TAUG: Nature, Spring 2018 by TAUG

TAUG To An Unknown God: A Journal of Christian Thought at Berkeley

1 0 TH

ANNIVERSARY EDITION

NATURE Volume 11 | Issue 1 | Spring 2018

To A n U n k n o w n G o d

is a student-

run journal at UC Berkeley that endeavors to stimulate dialogue with the campus community through writing and artwork produced by Cal s t u d e n t s . Th e s e s e m e s t e r l y p u b l i c a t i o n s e n g a g e with various topics through a Christian lens.

2 TAUG

SHORTS FEATURINGS REFLECTIONS

VISION

IS WISDOM POSSIBLE? SIMON KUANG

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

WANDERLUST CALVIN HAN

MASTHEAD

HUMAN NATURE NIKKI CHEUNG

LIFT YOUR EYES JACQUELYN VASANTACHAT

VESSELS AMI YUEN

A MUSING ON AVOIDING ENVIRONMENT ACTIVISTS ON SPROUL ANDREW KYONG

THE NATURE TO NURTURE ANNA PARK

27 30

WILDFIRE EMILY KINNAMAN

BIOPHILIA KYLIE CHENG

BLOOM AND PROSPER MILLIE MA

MORE THAN JUST A TEACHER MATTHEW SIT

MICROSCOPIC BUBBLE AMI YUEN

ARTWORK CREDITS

CONTENTS

TAUG

Letter from the Editor Dear Reader,

o An Unknown God is a student publication at UC Berkeley. We seek to engage rigorously and creatively with a variety of topics through the Christian lens. We wish to demonstrate how the Christian faith offers alternative considerations that challenge the status quo. We endeavor to demystify myths and deconstruct the stereotype of anti-intellectualism associated with the label “Christian.” We hope that, as you thumb through each page, you would experience and understand for yourself how this journal is the physical manifestation of these sentiments.

Each semester’s publication has a theme. For this semester, the theme of the publication is Nature. You will find an array of compositions including the following: photographs that capture spring’s vitality and winter’s dormancy, a poem on death, articles illustrating God-given passions (nurturing or teaching others and learning biology), articles on the congruity of faith and science, and articles on the environment. I do not know how this journal came into your possession, if it be by chance, by stranger, or by friend. I do not know what interests you have, the experiences that have shaped you, where you have come from, or what plans you have for the future. In spite of how this journal made its way to you, it is now yours to do with as you like. In spite of the little I know of you, I cordially invite you to consider its contents carefully. I sincerely hope that as you take a leisurely look, the publication would demonstrate how Christian thought provides a great hope in light of the imperfections of our world.

Happy Thinking,

Jacquelyn Vasantachat Editor-in-Chief

4 TAUG

“Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you.” —Acts 17:23 *Not photographed: Aaron Barnabas, Calvin Han, Deborah Kyong, Raul Montellano

Editor-in-Chief Jacquelyn Vasantachat

Business Manager Anna Park

Executive Editor Simon Kuang

Social Media Chair Michelle Chan

Executive Designer Ami Yuen

Associate Editors Aaron Barnabas, Calvin Han, Cynthia Hsu, Emily Kinnaman, Raul Montellano

Executive Designer-designate Harmonie Lau

Associate Designers Crystal Chang, Tai-In Chung, Cynthia Hsu, Deborah Kyong, Millie Ma Editors Emeriti Chris Han, Sarah Cho, Stephanie Chiao, Laura Ferris, John Montague, Whitney Moret, Wesleigh Anderson, Natalie Cha, Micaela Walker, Laura Clark, Aurora Ling

To An Unknown God is not affiliated with any church or any religious group. Opinions expressed in articles do not necessarily represent those of the editors. We are completely student-run and funded partly by the student body as an ASUC-sponsered student publication. Funding is also provided through individual donations. Distribution is free while supplies last. To contact us, please email us at taug@berkeley.edu. Visit us at unknowngodjournal.com.

