Reactions in the court of public opinion varied. Some thought that Corona was brave, a hero for having the courage to challenge government corruption by putting his own integrity on the line. Others, myself included, thought that far from heroic, the dilatory tactic betrayed cowardice, and by involving others, he revealed his fear of facing justice alone.

But while people were split on Corona’s conditional waiver, his subsequent walkout, and the drama that followed, practically brought supporters and critics to a consensus. Guilty or innocent, Corona should have known better than to walk out of an ongoing hearing, and for an acting Chief Justice his actions were just too unprofessional.

But I believe “unprofessional” would be putting it too kindly. The walkout, and everything that led up to and followed after it, deserves a different description, another adjective that Corona would surely disapprove of — childish.

Even before the consensus on the unprofessionalism of Corona’s walkout, people agreed that Corona was anything but a public speaker. He spoke like a university freshman, sometimes even worse than a high school student, and his communication skills — or lack thereof — did not suit someone who was supposedly the greatest judge of the land. How could someone embody all the complexities of justice when he couldn’t even articulate simple sentences well? And his ineptitude knew no borders — he spoke poorly as much in English as he did in his native tongue.

His sophomoric skills at communication was consistent with his argumentation skills, and as language books invariably teach, sloppy speaking is a symptom of sloppy thinking. For starters, Corona’s speech was so unnecessarily long that he resembled a student struggling to find fillers for his essay to reach a minimum wordcount: “Mr. Corona, in 10,000 words, why should we acquit you?”

His speech so closely resembled the papers of so many seatmates I peer-reviewed in composition classes. More than building a defense that rested on facts, his speech was like the all-too-common “How I Spent My Summer Vacation” assignment, complete with long and cliche descriptions of characters that was only appropriate in the context of a classroom.

And discovering that his speech would not save him from conviction, Corona used one of the most common tactics a student resorted to in front of a teacher who failed him — crying. I’m sure he was under a lot of mental and emotional stress, but I expected more from the way he so confidently spoke about what he’d do before the hearing. And I don’t think it’s too much to set a higher standard of dignity and decency from a chief justice.

As I’ve said, opinions are still split on Corona’s conditional waiver. If you think it’s such a dignified idea, I hope to change your mind by showing you how childish Corona’s move actually is. Think of two brothers who each have a dirty room. Mom is trying to discipline them by assigning them the cleaning as a chore instead of leaving it to a helper like she usually does.

Unfortunately for the younger one, big brother is having his summer vacation at camp, and he would have to be the first to taste this bitter medicine. Just doing it despite the perceived unfairness would no doubt make Mom and Dad proud, but the boy is just not there yet. At his level of maturity, it would not be unexpected to hear him say something like this:

“But mom, it’s so unfair! Kuya is having the time of his life while I’m stuck here, and worse, you’re forcing me to clean my room!”

Mom and Dad try to convince the boy, offering him to remove his grounded status — earlier the boy did not tell his parents that his uncle gave him some cash, breaking the promise that he’d tell them if such a thing happened. Excited about the possibility of going out to play, the boy reluctantly agrees to clean his room but only under one condition: he would only do it once Kuya got back, and they would have to do it together.

It would take a couple of months before Kuya got back from camp, which meant that the parents would have to live with two messy rooms instead of one. Mom and Dad would have none of it, and it showed in their faces. So the boy, wanting to avoid an argument against grownups he just can’t win, stormed out of his folks’ room, trying to rush outside the house. Too bad for the boy: his parents used the intercom too tell their security guard to lock the gate.

The boy would now surely get the talking of his life, and knowing this, he resorted to one of the all-purpose tricks that got him out of school or homework: he pretended to be sick. Mom and Dad had barely resisted the boy’s babyface as he made his conditional offer, but now he was a babyfaced boy whose asthma was acting up, a condition he’s had for a long time. The parents just could not resist their child, and it would border on child abuse to force him to speak despite his sickness.

I’m sure you’ve made all the connections necessary to relate this to Corona’s behavior, and the logic of the boy, at least in terms of manipulating his parents to get the result that he wanted is surely commendable. But in Corona’s case, a commendation is not in order for one simple reason: he’s chief justice of the Philippines, not some bratty boy.

To make our analogy fit more closely, we can add one detail to the story of the boy with the messy room: the parents are the progressive kind that would respect their children’s privacy, allowing them to not only keep the doors locked but also to keep the bedroom keys. For the parents to check whether the chore has been done, the boy would have to unlock his room to reveal it.

In this version of the boy story, the parents don’t know whether any of the rooms is messy, which is why they wanted to find out. The boy is still grounded for the summer, with big brother in camp, and the revelation of a clean room would grant him his freedom. All he has to do is unlock his door.

But the boy, despite all that he could gain from such a simple action, refused to do so unless his big brother faced the music of a possibly messy room with him. Tell me. Do you think little CJ has a clean room?

___

Note: I think little CJ’s room is messy — and so is big brothers — but this is my personal opinion; the Filipino Freethinkers do not have an official position on the Corona trial.

Image credits: 1, 2

Unfair as it may sound, not all opinions are equal. When you want to build a house, do you ask a random guy on the street, or do you ask an architect? How about when you’re sick? Or need to have a contract checked? Do you ask the experts or do you ask random people?

It’s called “False Balance”. It may sound good and egalitarian, but giving airtime to those who have very little understanding about a specific subject is a great disservice to the rest of us. Not all views and opinions are valid, and some are more valid than others.

When Fox News (surprise!) gives moon landing hoaxers or anti-vaccination nutjobs a platform to spread their inanity, it gives them false credibility as an equal and valid opinion. When Larry King gives UFO conspiracy theorists airtime, the general public will likely perceive that both sides have equal merit.

I’m sorry to say, Andy, that when I read “Middle Ground”, I saw False Balance written all over it. Inadvertently or not, you used False Balance as a crutch to support theistic views while appearing to be “neutral”. The fact is, your views fall squarely into the Theist side.

I’d like to take a few minutes to point out where I disagree.

But if atheism is defined as “ the rejection of belief in the existence of deities“, I don’t think I’m quite there yet. So far, the atheism that I have seen is first and foremost, a rejection of the Christian deity (or the Christian definition of god as portrayed in the Bible). So far also, most of the atheists that I know who are actively espousing their non-belief come from some sort of Christian background. I do not know of any prominent atheist who started out as a muslim, a jew, a hindu, or a druid.

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is simply “a lack of belief in deities”. It’s not necessarily a “rejection” of belief in deities. Newborn babies are technically atheists, because they are incapable of forming a belief in deities. They can’t reject what they can’t even conceive of yet. There’s a simple question you can ask to determine if someone is an atheist. Just ask them: “Do you believe in the existence of a supernatural deity?”. If one cannot answer “Yes”, then one is an atheist.

Andy, I find it quite disingenuous of you to lump us all as just “Atheists” as if that word alone is enough to describe us all. You can only glean one thing when a person says that he/she is an atheist: That the person does not believe in deities. That’s it. Atheism says nothing about my personal beliefs, wants, hopes, and dreams. It says nothing about my attitudes towards other people. It says nothing about my views about myself and the world we live in.

Most atheists (not all mind you!) are skeptics, humanists, naturalists, secularists or a combination of them. It is from this point of view that I am responding to this article of yours.

My friend, the biggest reason most atheists you know come from a Christian background is because you live in a country that is predominantly Christian. The second reason is probably because you haven’t done much research on atheists and atheism. Maybe that’s why you’ve never heard of Salman Rushdie, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or Sanal Edamaruku. (Atheist Jews are a dime a dozen, if you care to do the research)

Because of this, most atheists speak out on issues that involve rejecting the Christian god and Christianity. Once that is done, this disbelief in god is expanded in a less hostile fashion to other religions (Islam is probably next in line in terms of getting atheist flak).

“Less hostile fashion”? How so? I am just as critical of Islam as I am of Christianity or any other religion that wishes to force itself upon all of us. It’s just that we almost never hear about non-Christian fundies here in our country.

