact that the viewpoint I'm opposing outright denies, without leaving room for any argument to the contrary, a well known and widely acknowledged scientific fact. There's no need to take a condescending tone. I'm well aware of what the multiverse theory is or I wouldn't have mentioned it. In any case, that too, while constantly evolving, doesn't vary in terms of it's salient features depending on the cultural preferences of where it's being discussed.

.... etc etc

well i think we've gotten to a point where its not worth continuing - your extreme hypocrisy and self infatuated myopia is clearly a hallmark you are blissfully ignorant of. you ward me off making assumptions on your motivations - which you spray around with the fanfare of desperation for attention - and then have no hesitation in making widespread assumptions on mine.

this is just a confused and desperate web of repetitive inconsistencies.

you clearly have no idea about life outside of your own tiny irrelevant microcosm.

im sure you think the same of my opinions, and fair enough, each to their own.

 

[DW44]

im sure you think the same of my opinions, and fair enough, each to their own.

As understatements go, that's a fairly impressive one so yeah, if it's come down to petty personal insults and questioning each other's intelligence, I really don't see the point of dragging this ridiculous argument any further.

 

[yasir]

Social Darwinism has been thoroughly debunked.

The modern thesis of Darwinism has a mountain of evidence supporting it, from numerous scientific disciplines.

It is entirely possible for a religious person of intellectual rigour to accept Darwinism, by treating religious texts as metaphor instead of literal truth.

One of the biggest problem with Islamic Theology is literalism, muslims have lot more than most religions. There is lot of blood bath in history, even now you don't just have to belief in Prophet but literally last prophet, otherwise you are not Muslim. Countries have laws defining who is muslim and who is not, rarely happen elsewhere...

Sufis tried to Abstract religion from real world in past, they mixed philosophy, literature and spiritualism in a way to dilute literalism, but recent Muslim religious culture is heavily influenced by Wahabi brand of Islam who basically are literalism on steroids. Most of last century violence, terrorism in Islamic world stems from their ideology.

Sadly, Wahabis were nobodies before First WW, they came into life thanks to Brits, who wanted to make pact with anybody but Ottomans, Oil made them so rich. Fundamentalist Islam lives a lot on Oil money. Oil is not only bad for Environment but bad for Muslim population, who did not found a way to get rid of Fundamental Islamic theology.

Its not just Wahabis, it started the arm race of fundamentalism in Islamic world. Shahies went that route, Sunnis were attracted to that, plus Oil money allowed Industrialization of fundamentalism via Madaras and dictatorship, they used religion as a way to shield themselves from western democracy and education. For them both are threat to their power, its like you give extended power to Nazi, what you are going to get??

 

[Itachi]

Again, I probably chose the wrong term. Universal is what I meant, not absolute as in static or free of any limitations. My point is that while scientific theories, including Darwin's, have their limitations and shortcomings, those shortcomings and limitations don't mean that scientific processes come to a screeching halt at Pakistan's borders. By all means teach children about the limitations and shortcomings of these theories but don't tell them that these theories are absolute rubbish and there's no room for discussion in that. You can't use cultural sensitivities as a reason for outright denying what is fairly well established science.

I'll agree. Awareness to science can vanish many third world problems. Here in India, sometimes we read about mass beating some women suspected of being a witch.... That has got to stop.

I have seen even educated (degree wise) people believing as such.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

Why Majority of You people show so much hate against Aethiests, Agnostic & Non Muslim People here ?

Even if they utter facts, truths, realities you people do not admit it and try your best to ridicule them.

Aren't they Human Beings ?


They might say something which will hurt you, pinch you emotionally. But majority of you Kaat Khaanay ko doarhtay ho aor bus challay tou unki zindagi le lou. Jub k majority of you are reasonably educated.


Atleast mujhay Mazhub ne ye nai sikhaya. Meinay Seerat un Nabi ki bohat kitaabein Alhamdoulillah perh daali hein. Mujhah ye darss nai milla.


Aap loug unko duurr ker rahay ho. Agar Aap ne ye jaari rakha tou aor bhee loug saffein choarh dein ge. Ye Ijtemaee nuqsaan hoga.



Have patience to listen to others. If you do not have patience than don't quote people. Logoun ka sakoon saansein tungg na kero. Every human being needs to ventilate wherever they get the platform.