TAUG

SHORTS

POEM JACQUELYN VASANTACHAT

“He has put eternity in [human] hearts”

Lift your eyes

Ecclesiastes 3:11

Lift your eyes. Look on the world. Mark the lives that move undisturbed, That walk to and fro place to place. Days pass, some quick, some slow, Most mundane, when tragedy strikes so— Unexpected. Uninvited. Un-welcomed. And what of the equalizer of all things? Death—It comes in equity. It sees not color, age, gender, nor sex. A scythe is raised on high, shining Victorious—Three times ground pounding, Uncontested. Undefeated. Undeniable. Lift your eyes. Look on the world. Mark the lives that move undisturbed, That walk to and fro place to place. Are not sorrows, crises, anguish, and pain but mere, but natural, parts of the same Reality? On and on the world twirls in motion.

Yet, emotion has place despite knowledge Common. Despite well expected ills, pain Tortures the mind, sears the soul, deadens the body. Lift your eyes. Look on the world. Mark the lives that move undisturbed, That walk to and fro place to place. Be they futile or vain, such feelings Remain—raw! Internal! Ingrained! Why this discontent? Why this burdened heart? Are they Life’s markers, lines thickened black, Drawing pictures of longings within, Of beauties eternal, craved to be imagined? For they stir, they awaken, dreams of Death dying, Sweet visions of Life as it was meant to be, Dauntless, free, and unmarred by suffering. So lift your eyes! Look on the world! Mark the lives that move undisturbed, That walk to and fro place to place!

Jacky is a third-year student at UC Berkeley and is double majoring in English and Political Science. She enjoys exchanging life-stories and humorous tales with friends, acquaintances, and strangers.

Vessels

SHORTS

PHOTO AMI YUEN

TAUG

10 TAUG

Th e r e f o r e , i f a n y o n e c l e a n s e s h i m s e l f f r o m w h a t i s d i s honorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for ever y good work. 2 Timothy 2:21

TAUG

WORDS EMILY KINNAMAN

wildfire M

y social media feed glowed orange. The people that I followed could hardly believe what was happening, and looking at their pictures from Berkeley, I felt even greater disbelief. My hometown was on fire. The fire started late on the night of December 4th and spread incredibly quickly. In mere hours, the forces of nature had created a disaster: one that will take several years for people to recover from. (It would go on to become the largest wildfire in California history, burning more than 281,000 acres.) What struck me about the disaster was the lack of control anyone had. Firefighters could minimize damage but could not prevent it. Evacuation was the only type of control most people had, and even then some had to leave within a matter of minutes. As humans, we deeply desire to control our circumstances and lives—what we do, how we do it, when we do it. Most of the time we can do things exactly as we please, which feels like control. However, when faced with something like a natural disaster, we are forced to recognize our own mortality, our lack of power, and our insignificance in the grand scheme of the world. It’s not that our choices don’t matter, but that things like natural disasters, health crises, and global events reveal how much is actually outside of our control. To a Christian, natural phenomena like this illustrate the fleeting, unpredictable nature of life. Sometimes, even for the Christian, it’s difficult to see an omnipotent God with unconditional love for humanity. But there is a theological foundation which allows the Christian to reconcile the existence of this God and a world sometimes ridden with tragedy. The world is broken as a result of the Fall, the continuation of the curse brought

“we know that we inhabit a fallen world” belief or background, most everyone would agree that a human life is something uniquely valuable—even priceless. The Christian believes that humans are unique because they are made in the image of God: the imago dei. If humans really share the likeness of God, then it follows that their worth is incomparable with material objects. Valuing human life seems to be an inherent, visceral response to disaster, reflecting our natural bent toward God and the way he designed the world. Besides showing that people intrinsically value human life, people’s reactions in the aftermath of the fire revealed a different dimension of fundamental beliefs. Almost immediately, people began searching for two things: who might have been responsible for the fire, and who might help to repair the damage— someone to blame, and someone to restore things. Power and water companies received much public scrutiny, lawsuits were filed, and demands for retribution were made. Yet perhaps power companies, or the city government, or whomever, are not entirely to blame. And regardless of whether a subject to blame exists, nothing would allow us the control to change what happened in the past. We know that we inhabit a fallen world