However, just because an atheist has written off the existence of the Christian god does not automatically mean that there is no god of any sort. What is “god” after all, but just a word people use to represent and define some unknown higher power? People have tried to define this god by using words such as creator, source, omniscient and omnipotent. They have tried to characterize this god by attributes such as loving, kind, just, merciful, and so on. But these are just words,

I agree with much of what you say here…

and I believe in the possibility of a being that exists beyond these words.

…but I’d have to ask for proof here. Just because it’s “possible” doesn’t mean we should entertain it, much less assume it to be real, especially when facts and evidence point the other way. It’s much more possible that a ten meter asteroid would suddenly crash on your head right now, but will you bet on it? Will you hide in a bunker for the rest of your life just because it’s “possible”?

There is a lovely zen saying that goes, “When the sage points to the moon, the idiot looks at the finger.” The words and concepts we have for god are just parts of the finger pointing to something possibly out there, possibly greater than ourselves.

Lovely quote Andy, but we have proof that the moon exists. We have no proof that gods exist. Your analogy fails in this regard.

I cannot explain it other than saying that there is a feeling, an inner sense of something more profound than words can express.

Then what is the difference between your inner sense and the inner sense that tells Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc that THEIR religion is real? What makes your inner sense more valid than theirs? Because that is EXACTLY the same thing they will tell you about THEIR beliefs. It’s EXACTLY what they will use to say why YOU’RE wrong, and THEY’RE right.

You see, that is the reason why we atheists do not believe in gods. There is no evidence other than anecdotes. And the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.

When Christians and atheists fight over doctrines and belief systems, it is like watching them fight over the pointing finger. It is briefly amusing and I won’t deny deriving a bit of satisfaction seeing my former belief questioned. However, this can’t go on forever. If we keep fighting over the finger, we will never get to see the moon.

Again, this presupposes that there IS actually a god of some sort. I suppose you feel a bit smug and superior watching us “fight over doctrines and belief systems”, but we atheists/agnostics don’t fight over doctrine and dogma. We fight against it.

For the atheists, ask yourselves whether it is possible to have a being higher than yourself. This being does not necessarily have to love you, nor listen to your prayers, nor conform to ANY concept of god that we currently have. If you think about the universe and what we yet don’t know about it, you’d have to at least consider the possibility of such a being, else you would be as close-minded as the fundamentalist you so despise.

You’re working under the assumption that all atheists ” believe there is no god”. The truth is, the vast majority of us only “disbelieve in gods”. Even the so-called militant atheists such as Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens allow for the small possibility that there might be a god. We realize we don’t know everything, unlike many devout believers.

And what do you mean by “being higher than ourselves”? In terms of what? Technology? Physical or mental capability? I think it is likely that aliens exist somewhere in the universe (and no, I don’t believe they’ve visited us already). Maybe they have greater technology, or greater mental and physical abilities, but they’d still be governed by the laws of nature. Also remember, we call ourselves A-THEISTS,not A-ALIENISTS. If you broaden your definition of “god” so much that you include mortal beings from other star systems, then you have rendered the term “god” meaningless.

As for your suggestion that we open our minds to the possibility that there might be a god, we’ve already done that. Give us solid proof of your god, and we’ll believe. However, worshiping him/her/it is another matter and I assure you, a far more difficult one to get us to do.

I believe in a middle ground, a place of mutual respect, where acceptance triumphs over bigotry, and where love triumphs over fear. After all, if we humans don’t get our act together, who will do it for us?

And so we go back to my original point. What you’re espousing is False Balance. In the Science vs Religion debate, one is supported by facts, reason, and evidence, and the other is backed by dogma, faith, and ideology. There is NO BALANCE there.

No my friend, yours is not the middle ground. Yours is the ground that enables the theist to make ridiculous claims without fear of backlash because it gives religious opinion equal weight vs scientific fact. Yours is the ground that enables extremists to commit horrible acts because it minimizes the efforts made by saner heads to expose extremism for what it is. Yours is the ground that enables Creationists to scream “teach the controversy“, “teach both sides”, and “evolution is just a theory” and actually be taken seriously. Yours is the ground that is smugly amused and snickers equally at both the side that brought us modern technology, medicine, and the Green Revolution and the side that upholds bigotry, fear, and blind obedience.

No, the middle ground isn’t yours. The middle ground is atheism/agnosticism/secularism. You are free to believe whatever you want so long as you do not force it upon everyone else. The only reason we are vocal and sometimes angry is because religion repeatedly tries to force itself upon our daily lives, when we just want to be left alone. If religion did not impinge upon our freedoms, you wouldn’t hear from us about it at all.

And no, the enemy of Theism isn’t Atheism. The enemy of Theism is Theism itself. What greater enemy does a religion have than other competing religions? Nothing incites a mob better than telling them that “Our God wants them destroyed”.

Besides, since when has religion ever fought for “mutual respect”, “acceptance over bigotry”, and “love over fear”? Slavery, misogyny, bigotry, infanticide, genocide and all the other evils of the world are espoused in the Holy Scriptures. The Bible is being used today to block the Reproductive Health Bill in our country (and the Quran used to justify misogyny in Islamic countries) the same way it was used back then in the United States to try to keep slavery legal.

In the words of UK Labour MP Jamie Reed:

“Seven years as an MP. Still waiting for a Christian to send me a letter on child poverty. Plenty on homosexuality and abortion.“

So go on, be amused as we atheists/agnostics/secularists fight against dogma and ideology, but if you really want “mutual respect”, “acceptance over bigotry”, and “love over fear”, I invite you to check out Humanism (not necessarily atheism) as a position, instead of your imaginary Middle Ground.

There is, however, divided opinion on who started the fight, since both parties have accused each other of instigating the brawl. It is in these crucial situations of National importance that each Filipino citizen must re-evaluate his or her notion of truth in order to ultimately determine which side of the story (Team Tulfo or Team Barreto/Santiago) he or she ultimately believes. In this essay we will examine several theories of truth and how they each apply to this incident:

1. The Correspondence Theory of Truth

According to Wikipedia, which is the most reliable source of information in the universe, this theory of truth “states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.”

This theory, of course, implies that there is an objective reality and that individuals have the ability to perceive that reality objectively.

Unfortunately, this theory of truth is proven useless by the NAIA incident, because, as statements from both parties clearly demonstrate, objective reality doesn’t exist. Mon Tulfo and Barreto/Santiago have perceived different versions of reality.

In Mon’s version of reality, Raymart tried to confiscate his phone and that Raymart punched him after he refused to surrender it. In Barreto/Santiago’s version of reality, Claudine was first karate-kicked by Mon and Raymart retaliated by punching him.

Given the discrepancy between their statements, the public might be tempted to conclude that at least one of the parties is lying. But doing so would be to oversimplify the nature of truth.

2. The Constructivist Theory of Truth

Another theory of truth suggests that truth is a synthetic or “man-made,” invented and established through social power struggles. As it says in the ultimate source of information, Wikipedia, “Social constructivism holds that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community.”

There is an objective world that we come in contact with. However, we interpret information differently. Our modes of interpretation are influenced by different factors such as convention, human perception, and social experience.

Needless to say, when Claudine allegedly threw a bitch fit and cursed at the airport crew, she sincerely thought that she was within her rights to behave in such a manner. Her assumptions and expectations do not mirror those of regular people because she comes from a culture and an environment where such feelings of entitlement may be the convention.

3. Nietzsche’s Perspectivism

The constructivist view of truth is a little similar to Nietzsche’s concept of perspectivism. In “The Will to Power” Nietzsche says, “It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against. Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.”

To simplify, what this means is that truth is simply the reflection of the desires of those in power. Truth is a power struggle and those who win the struggle can decide what the truth is.

When I was teaching, the example I liked to use was how the concept of “late” was defined in my class. My class started at 9:00 am. I asked my students what it meant to be “late.” They said that coming to class after 9:00 am meant that they were late. Then, I asked them, “What if you arrived at 9:15 and I arrived at 9:20? Would you still be late?”

This example may be an extreme oversimplification of the idea, but it is a very clear example of the political nature of truth. Those who are in power make up the rules; they make up the truth.

The “The Thrilla in NAIA” presents an interesting example because the people involved (the Barettos, Santiagos, and Tulfos) have some level of influence and power that allows them to cleverly maneuver their perspectives of the truth and try to win the confidence of the public.

Paraphrasing Nietzsche’s quote, “Each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm”:

Each party, the Tulfos & the Santiago/Barretos, has its own version of the truth that it would like to compel the public to accept as the norm.

Here’s a question then: If these people are so influential, why is public opinion so important to them?

That brings us to the next theory, the consensus theory.

4. The Consensus Theory of Truth

According to the most plagiarized website by college students, Wikipedia, “Consensus theory holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group. Such a group might include all human beings, or a subset thereof consisting of more than one person.”

Just in case you missed the important bit, here it is:

“TRUTH IS WHATEVER IS AGREED UPON.”

To simplify, if the general consensus, the public opinion is that you have an ugly face, that is how you will be perceived and treated regardless of how much your face adheres to the principles of aesthetics.

Think of the “The Thrilla in NAIA” as a nationwide survey. Be careful how you cast your opinion though, because the resolution of this conflict has long-term consequences that will affect our progress as a nation for many years to come.

Our opinions have the power to compel other drives, create ideas that can shift social focus towards worthy agendas. It’s only fitting that we devote ample time and effort towards the propagation of celebrity gossip.

The consequences of celebrity behavior require more in-depth analysis, more study and more discussion, because it is through the deep reflection of these incidents that we learn and discover our cultural identity as Filipinos, and as human beings.

Credits:

The term “Thrilla in NAIA” as well as the fake poster photo was borrowed from here: http://tunaynalalake.blogspot.com/2012/05/tunay-na-lalake-royal-rumble.html

That’s how I found out that he had been following my facebook posts and debates. I happened to have posted a lot of materials coming from skeptic and atheist websites to elicit questions and make my point. I didn’t consider myself an atheist though, but that greeting got me to thinking — was I slowly morphing into one?

Granted, I do enjoy the down-to-earth reasoning, thinking and questioning employed by atheists, and I can certainly relate to the issues as I have encountered the same in my own life journey. I also enjoy the company of atheist friends of both varieties – physical and FOOF (friends only on facebook). I just find it refreshing to converse openly and ask hard questions without tiptoeing around issues as I used to do with fellow believers and pastors, lest they think that I was already seriously considering heretic teachings and have turned to the dark side.

But if atheism is defined as “ the rejection of belief in the existence of deities“, I don’t think I’m quite there yet. So far, the atheism that I have seen is first and foremost, a rejection of the Christian deity (or the Christian definition of god as portrayed in the Bible). So far also, most of the atheists that I know who are actively espousing their non-belief come from some sort of Christian background. I do not know of any prominent atheist who started out as a muslim, a jew, a hindu, or a druid.

Because of this, most atheists speak out on issues that involve rejecting the Christian god and Christianity. Once that is done, this disbelief in god is expanded in a less hostile fashion to other religions (Islam is probably next in line in terms of getting atheist flak).

However, just because an atheist has written off the existence of the Christian god does not automatically mean that there is no god of any sort. What is “god” after all, but just a word people use to represent and define some unknown higher power? People have tried to define this god by using words such as creator, source, omniscient and omnipotent. They have tried to characterize this god by attributes such as loving, kind, just, merciful, and so on. But these are just words, and I believe in the possibility of a being that exists beyond these words.

There is a lovely zen saying that goes, “When the sage points to the moon, the idiot looks at the finger.” The words and concepts we have for god are just parts of the finger pointing to something possibly out there, possibly greater than ourselves. I cannot explain it other than saying that there is a feeling, an inner sense of something more profound than words can express.

When Christians and atheists fight over doctrines and belief systems, it is like watching them fight over the pointing finger. It is briefly amusing and I won’t deny deriving a bit of satisfaction seeing my former belief questioned. However, this can’t go on forever. If we keep fighting over the finger, we will never get to see the moon.

So I would like both sides to step back and reflect a little. For the theists (of whatever stripe), ask yourselves if the god you believe in could ever be accurately described in ancient texts — and open your mind to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you have put your god inside a box too small to contain him, or her, or it.

For the atheists, ask yourselves whether it is possible to have a being higher than yourself. This being does not necessarily have to love you, nor listen to your prayers, nor conform to ANY concept of god that we currently have. If you think about the universe and what we yet don’t know about it, you’d have to at least consider the possibility of such a being, else you would be as close-minded as the fundamentalist you so despise.

I believe in a middle ground, a place of mutual respect, where acceptance triumphs over bigotry, and where love triumphs over fear. After all, if we humans don’t get our act together, who will do it for us?

—–

Photo credits: Lego Art by WildFire

This article also appears in zenbananas.com

We had just finished discussing the story of Moses (assigned by our homeschool provider as a lesson under Values Education). I emphasized that Moses’ story was a great narrative but it was just a story.

“What do you mean?” I asked. “What did you think about Moses’ method of dividing the Red Sea?”

Sil answered, “His method was a miracle, but you can still divide the Red Sea even without one.”

“How?” I asked.

“Make a dam,” he said.

I chuckled. It’s moments like these that reinforce my determination to pursue homeschooling, at least until Sil finishes Grade 6.

Through homeschooling, I have witnessed the development of my son’s character, his mental faculties, and his talents. By no means am I saying that homeschooling is easy — it entails a lot of blood, sweat, tears, and a persevering commitment — but it has also been very fulfilling. At the same time, it is far too easy for parents who homeschool their kids to doubt their own teaching abilities, to worry if they are teaching their children correctly.

“Surely, a professionally trained teacher is better qualified than a homeschool parent.”

I used to think that too until natural curiosity had me googling the academic performance of homeschooled children when compared to their traditionally schooled counterparts. Many reliable sources agree that homeschoolers in general significantly outpace traditionally schooled children. A study by Rey (2010) reported that “In most studies, the homeschooled have scored, on average, at the 65th to 80th percentile on standardized academic achievement tests, compared to the national school average of the 50th percentile (which is largely based on public schools). A few studies have found the home-educated to be scoring about the same or a little better than public school students.”

This study shows that homeschooled students are not academically disadvantaged. In fact, in many instances, they are doing very well or even better. Homeschooling is one of the few ways parents can gain control over their children’s education.

While the nature versus nurture debate is still fiercely raging in many educational and psychological circles, I have to point out that we have limited control over our genes and resulting heredity. Rather than curse our fates for not being born with a mythical Math gene, and consequently failing calculus, we could rather concentrate on the things over which we do have control.

And one of these few things is parental involvement. Unfortunately, parental involvement is in a precarious position in relation to other priorities of Pinoy families. With the Philippines’ current unemployment and underemployment rate, and job-skills mismatch, it’s very challenging to find a job that pays well and can comfortably support a family. As a result, both parents are forced to work, to meet the economic demands of supporting a family. One natural consequence is that parents have less and less time to spend with and on their children. This is saddening because increased positive parental involvement has many benefits for the child and his/her development. In this relation, while I am certainly not advocating that parents neglect the survival of their family, I do encourage them to spend more quality and quantity time with their young children.

Parental involvement can give rise to many positive effects for children, but I will just name a few below:

Increased Academic Achievement

Many studies agree that parental involvement can either promote or retard cognitive (mental) development, and thus also affect student achievement. Bempechat (1992) cited Coleman et al. (1996) who reported that achievement was more influenced by family background and environment than the quality of the school.

In our case, the first school that we enrolled Sil in had a whole year to teach him how to read, yet he was still unable to do so at the end of that year. It was unfortunate because I thought he was ready to read. He was 6 at that time and could already identify all the letters in the alphabet (a sign that the child is reading-ready). The school failed us. This reading readiness was a major hindrance to enrolling Sil in the first grade of the next school, because this school (as with most other schools) do not admit non-readers to Grade 1.

So my husband and I worked on Sil’s reading using Starfall.com’s online reading programs which, had animation, text, and audio features. After just two months of working with the program, coupled with patient and consistent mentoring, guidance, and tutoring from us, Sil was able to read. At nine, he is now reading newspapers with lola, his interest and emotions piqued with the territorial standoff with China. He plans to read the “Lord of the Rings” soon.

So how exactly does parental involvement help in achievement? One is through providing tutoring when the child needs it (Haggard, 1957 and Toby, 1957 in Bempechat, 1992). This was what we did daily with Sil in almost all his lessons, especially in parts where he encountered a lot of difficulty.