SHORTS

upon the world by humanity’s disobedience to God. Death is the ultimate result of this brokenness, and death is brought on, in a way that seems unnatural, by natural disasters. Moments of crisis reveal more than the nature of the world. Deep human convictions also become apparent. I’ve always been fascinated by the sentiment that many people echo specifically in relation to wildfires: something like “as long as loved ones are safe, nothing else matters.” This notion contrasts with the typical materialism that dominates our culture. It seems that ultimately people understand that human life has inherent value, more than any amount of material security or possessions. Regardless of religious

which suffers tragedy and loss and disaster. At the same time we don’t believe natural disasters are entirely natural. Perhaps something larger is in view, which is a world that is broken by nature, tending toward disorder yet longing for renewal. Our innate sense of value for human life and our desire for someone to “right the wrong” points toward something else—a God who designed us and who offers redemption both personally and for the world. God satisfies our immediate need for redemption by forgiving our sin and promising to give us his new life. We experience some of this life upon knowing God, and it comes to completion when we are fully with God in heaven. More than the redemption of individual souls, God promises the ultimate restoration of the world, when there will be no more destruction or death, whether brought on by fire or any other cause. This vision is described in Revelation: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “ ‘See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more, mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away.’ And the one who was seated on the throne said, ‘See, I am making all things new.’ Also he said, ‘Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true.’ ” (Revelation 21:1–5 New Revised Standard Version)

Emily is a first-year whose academic interests are caught somewhere between biology, history, and classics—and whatever new subject she may possibly discover tomorrow. She can most often be found outdoors, running, hiking, or cooking a meal that no one knows what to name.

TAUG

SHORTS

PHOTO

14 TAUG

MILLIE MA

BLOOM & PROSPER

MICROSCOPIC BUBBLE

PHOTO

AMI YUEN

SHORTS

TAUG

WORDS SIMON KUANG

here is a thing that makes an 80-year-old different from an eightyear-old, a professor different from a freshman, and a sober human different from a drunk one. No person, however, should aspire wholly to achieve senility, academic tenure, or sobriety (though these might all be good things). Rather in each pair the latter appears better off than the former: we aspire to walk without tripping over our shoes, to say more clever things than obtuse ones, to know some of the future without having known all of the past, to live best a life lived once. We aspire toward wisdom. It would seem that wisdom is the ability to act as though one has rationally considered much more information than one actually has. On the contrary, foolishness is the tendency to act as though one has considered much less information than one actually has.

16 TAUG

IS WISDOM POSSIBLE An old man who is wise is as one who has mastered centuries of history in order to conduct himself most properly when it repeats itself (as the adage goes), even though he has contemplated only a narrow lifetime’s past. An old fool is indistinguishable, to a blind observer, from a high school sophomore. The wise way is infinitely more scant than the foolish one. It is harder, less probable— in the logical sense—to stop a car on a dime than to drive into a wall; it is easier to hit your hand with a hammer than to hit the nail; there are uncountably many real numbers yet only one of them is equal to 1+2. Suppose that in some world there are at least as many happy decisions as inferior ones. If it were so easy, self-help books would be fewer and shorter, and world religions would be vastly simpler. In our world, happy decisions are a

diminutive minority of those available to us. A nearly negligible fraction of a car’s trajectories leads it to stop on a dime; to reach its target, the car requires a massive amount of information. Likewise, to live well, we must defy multitudinous paths of lesser resistance, though they rush upon us until we should give way. Yet we humans, stubbornly refusing to abandon ourselves to Sisyphus’s doom (though abundantly Camus tempt us), cling to hope that we might live correct and meaningful lives as we best can. Is this hope, that we could have wisdom, irrational? No, we could learn from philosopher Alvin Plantinga, the opposite is irrational by far. Naturalism is the claim that we are all matter alone, flesh and bones, lymph and blood. To hold consistently to naturalism, you must also believe that thoughts consist in physical phenomena alone—an electro-