For example, it took a while for him to comprehend and solve word problems. So I made sure that he first mastered the four basic mathematical operations — addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Then we went back to word problems, and this time around, he was finally able to comprehend and solve them.

The bottom line is that parents act as teachers, where parental instruction is embedded in daily life. Instruction need not be explicit nor involve some particular strategy (Bempechat, 1992). In other words, though teaching can be subtle and indirect, learning can still take place.

Parents also encourage achievement through an active approach in learning (Hess and Shipman, 1965 in Bempechat, 1992). How can they do this? By giving children many opportunities to explore independently and learn by themselves, while still ensuring the child’s safety and wellness.

Reflecting on this second principle, I recall how we observed an entrepreneurial spirit in Sil. One day, Sil said he wanted to earn his own money. So we asked him how he planned to do this.

“I’m going to sell mangoes,” he declared, looking at our fruit-laden Indian mango tree. Except for me designing his “Mangoes Sold Here” label, we left him on his own and offered little assistance. As a result, he contracted the help of two close friends and between the three of them, they were able to sell 100 pieces of mangoes and split the profit evenly between themselves. Now, every summer, Sil sells mangoes with his friends.

Rogoff and Gardner (1984) in Bempechat (1992) reported that parents help children learn by showing how adults handle new problems while using past strategies for familiar problems. In other words, adults organize children’s thinking tasks, monitor the difficulty level of the problem, while providing pointers, and modeling mature performance.

When Sil could not understand division, I used Lego blocks (which he was fond of playing with) to group items and explain the concept. After a few demonstrations, Sil was able to solve division problems much better.

Academic Socialization

Bempechat (1992) cited numerous researchers who asserted that parental attitudes, expectancies, and beliefs about schooling and learning are also instrumental in the development of their children’s attitudes and behaviors toward achievement. For example, although there is little evidence that Math ability is dependent on gender, mothers of Math underachieving boys tend to explain their poor achievement due to lack of effort. In contrast, mothers of Math underachieving girls chalk it up to lack of ability. As a result, many girls tend to think that their gender is to blame for their poor Math ability, even though this isn’t true.

Math is a tricky problem because like many students, Sil has a love-hate relationship with Math. He hates the fact that Math is so exacting, so when he complains how he is hopeless, I always tell him that he can learn Math. After resting or eating (he might just be tired or hungry), and upon returning to the problem, Sil develops a more positive attitude. When he finally gets a problem, he calls himself a “Math monster” and I always agree with him. Consistently doing this has enabled Sil to develop quiet confidence in his Math skills. He now has no fear of Math.

Other Positive Learning Behaviors

Sénéchal, and LeFevre (2003) reported that parent’s involvement in teaching children about reading and writing words promoted the development of early literacy skills. They also reported that early literacy skills directly predicted word reading at the end of Grade 1 while it indirectly predicted reading in Grade 3 or specifically, that the word reading skill acquired at Grade 1 influenced reading comprehension in Grade 3. Thus, the child’s ability to read fluently is rooted in his early experiences, including parental involvement.

Although Sil was a little late in reading, our intensive two-month reading intervention made him a voracious reader. Nowadays, when I buy Sil a short book, he can finish it in 30 minutes. He is also reading encyclopedias, Calvin and Hobbes comics, the Sunday’s funnies, and newspaper articles on the Spratlys issue, among others.

Reduced Behavioral Problems

Finally, parental involvement can help even in the treatment of social phobia and general anxiety. Parental involvement was reported to significantly reduce children’s and even adolescent’s social and general fears, and that this improvement was retained even after one year (and presumably even beyond that). In addition, Domina (2005) reported that parental involvement can also prevent behavioral problems.

Sil has always been quite physical and easily bored when he is not mentally challenged. The language barrier didn’t help either because children in our neighborhood were intimidated by his mastery of English (his primary language). As a result, he was often misconstrued by his classmates, their parents, and even his teachers.

For the longest time, I felt like a failure as a parent. But instead of giving up, I did more research, talked to other homeschoolers, and visited another homeschool in Paranaque. Still, it was quite providential when we found a homeschool provider that had many UP Education graduates who acted as academic consultants and staff. One of his “homeroom” teachers understood that Sil was an intelligent, strong-willed, and active child. Since she was also the one who administered the annual Weschler test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Preschool_and_Primary_Scale_of_Intelligence , she appreciated that Sil needed to be mentally challenged. She narrated a test on conservation of mass. Sil was shown two groups of seven blocks. One group was arranged in a line. The other group was scattered. Most of the children readily answered that the disorganized group of blocks was fewer. Sil looked at her and said, “I will check”. He counted both sets of blocks and remarked, “See? it’s the same.” Then he said, “I will check again”. Sil rearranged the scattered blocks into a straight line, beside the arranged groups of blocks. He then remarked, “See? It’s the same.”

Sil’s fellow homeschoolers were fluent English speakers, very bright, confident, outspoken, and very active. We have also enrolled Sil under a local taekwondo class. All of these interventions has enabled him to expend his energy on something productive, build up his physical strength, earn him friendship with his peers, and again made us confident that we are doing the right thing.

The Bottom Line

The verdict is out: parental involvement can promote children’s academic achievement and attitudes, influence other positive behaviors like reading and writing, assist in easing fears and phobias, and even prevent behavioral problems, among others.

Although the modern Filipino family has many priorities, especially economic ones, such considerations must be balanced with the critical need for parental involvement in children’s lives which can greatly influence their learning, their attitudes and ultimately, their future.

References

Bempechat, (1992). The role of parent involvement in children’s academic achievement. Retrieved April 28, 2012 from http://www.adi.org/journal/fw92/BempechatFall1992.pdf

Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: assessing the effectiveness of parental involvement in elementary school. Sociology of Education, 78 (3), 233-249. Retrieved April 28, 2012 from http://soe.sagepub.com/content/78/3/233.short

Marin, C.E. (2010). Parental involvement and group cognitive behavioral treatment for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: treatment specificity and mediation effects. Florida International University. Retrieved April 28, 2012 from http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1314&context=etd

Ray, B. (2001). Academic achievement and demographic traits of homeschool students: A national study. Retrieved April 25, 2012 from the Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, 8(1) http://www.academicleadership.org/392/academic_achievement_and_demographic_traits_of_homeschool_students_a_nationwide_study/

Sénéchal, M. and LeFevre, J. (2003). Parental involvement in the development of children’s reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73(2), 445-460. Retrieved April 28, 2012 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8624.00417/abstract

Spence, S., Donovan, C., and Brechman-Toussaint, M. (2003). The treatment of childhood social phobia: the effectiveness of social skills training-based, cognitive-behavioural intervention, with and without parental involvement. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41 (6). Retrieved April 28, 2012 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1469-7610.00659/abstract

Photo credit for ‘Slices of Parental Involvement’: Copyright 2010 Forsyth County School. Used under Creative Commons.

A Country of Catholics

But is it true? It depends. What does it mean to be a predominantly Catholic country? For some, it simply means that Philippine citizens are mostly Catholic. In this sense, it is true: around 80% of Filipinos do identify as Catholic. But what that Catholic identity implies is another story.

What bishops and anti-RH individuals think it means — or would like it to mean — is that as a country of Catholics, the Philippines is led by Catholic bishops: the Philippines is their Church, and they are its pastors. This interpretation — or some version of it — is the reason organizations such as the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) are still respected even by established institutions.

Unfortunately, one of those institutions is the Philippine government. Although secularism is enshrined in its Constitution, politicians pander to the Church out of the belief that bishops are also representatives of their Catholic constituents: Pandering is the respect paid by one representative to another.

This pandering is most apparent during elections, when candidates cower in fear of the Catholic Vote. Although many have shown that it is a myth, it is true in the way that matters: politicians behave as if it were real, and the bishops get what they want: politicians who perpetuate their version of a Catholic country.

But again, the Catholic Vote is in fact a myth. Catholics generally do not vote in block, and if past elections are any indication, nor do they obey bishops when it comes to voting. This is because most Filipino Catholics are cafeteria Catholics.

Cafeteria Catholics

Also referred to as eclectic Catholics, cafeteria Catholics choose what they believe independently from Church constraints, in the same way that a cafeteria customer would order food from different stalls instead of buying everything from a single one. I’ve never met someone who doesn’t believe something that is at odds with the Church, and even those who seem orthodox or traditional (the katoliko sarado) would reveal after some conversation that their views are not completely consistent with the Vatican’s.

Filipinos tend to hold beliefs inconsistent with Catechism — karma, reincarnation, feng shui, astrology, the Secret — and this attitude extends beyond religion into politics. The most salient example is the RH Bill, supported by 70-80% of Filipinos. The percentage is even higher if we consider Catholics alone.

The Philippines as a country obedient to bishops does not exist. It would be more correct to say that the Philippines is a cafeteria Catholic country.

The Church is a Country

Despite their differences with the bishops, cafeteria Catholics, especially the most progressive ones, can’t seem to leave the Church. I believe it’s because of different views of what the Catholic Church is.

One view is that the Church is an organization for people who share the same convictions. When your convictions change, you leave the organization. This is the implicit understanding of pro- and anti-RH groups: when you start supporting the other side, you leave. Obviously, this is not how Filipinos see the Catholic Church. If it were, there would be little to no Catholic Church to speak of.

Instead, many Filipinos see the Church as the country they’re born into, and Catholicism is their nationality. Most people — not only Filipinos — do not leave the country of their birth, and most — again, not only Filipinos — do not change the religion they’re born with. Once a Filipino, always a Filipino; once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Citizens criticize public officials, Catholics criticize their bishops, but rarely is leaving, let alone changing their national or religious identity, a valid option.

Yes, it takes more money and resources to emigrate. But even if leaving religion shouldn’t cost you a Peso, it can be just as difficult, if not more. By the time the average Filipino Catholic feels disappointed enough at their Church to leave it, they’ve already invested so much — mental energy spent on stress and sacrifice, time spent on Sundays and sacraments, and for even the poorest of the poor, money spent on tithing and other religious obligations.

Rooted in Catholicism

It’s not so much that the Philippines has Catholic roots — we are as much a Pagan country if heritage is the criteria. Filipinos just routinely root themselves in Catholicism so thoroughly that uprooting seems too painful a process.

So for many Filipinos, leaving the Church is unimaginable — on one hand, because it’s so unusual that many can’t imagine it; on the other, leaving has so many negative consequences that many don’t even want to imagine it. This is especially true for those who have nightmares of being tortured by Satan for all eternity — leaving the Church is a sin worthy of automatic excommunication, which is practically a one-way ticket to Hell.

I don’t have the numbers, but I’d wager that more Filipinos have changed countries than religious identities. (In case you do, please leave a link in the comments section.) Of course there are those who do leave Catholicism, but as with emigrating, it’s usually to a place that’s not too far away: a different Christian denomination, another Judeo-Christian religion, or a spirituality that’s thematically consistent with Catholicism.

And in most (if not all) cases, what the Catholic bishops think is not a consideration. Does anyone consider their Congressman or President when they make a decision about emigrating? They do, however, consider the culture — traditions, laws, economic and political structure — of their future country, and this brings us back to our main point: Filipino Catholics treat their Catholicism as a country they’ve grown used to, a nationality they’re born with — not as an obligation to, or even a membership in an institution.

A Secularizing Country

With all this in mind, calling the Philippines a Catholic country seems to be as trivial as saying that the Philippines is a tropical country. Filipinos have no more choice in their religious identity than our 7,107 islands do their distance from the equator. Politicians should recognize that the bishops claiming to dictate Catholic behavior is just as senseless as cartographers claiming to move the islands. They might have all the maps, but the islands are moved by a more powerful force.

When it comes to Filipino attitude toward religion, this force seems to be secularization, which sociologist see as part of an ever bigger movement toward modernization. Catholics are starting to see the value of religion less in divine commandments and heavenly promises, and more in human needs and real-world benefits.

It is a slow yet steady process, and sociologists have found it as inevitable as the drifting of the islands. But as with any movement toward progress, the Catholic bishops will try to stop it, doing everything in their power to remain representatives of their constituents, repeating, like a mantra, “The Philippines is a predominantly Catholic country.”

___
Image sources: 1, 2, 3

Also, I was not very popular in high school (or ever) because I liked leather and denim jackets, even when the weather was warm. But this article is not about my personal issues. It’s about being psychologically messed-up by the greatest B-movie archetype in the world – the Action Star!

My dad is a big fan of Mr. Action Star himself, Fernando Poe Jr. In fact, he had VHS copies of most, if not all of his films. When he first established a video shop when I was a kid, I think he bought all the FPJ films and we watched one every night. One Christmas, inspired by all the action awesome, my dad bought every one of my brothers a pellet gun so we could all practice together, and he also taught us how to do a Chinese get-up (I don’t know what it had to do with FPJ. I’ve never seen FPJ do a Chinese get-up).

To us, FPJ was a mythical figure, a divine savior; he’s the hero who comes and provides salvation to a community at the brink of despair – because they believed in him. FPJ was like a cool Catholic Jesus.

I’m making this comparison because I think the action star has ties with the Catholic mythos. This myth of “the chosen one” has been a very popular concept in Catholicism (Jesus) and I think that that this “chosen one/savior” mythos is partly to be blamed for the Philippine’s political culture. In other words, I’m saying that we have some terrible government officials because we believe in action stars (among other things, of course).

Catholic faith is among the things many Filipinos are proud of. The fact that the Philippines is the only country left in the world without divorce is kind of primitive, but for some reason it is considered by many Filipinos as something to be proud of. In fact, the term devoutly Catholic is an adjective many Filipinos pretend to identify with.

The “chosen one/savior” myth inspired by Jesus fiction is permanently installed in the Filipino collective unconscious. This myth is often manifested in local fantasy movies and television shows like “Captain Barbell,” “Sugo,” “Mulawin,” and “Panday.” Such shows have one thing in common: a savior comes and saves the day.

The popularity and constant resurrection of the savior archetype is a manifestation of the Filipino’s Catholic desire to be saved. Unfortunately, what often comes with the desire to be saved is an attitude of fatalism – an acceptance of helplessness and powerlessness. An eagerness for “the next life.” Instead of fighting to gain control of their own situations, these people pray for a hero. If the hero doesn’t happen to come, it’s okay because everyone’s going to heaven, especially the poor, because according to the local priest, the poorer you are on Earth, the bigger your castle is in heaven.

The savior’s modern equivalent, of course, is the action star. If you’ve ever seen a single Filipino action movie, you’ve probably noticed a few things:

1) The hero never dies.
2) The hero never runs out of bullets.
3) The hero can kill an entire army all by himself.
4) The hero always saves the day.
5) The hero only gets hit on the shoulder.

Such reinforcement in media constructs the archetype of a savior who doesn’t need anyone’s help, who can save the world by himself. Again, this culture of hero-worship is not unique to the Filipino. The Westerners have their Chuck Norrises and Tim Tebows.

The Philippine context, however, is unique in that it seems as if the average Filipino has no capacity to distinguish between fantasy and reality:

1. Antagonists of popular telenovelas suffer much verbal abuse (in real life) from fans of the show they star in.
2. Fans of love teams such as “Kimerald” (Kim Chiu + Gerald Anderson) rage when they realize that these kids are no longer dating in real life.
3. Many of our action stars are voted into important government positions.

I think one of the reasons why action stars are voted into these positions is because they symbolize the solo-savior-Jesus archetype ingrained in the subconscious of many Filipinos. When voters fall in line to vote, what they recall are the roles these people play and the superhuman deeds these actors achieved in the movies.

The shows Filipinos have made to entertain themselves, unfortunately, have convinced majority of their population that a savior would come to save them from poverty.

Even worse is that Filipinos assume that this savior – whoever he is, whatever his qualifications are – can save the country all by himself, without their help, because that is how saviors are; they single-handedly save communities. What we might have, in the end, is a voting population who votes for their favorite superheroes and expects their heroes to save them, without their help.

As long as the messiah myth persists, people will continue to wait for one, and vote for one. They will continue to wait and expect to be saved, rather than work to save themselves. In order for people to start saving themselves, they must realize that the savior, whether his name is Jesus or whatever, is a myth and that he’s not coming.