lyte balance flips and a neuron influences the one after it. Our bodies and minds are products of unguided evolution, that moderator of biological processes that perpetuates those which perpetuate themselves. Plantinga disagrees, but not by invoking first principles of logic to arrive at a contradiction—he would concede that this task—to show that all things are solely physical—is as impossible as it sounds. Plantinga’s insight is that we humans are by no means logical blank slates; one can prove all that he knows only who knows nothing. He argues that if you, the thinker, think that you are nothing but natural processes, you must be out of your mind. For even to think a thought and maintain an opinion demands that you trust your cognitive abilities to lead toward truth (and we all do, and we rationally doubt ourselves when we feel our cognition is impaired). But if our minds are randomly adapted to reproduce via our genetic material, we would easily suspect that they have no bias toward truth at all. If we can’t even believe that we are able to think, how can we believe what we think? We see that the integrity of a belief is not evaluated in a logical vacuum, but contingent on its believer. In this way Plantinga’s method

justifies our intuition that wisdom is possible. If wisdom—to act as though you had more information than you really do—is impossible, what is it like to believe this? It is strange to think that you have the information that one cannot act as though knowing more than one really does. Surely none of us has full information of every possible human’s beliefs and actions at every time. To arrive with confidence at the impossibility of wisdom by means of induction and deduction is precisely to live as though one knew that no one could have wisdom, which one can’t possibly know. The naturalist’s world is free of transcendent shortcuts: to live well entails a sterile understanding of all possible worlds and all their necessary uncertainties. Whereas wisdom finds its strange parsimony by reasoning with transcendental truths that point toward the very (axiomatic) parsimony of happiness, a natural world has no great books or stirring music or clever mathematical proofs. There is no intuition, only chance and hard, hard work. The perennial quest to be better than one’s self is futile. The existence of wisdom in this world is, in Plantinga’s language, “properly basic” belief that one can rationally hold, and claim

Simon is a second-year EECS major who enjoys music, math, chess, philosophy, and reading anything but fiction.

TAUG

F E AT U R I N G S

“ I T I S E A S I E R TO H I T YOUR HAND WITH A H A M M E R T H A N TO H I T THE NAIL.”

warrant for, without a surefire logical argument; wisdom is a thing that can be “perceived” the same way water feels wet and my tongue feels teeth. As long as we believe there are other people or there is a past, we concede that not all truths can be proven. We may weary ourselves searching for wisdom, only to find it has found us: “before he had made the earth with its fields ... When he established the heavens, I [Wisdom] was there” (Proverbs 8:26–27, English Standard Version). In the beginning God made the heavens and the Earth; behold, before the beginning there was wisdom, yet before the beginning there was only God: wisdom is identified as none other than the very creator. Indeed, by appealing to a cosmological outsider the idea of wisdom is quite perfectly explained. Christians hold that God is personal: he reveals himself as having emotions, opinions, and actions; just like a perfect human being, except perfect in ways that we are not even able to conceive. He is necessarily omniscient, and what he does, none can do better, for he is perfect; hence Leibniz’s “best of all possible worlds” is our own and reflects a totally perfect creator. Thus, in the same sense in which Aquinas found that human law participates in the divine law, I suppose that human wisdom participates, even if accidentally, in the divine wisdom, for a wise human glimpses a divine noetic perfection without quite owning it. And Christians, having glimpsed wisdom, aspire for more; dissatisfied with a glimpse, we demand to gaze. For creation reflects its creator like a sheet of bright white paper, but revelation reflects its subject like a mirror. Does not wisdom call? Does not understanding raise her voice? On the heights beside the way, at the crossroads she takes her stand; … “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here! … Leave your simple ways, and live. (Proverbs 8:1–9:6a)

WORDS CALVIN HAN

Wander lust ITS NECESSITIES & PITFALLS

18 TAUG

F E AT U R I N G S

“A SCARY NON-EXISTENT F O R M O F A N G U L A R G R AV I T Y T RY I N G TO P U L L Y O U OV E R THE EDGE”