A very lucid analysis of my piece was written by a teacher from Pisay that I cited, Martin Perez. I never had the pleasure of being in his class, but I have heard only good things from his former students. In fact, some of the critical and intellectual inquiry that I find lacking in Pisay in general, some fortunate alumni found in his classes. However, I feel that Mr. Perez has mistakenly joined the bandwagon of criticizing my article for decrying the perceived “tolerance” of Pisay for religious values. Mr. Perez’s point is that not only is Pisay’s tolerance “by design,” it is this very openness that “allowed for a rich intellectual culture to thrive.”

To be clear, I am not addressing Mr. Perez alone in particular, though since I take his views more seriously than random people on Facebook, I am likely to address his points in more detail than anyone else’s.

A more charitable reading of my essay would have obviated any accusation that I envision a Pisay devoid of religion. I was very careful to avoid any such suggestion. But it seems that this needs to be, like scientific values in Pisay, more explicit. Judging from what I read, I think I have to say it outright: religious people in Pisay should not be forced to be atheists.

Pisay "not" romancing sectarianism

It appears that people focused on my critiques of sectarianism and creationism, as if they were my central points. They were not. How I see it is that these symptoms will vanish with a focused instruction of scholars of the scientific values of skepticism, self-correction, and the use of evidence. I do not think it a worthy pursuit to treat these symptoms directly. I do not think that it would be productive or desirable to establish an inquisition against these ideologies.

I did not advocate, for example, that students be taught that creationism is dumb. I think its stupidity is quite self-evident and that to point this out to students in class is wasting too much time on an idea utterly devoid of intellectual content. When creationism exists inside the head of a scientist, this implies that that scientist does not value logical consistency or intellectual honesty. This person is simply science illiterate—this is the problem. Again, creationism is only a symptom. This claim seems to have been read by many as if people in Pisay should therefore be all atheists and avoid religious thought inside the premises of the school.

What I illustrated with creationist scientists was a clear example of where rote scientific instruction can maintain absurdities if it is not coupled with scientific values, but I understand that there is more nuance in more nebulous areas of debate. If some believe that consistency with science necessarily leads to atheism (like I do), then so be it. I recognize that some scientists, like Theodosius Dobzhansky, do not view atheism as the necessary conclusion of their scientific pursuit. While I think this is naive and mistaken given science’s methodological naturalism, the lack of falsifiability for the God hypothesis leaves (non-interventionist variants of) God out of the reach of science’s razor. Because of this, I did not say what many believe I said, that all religion in Pisay should be expunged in the name of science and secularism (just that no religion should be favored, whether or not it is represented in the student body).

What I advocated, which may or may not be toxic to religious values, is that there should be explicit discussion of such values in the light of scientific values. Is religiousness consistent with a scientific mindset? Perhaps not. But that’s exactly my point. A culture of critical inquiry will hash this out, and even if it doesn’t reach a conclusion, everyone comes away with more precise arguments and with diminished irrationality. What my critics seem to propose is that everyone should just keep to themselves and leave religion alone.

Mr. Perez addresses for me a direct question, which I will answer here. “[Does] our Values Education program (let’s say it is how it is characterized) in any way diminish or impair our students’ ability to discern or think critically about moral and spiritual issues?” Yes, I believe so. But this is not because the Values Education program teaches a Catholic viewpoint, but because it teaches a Catholic viewpoint alone. As I had mentioned in my piece, there are various moral systems that exist in philosophy, which are not given a moment’s consideration in class. There is genuine academic debate about these matters. How can students discern or think critically about things that are not there to discern or think critically about?

It serves little consolation that Values Education is merely one subject among others. While I agree that all classes each teach certain values, Values Education stands above the rest as the ethical guidelines sanctioned by the school. And it happens that the ethical guidelines are those of one religious sect, the Roman Catholic Church. How convenient.

A fundamental misunderstanding by my critics seems to stem from confusing “tolerance” and “respect” with mollycoddling and patronizing. There seems to be the misapprehension that a diversity of views entails the isolated and sectarian existence of each view from each other—all free from criticism and inquiry.

It’s a common call against freethinkers that we ought to respect religious ideas, as if ideas had feelings. On the contrary, it is due to our respect for the intellectual capacity of persons that we speak our minds. For, if we believe that we are right and we believe the people are not irredeemably irrational, is it not our moral imperative to point out where others are mistaken? And when we are wrong, our voicing out will cause our erroneous positions to be corrected. Everyone wins out.

This plea for “tolerance” and “respect” betrays an insecurity for one’s beliefs and an unreasonable (and unscientific) fear of correction. Criticisms of this type only strengthen my argument that scientific values are not institutionally espoused by Pisay. This pervasive desire for all views to remain hermetically sealed and unassailed, that it is assumed a priori that religious values can coexist with scientific values as separate issues, is indicative of exactly the culture in Pisay I am arguing against.

I recognize the necessity of the freedom to have a diversity of views. This, I agree, is integral to any intellectual community. Given that Pisay is a science institution, however, this diversity of views must be looked at and discussed openly under the light of scientific values, not coddled in the darkness of sectarian isolationism. If this is not desirable for my critics, why include “science” in Philippine Science High School at all?

Philippine Science High School (called “Pisay” by later students), like the Manila Science High School that predated it, was modeled after the Bronx High School of Science (or “Bronx Science”). Pisay was established under President Diosdado Macapagal and had its first batch of students in 1964. Pisay’s mandate in its charter (RA 3661) is to prepare students for a career in science.

Pisay administers very rigorous admission examinations in order to obtain, from thousands of applicants, the top 240 students to invite to study in the prestigious school’s Main Campus. Through this, Pisay is practically guaranteed to have at least some of the country’s best pupils.

To be sure, Pisay has given invaluable service to the country by providing free science education. I myself owe the school a debt of gratitude for giving me four years of highly specialized education that I probably would not have found anywhere else. And this is why I am motivated by a deep affinity for my alma mater to point out where it has erred and what it can do more for society.

It is important for me to note at this point that my commentary is largely limited by my singular exposure to one Pisay campus, the Main Campus in Metro Manila. Any significant difference between the Main Campus and the regional campuses is bound to be missed by what I write here.

The thin wall of separation

It is a great shame, first of all, that the basic secular underpinnings of science are ignored by the foremost science high school in the country. It is perhaps due to a misguided but well-meaning concern for holistic development that the administration of Pisay (since my days there as a part of Batch 2007 up to now, as far as I’m told) flagrantly incorporates not just religious, but sectarian doctrines in its operations.

Pisay is a public and state-run high school. Despite this, Philippine Science High School walks an increasingly thinning wall of separation between church and state by offloading religious teaching to a program called Optional Religious Instruction (or ORI). This is run by concerned parents, who comprise the (largely Catholic) Parents’ Council for Optional Religious Instruction (or PCORI). Under PCORI, the administration is able to facilitate legally overtly religious activities such as batch recollections and retreats. (To be fair, not every faculty member is willing to give in to such sneaky affronts against secularism.)

A key part of the ORI program is the word, “optional.” No ORI activity is compulsory as it would be illegal for Pisay to officially back a religious activity. However, due to the lobbying strength of the parents of PCORI, non-Christians are ignored as recollections and retreats divide students into Catholic Christians and Evangelical Christians.

Why should non-Christians even bother with voluntary and exclusively Christian activities? Well, here in comes the complicated but very much real coercion of the Catholic majority in Pisay. Students that are not inclined toward such doctrines are left out of a very big student activity. Retreats involve weekends out of town with most of the whole batch. The minority non-Christian kids who opt out of the retreat miss out on the camaraderie their classmates experienced without them. Instead of allowing for an intellectual discussion and intimate sharing of diverse personal, even spiritual, values, PCORI opts to segregate by faith and completely alienate those who are not Christians.

Pisay’s offenses against secularism are not just of the “optional” nature. Freshman and sophomore students have a subject called “Values Education.” Despite what one might expect, this class does not discuss the categorical imperative, utilitarianism, or social contract theory (in detail, if at all). Instead, students are subjected to anti-abortion propaganda (Silent Scream) and taught only natural moral law.

Natural moral law is, unsurprisingly, the preferred Catholic ethical framework, where what is natural is good (since nature is of God’s design). While I do remember my Values Education teachers being very careful to avoid advocating specific Catholic doctrines, they were not shy to appeal to gods for values. It is unfortunate that Pisay has chosen to rubber stamp a Catholic-consistent worldview instead of recognizing that there is genuine philosophical diversity regarding morality. There is so much potential in a Values Education class for real personal growth and self-discovery. Is it not in the spirit of the pursuit of “the untarnished truth” for there to be genuine inquiry into the very values that we hold dear?

In science, there is no sectarianism and all ideas are held under scrutiny and challenged by attempts at disproof. In Philippine Science High, sectarianism reigns and challenges to faith are minimized as far as doublethink allows.

It is of course possible that some in the administration believe that scientific values are important or that its teaching is implicit in the course materials. However, Pisay must change this and be explicit in teaching a value for science. There is simply no cultural context in the Philippines for students to pick up on such subtle cues towards the more philosophical nature of science.

The apex of Pisay’s disregard for secularism is an entire chapel dedicated to Jesus and Catholic iconography. I think this speaks for itself.

At the end of a student’s time in Pisay, the administration holds an ecumenical baccalaureate service. Of course, “ecumenical” just means “all Christians” so the service involves Christian rituals and literature. I can be charitable enough to imagine that they might eschew the Bible readings if there were Muslims in the graduating class. However, there were definitely atheists (not including me, as I was an avowed Christian at the time) in my graduating class and their lack of religion was definitely not recognized as legitimate enough to warrant changes in the service.

Religious views are very personal and private. Even if the administration would adjust depending on the graduating class’ demographic, some people change religions multiple times in the span of one year. It is impossible to adapt to the fleeting whims of 240 confused teenagers. Certainly, the public and legally secular Pisay can find a way to reflect on the four years of hard work of the students without favoring one specific, albeit very large, subset.

The punctuation mark after four years of scientific education for all non-Christians (theists and atheists alike) is for their labors to be credited to a god they don’t even believe in.

Does Pisay value science?

Pisay’s romance with sectarianism and religious values is a symptom of its short-sightedness. It does not see the conflict between faith-based initiatives and science because it is not striving for the longer-term goal of a more manifest scientific culture in the Philippines.

Pisay has existed for over 40 years. In that span of time, there have been several prominent alumni to come out of the school. But, I think, that is to be expected just statistically, especially given its selection process. The real question is, has Pisay been a major force for the understanding of science in the Philippines? I think that is up for debate.

One of the simplest metrics for seeing Pisay’s impact on Philippine scientific culture is to assess the scientific literacy of its alumni. This would be a direct measurement of how effective Pisay has been in science education. It’s all well and good for Pisay to have scientist alumni (even accomplished scientists), it is a whole other thing for its graduates to value science.

This seems contradictory, but consider that a person can be in the profession of science but completely misunderstand fundamental science concepts. That is, they can be perfectly competent cogs in the science-industrial complex without having an appreciation for the greater body of knowledge and values of science.

In my undergraduate studies in molecular biology, there were several students who were creationists. This boggles the mind. Evolution, after all, is the unifying concept of biology. As the theistic evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky puts it, nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. How could a molecular biologist possibly not understand evolution (it’s another thing to reject it on sound scientific basis, which would certainly merit a Nobel prize)? It seems the only way is for a molecular biologist to not care about intellectual honesty and logical consistency.

Despite the rigorous scientific knowledge training in Pisay, there is still certainly a significant enough proportion of creationists, even just in my batch. That it is quite worrying. Creationism is simply not going to be a belief held by a scientifically literate person. But, creationism, along with sectarianism, is just another symptom.

The overall disease of Pisay, as an institution, is that it does not value science. It values science careers and public achievement. Pisay has consistently failed to inculcate scientific values to its students. Here, we come full circle. That Pisay (with all the well-meaning in the world) views Values Education as a subterfuge for religion class is another clear sign of this negligence.

Coercion into science courses

The tragedy of this failure is further compounded by the fact that Pisay coerces students to take science majors in college. Children come into one of the first major contracts they will sign in their lives and they sign away their right to freely choose their college major. They must take a science course, else they must pay back all the money Pisay invested in them.

On the face of it, this seems fair. Pisay spends hundreds of thousands of pesos on each scholar and it is only making sure that the people of the Philippines get a return in their investment. However, this coercive practice only serves to punish the very students that Pisay has failed. For, if Pisay had been able to provide a science education that showed the value of scientific and critical thinking, students would freely choose a science course without the need for compulsion. And the few who would still choose majors outside of science, will still come away from the school ennobled by a scientific worldview that is priceless. Removing the coercive practice will serve as an incentive for the school to do its job well.

If all Pisay wants to do is to equip future employees with scientific training, then, good job. They’ve done that extremely well. But that, to me, completely misses the point of science. Such a goal is shallow, trivial, and not worthy of the pride alumni of Pisay tend to have of their alma mater. It is no wonder, then, that some Pisay graduates are science illiterate.

According to its vision, Philippine Science High School aims to train scholars with “a scientific mind,” “a passion for excellence,” and “committed to the pursuit of truth.” This implies that not only should Pisay scholars be scientifically competent, they should hold a worldview informed and shaped by science. Pisay scholars ought not to shy away from the what the pursuit of truth might lead to, no matter how controversial or uncomfortable these truths might be. This vision is not consistent with the practices of Pisay that I have laid out here.

A plea from a hopeful alumnus

Philippine Science High School has the potential to be our developing nation’s intellectual equivalent of the moon landing. It’s unlikely that we’ll ever have the ability to have a project such as the Apollo missions, which captivated the world and inspired the next generation of scientists to probe deeper into the mysteries of the universe. But, Pisay has an even more direct access to the brightest minds in the country. It is a pity that this opportunity is wasted on rote instruction for the unremarkable goal of employment.

Once students get to college and beyond, it’s very hard to shake off indifference, even antagonism, to scientific values. Pisay could be the country’s stellar nursery of intellectual pursuit and critical scholarship, molding minds in the formative years of high school. As it stands, Pisay’s impact on scientific understanding begins and ends with the scholar. Pisay is in a key position to change this and set forth a massive restructuring of the intellectual landscape of the Philippines. All it has to do is start being honest to its vision of the search for untarnished truth.

_{Update: A response to criticisms of this piece can be read here.}

It really irks me that more than one person has tried to disprove evolution to me as soon as I reveal to them that I am an atheist, as if evolution were the reason for my disbelief. People would soon begin spouting nonsense, citing “scientific” articles that they’ve never read, and asking me to view religious propaganda masquerading as legitimate documentaries.

I have had my fair share of creationist indoctrination even during my childhood. One of my earliest recollections of the concept of evolution, if not the earliest, was when I was still about 4 years old. I remember telling my mother that I wanted to be a scientist. She asked me in return if I would still want to be one even though scientists believe that we came from monkeys. She then asked me the very common (and stupid) creationist fallacy, “If evolution is true, why haven’t the monkeys today turned into men?”

To the unsuspecting child, this empty argument would have effectively put the nail through the coffin of evolution. Sadly, this seems to be the case in the Philippines, where the pseudoscience of creationism and misconceptions of evolution are accepted and even embraced by religious and scientific authorities. People in highly influential positions such as parents, teachers, and clerics, whom other people (most especially children) look up to as sources of truth, continue to preach against evolution while hardly knowing anything about it. In most cases, arguments against evolution revolve around citing Bible verses or attacking straw man versions of the theory.

Our current demography

According to the 2000 census, Roman Catholics made up 80.9% of the Philippine population while Muslims comprised 5%, Evangelicals 2.8%, Iglesia ni Cristo 2.3%; Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses comprise 1.3%. [1]

Thankfully, the Catholic Church is more liberal in saying that evolution is compatible with Christianity. In a statement made by the Vatican on February 2009, they further claimed that the concept of evolution predates Darwin, and the concept can be traced to St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. More than 50 years ago, Pope Pius himself said that evolution is a valid scientific approach to understanding the development of humanity. [2] This makes me wonder though why, despite the Philippines being almost 81% Catholic, evolution denial is still prevalent among Filipinos.