hile words are powerful, there is no true substitute for experience; this is especially true in regards to the beauty and majesty of God’s natural creation. There is a tad bit of irony in my trying to convey the power of this experience through words while making the claim that words cannot substitute for experience, but please try to bear with me on this one. The logical answer for why words cannot substitute for experience lies in simple arithmetic when you think about it; words simulate only our visual sense and our thought processes; experience touches upon all of our senses and can either silence or overload our thought processes. Now that you have that simple more-is-better math-backed claim laid out, allow me to transition to the Word of God. Sprinkled throughout the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are verses alluding to the greatness of God’s natural creation; from allusions to the macro majesties found in Genesis when God revels at his creation where it writes, “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day,” 1 and in Psalm 19:1 where it says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” to the allusions to the smaller beauties in God’s great design found in Luke where it writes, “Consider how the wild flowers grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.” 2 Anyone who reads these passages, Christian or non-Christian, can, and most likely will, think the thought that God has created much natural beauty in our world. However, when one stands before the vastness of the Grand Canyon in all its majesty, one most likely won’t think of anything coherent; one would 1

Genesis 1:31, New International Version.

Luke 12:27

just feel the majesty by looking at the vastness, smelling as well as tasting the dry Arizona air, hearing the howl of the canyon, and touching the sedimentary formed over millions of years. You may have read the Bible from cover to cover, whether it be the 23 books of the Tanakh, the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, the 73 books of the Catholic canon, or the 81 books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church canon, but have you ever laid eyes upon the snow-capped and breathtaking view of the Madison Range in Montana while breathing in the creeping cold air of fall as winter approaches? Have you ever looked over the edge at Angel’s Landing in Zion National Park while feeling a scary non-existent form of angular gravity trying to pull you over the edge? Have you ever stood on the beach in La Jolla, and looked out at the vastness of the Pacific with the setting sun as the warm summer air rests upon your skin? All you need is but one of these experiences for it to be enough to realize that God’s natural creation was meant to be experienced in its entirety for a person to truly grasp its majesty opposed to reading it in black and white. However, another great irony is that you’ll feel it is never enough once you experience it for the first time. It is never enough in the same way that the joys felt in close social ties are never enough as you want to experience them in perpetuity. Some people might see the desire to travel in order to experience nature as a fad one might go through in one’s twenties when one is young. Or perhaps it might be something people see as a postretirement venture or maybe a venture one embarks on in the middle of a midlife crisis. However, that would be the equivalent of saying that the joys of close social relations are a fad that one only sets aside a certain period in one’s life to enjoy. Obviously, the fruits and joy of your social relationships are meant to be enjoyed throughout your life in order for you to keep a healthy life; the same applies in

TAUG

terms of experiencing God’s creation that is nature. Once you grasp the silliness of the idea of experiencing social connections during set time periods of your life, then you will grasp how silly the idea of basking in nature as a fad one goes through is. All of this stuff begins to make Christianity sound a bit new-agey which is why it is high time the fallacies of venerating nature are discussed. In the 19th century, there was a philosophical movement known as Transcendentalism which rejected the intellectualism of its time as it saw societal institutions as corrupting the individual; this led the followers of this philosophical movement to embrace the purity of nature as a way of cleansing the influences of the corrupt institutions man has set up. Outside of the wonderful art and poetry this philosophical movement has produced, this movement has morphed into a lot of the New-Age philosophies of today where influences from South Asian thought has generated this idea that nature and God are one and the same. The influences from South Asian religions are clearly stated by Henry David Thoreau, one of the figureheads of Transcendentalism, when he writes: “In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavat Geeta.” 3 This brings me to the fallacy of turning nature into an idol. While it is important to bask in God’s creation that is nature, it is equally as important to understand that God’s creation is not the same as God himself and that it is unscriptural to mix the two. Nehemiah 9:6 writes: “You alone are the Lord. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them.” Through this verse we can clearly see that anything that is a part of this world is merely a creation of God and not God. Isaiah 3

Henry David Thoreau, Walden, (Boston: Ticknor&Fields, 1854), 279.