From my experience, evolution is still treated, even within academic circles, as a scientific principle that can be reasonably doubted. What saddens me the most is the fact that I personally know biology students, graduates, and even teachers who, while seemingly versed in evolutionary biology, continue to dismiss it as false. Equally sad is how many science majors I know repudiate evolution for being “just a theory.” The fact that grossly unscientific ideas like creationism continue to permeate the academe, and that people who are products of our country’s so-called “premier university” keep on spouting nonsense against evolution, makes me seriously doubt the effectiveness of our system of science education.

Evangelicals (also known as born-agains) and Muslims are divided on the matter. However, both the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Seventh-Day Adventists are clear on their position against evolution. [3] [4] The controversial Members’ Church of God International (colloquially known by their TV and radio show, Ang Dating Daan) has a creationist stance as well. Eliseo Soriano, its leader, stated: [5]

“To believe in the theory of evolution is to believe in accidents, for the theory of evolution can only be explained by accidents that allegedly happened in nature, and perhaps in the brains and minds of evolutionists!”

the ever-savvy Soriano

Clarifying some misconceptions

“According to Darwin, man was not created by God.”

The previous statement came from a history book written by Gregorio Zaide that is widely circulated among elementary schools in the Philippines. [6] Yes, you heard me right. That’s the famous Filipino historian Zaide right there. More of his religious zealotry can be found in the book and this blog article [7] written by a fellow freethinker.

It is a blatant misquotation of Charles Darwin, whose 1859 On the Origin of Species kickstarted revolutionary advancements in evolutionary biology and science, in general. While Darwin eventually professed deism and agnosticism, he never became an atheist. [8] As a biographer of Darwin puts, “one point is abundantly clear, all the surviving evidence contradicts the assertion that Darwin was an atheist.” [9]

“It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist. … I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” —Charles Darwin in his letter to John Fordyce, 7 May 1879 [10]

“Lenin is quoted as saying that religion is the opiate of the people, but the truth is that evolution is the opiate of the atheists!”

The quotation came from an article published by The Church of God International (Philippines) about evolution and their stand against it. [11] The Church of God, by the way, is affiliated with the producers of Armor of God, a TV show on GMA News TV. Just so you’d know.

Before I proceed on dispelling these obviously distorted straw men, let’s just get things straight. Vladimir Lenin, the Russian communist, did not make an opium metaphor. It was Karl Marx who said that “religion … is the opium of the people.” [12]

Both Lenin and Marx were atheists, communists and evolutionists. Now before you get into thinking that evolution is some propaganda by atheists and/or communists, like what this person in Answers in Genesis thinks, let me tell you: it’s not. Believing in evolution will not make you an atheist (or a communist).

Contrary to what Soriano thinks, evolution is not driven by accidents. Rather, it is driven by natural selection. Natural selection is the process by which certain individuals in a population survive or reproduce more because of certain variants of genes they possess. This eventually creates organisms which are better equipped for their environments as they out-reproduce the competition. Mutations give rise to new variations among genes, and are also subject to natural selection.

To demonstrate this point, I’ll give a common example: albinism, a condition in which the animal is unable to produce any skin pigments. The primary reason why albinism is so rare is that individuals with the condition are heavily pressured in nature not to survive. Albinos will be normally easier to spot for predators, and are usually unsuccessful in finding mates, and thus fail to pass on their albino genes.

Another example would be sickle-cell disease (SCD). Just like albinism, it is a very rare condition, and for a good reason; SCD brings about many life-threatening complications, shortening life expectancy to about 42-48 years. But here’s the catch. While SCD is a rarity elsewhere, it has a high rate of prevalence in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is because, in less severe cases, resistance to malaria is displayed by individuals with SCD. This is especially helpful if you’re living in a region where malaria is widespread.

In summary, traits are a result of a continuous non-random process where a species adapts to the pressures of its environment. It is not an accident why albinism is rare. It is not an accident why SCD is prevalent in some parts of Africa. Humanity is not an accident. We have our traits today because individuals who first had them found them an evolutionary advantage for survival against those who don’t have these traits.

It may appear that animals (including humans) are intelligently designed because they’re so adapted to their environments. This is but an illusion of a lengthy natural selection and evolutionary process.

Why is it so contentious?

I think the biggest reason it has been so contentious is that a lot of people think that evolution, just as what people in the Renaissance thought of heliocentrism, is a religious issue. Well, it’s not. The fact that evolution is true doesn’t disprove the existence of any god, just as proving that the Earth revolves around the Sun doesn’t. Disputing creationism (the antithesis of evolution) doesn’t mean that you reject believing in a god as well. In fact, you can still be an atheist and believe that life on Earth was mystically guided by, say, some flying spaghetti monster.

The need to teach evolution and real science

Having recognized the problems, why make a fuss out of it? Why do we need to teach evolution? Why can’t we teach creationism alongside evolution?

The answer is simple: we must teach evolution because it is what evidence-based science tells us to be true; teaching creationism would be a disservice to rationality. People advocating for teaching creationism at schools might as well advocate for equal teaching time for astrology and the horoscope in our astronomy classes, for magnetic therapy in our medicine classes, and for homeopathy in our pharmacy classes.

Our current state necessitates secularism as a tool for preventing unscientific ideas from penetrating society-at-large. We must never commit in our pursuit of equal representation and free speech a most grave fallacy—that all ideas are of equal value. The words of Isaac Asimov still ring true and remain as inspiring as it was more than 30 years ago: “The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

Evolution is a cornerstone of modern science. As biologist Richard Dawkins puts it, denying evolution is tantamount to denying the Holocaust. [13]

Now if creationists would just apply the same degree of skepticism to their religious beliefs, that would be really dandy.

Notes and references:

1. Philippines. National Statistics Office. The Philippines in Figures 2010. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. <http://www.census.gov.ph/data/publications/pif2012_in_CD.pdf >
2. Irvine, Chris. “The Vatican claims Darwin’s theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity.” The Telegraph 11 Feb. 2009. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html >
3. “Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.” Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. “Is Evolution Compatible with THE BIBLE?” The Watchtower 1 Jan. 2008. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. <http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm >
4. “The Seventh-day Adventist Church affirms its belief in the biblical account of creation in contrast to an evolutionary explanation for the origin of living organisms and the relationship of humans to other life forms.” “Statement on Creation : The Bible’s Worldview.” Seventh-Day Church. General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 23 Jun. 2010. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. <http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/bible-worldview.html >
5. “The Origin of Humankind.” Members’ Church of God International. Eliseo F. Soriano, 28 Feb. 2012. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. <http://www.mcgi.org/en/topics/blog_articles/the_origin_of_humankind/ >
6. Zaide, Gregorio F. World History in an Asian Setting. 1994. Quezon City, Philippines: Rex Printing Company, Inc., 2000. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. <http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=Kq512SmGMIsC >
7. The Filipino Freethinkers does not guarantee the veracity of any of the blog post’s claims.
8. Lamoureux, Denis O. “Theological Insights from Darwin.” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56.1 (2004): 2-9. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. <http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2004/PSCF3-04Lamoureux.pdf >
9. “Was Charles Darwin an Atheist?” The Public Domain Review. John van Wyhe, 28 Jun. 2011. Web. Apr 6. 2012. <http://publicdomainreview.org/2011/06/28/was-charles-darwin-an-atheist/ >
10. “Darwin to John Fordyce.” Darwin Correspondence Project. n.a., n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. <http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-12041 >
11. “The theory of evolution remains unproved and unprovable. … Special creation is the more rational.” The Church of God International (Philippines). “Evolution: Fact or Fallacy?” 2002. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. < http://www.cgiphils.org/literature/pdf/evolution.pdf >
12. Marx, Karl. Introduction. “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”. Deutsch–Französische Jahrbücher. Trans. Annette Jolin and Joseph O’Malley. Paris: 7 Feb. 1844. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. <http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm >
13. Rizvi, Ali A. “Are Evolution-Deniers any Different from Holocaust-Deniers, Birthers, or Truthers?” Hufftington Post 24 Sep. 2009. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/are-evolution-deniers-any_b_295254.html >