45:18 states: “For this is what the Lord says—he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he found it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited.” This scripture further supports the idea that God and nature are not one and the same and that basking in God’s creation is not basking in God for it is impossible to bask in God fully as seen in the story in Exodus of Moses and the burning bush. The second common fallacy in embracing the need to experience God’s creation is the mistaken idea a lot of people have that there is a divine truth in nature. Once again, this is unscriptural. The most glaring argument against this in scripture is in Matthew 24:35: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” This lets us know that the only true source of truth is God and the word of the Lord, for everything else is merely temporary. This is the same for nature. God’s glory in every sense of the word is powerful enough to transcend the human boundaries of logic and senses, but when one basks in his creation, one comes awfully close to transcending that boundary; one also comes awfully close to making the mistake of turning nature into an idol. However, as long as one keeps one’s sight on the difference between God and nature and other spiritual pitfalls, one owes it to oneself to experience this creation of God in its entirety. So, I urge you to drop this journal now, and go catch a case of wanderlust by starting small in experiencing a nearby natural beauty; it is the Bay Area after all.

Calvin Han is currently a junior studying Political Science and Chinese. He enjoys being in the outdoors as well as reading and writing. His goal in life is to be a military combat arms officer as well as a writer.

n d t

20 TAUG

r i f e ex ct s r s un u cu s p h ti si s ht n en hi ic tla aii op ph a w hi O ops ha al ps eg lo M E

r li s ce ce li s t ra do us ana e u is co D Ps a a ore ta la n a k u la s to p la n t a c g a t u is No otop r en lt it e lo niv u la e N a r s mu id e o a y p r in t a ra ce t in o r c h il a c c u la a r no A m o s im P la e m e to is xa N as h e o ll is ra c il Ur m g r ia il is g e in ia u m ra c u m m is in a n ag R e U li o s to to m a li a n u m d r o s in g i la t eu f cu ann P s li n d m a r io m u m Cy to ad ter uc m os u i q u k lo s r o le dr at li n um c h v it t im a Cy tom mum o m m s ij t a s to d o d o s o m u o m u e r o ic u la u m t t eu st r t ic c u t r ia t u m P s P s e u g io s g io Vo a s ct m m P la P la u m c in tu i sto ca t o m u m s o n a e m s m n P li r p e ir o g io s to um P la g io o m a e c h g o r r is a li s a la n s P la o s t ll a b e ac s es oty rd or e ll y lu m a a m in is ro Enc don act th U r o d t r e mt y le a t id is Bo G y r ray o co o b f f in ca in t a a u rh li a le m ep d o L a lu s co t y co e u r n s eu p h C a li t y le t y l e u u ii Ps ce co co ex ig r p i g lo co d t yo r o s a y s Tr o D ic G h a lu lu s m g u s e p a ac yi ce p h r iu e o ce o t h e r in a l a t t i ot io A b a Pr thr t ia e s m s p r a e il lo o id m a iu r Bo a n Gr ic e o m if t ta to ys ac mi p ol m lys i so P o e o p h r iu t y l e g r o m b r a o a N ot b o c a p s co u l a t d i r xa ic r m a g in n ia t ic r n a he e d o N e o B iv K u h d e n g u i o l a r i eu ra l e er te y s Ps an isi ho ot a op oc pt a m ur v a l id t a n ux m e p ium D icP l e c Ze osto otyl tob dale i t c ma in on s ba lti p Lo Mu hae a s an icum a om a m on um om os m ap hor rini os st so a j p i er st hi to h i S c h i s s o m l i co v i v r o n i Sc S c i s to n ca c h i s ca p u s kca b ti r h o a Sc hor tho om sis pa s um t lop he op Opi t i c i ca os lic in cio ola dri nt ta i s h p a n Ca Ec Fa asc de gig ble lae F la sta ha m m l i u c i o ra ep cu o e F a s a ce b i c a t i t u m s p ca e n s oc o tr cr c li gl he c Te Di a a ba iles ol e m e m m a c s m t u mu l i a itr tr u gr u as ho om s im ne im lala N op ost ide ron trili a l l n n u l ra o e Za ha nch H um pla ata nig a li to c in s e p hy p a E c a g o ce l i a l p c t e a St or Bi y os Ph Pol bia is la lata i Pr o s r gu a e en op Cr oel an kw ns tri no e na c r o h i a m a ke w n a a nd s m na an st De opo mu liu pla ont uis ti de pa ro m ng oa Ar aty Bi ic a pi hr ea M p i ra y c n ca Pl e p C u p o l e r r a e r i i ca N t ib on a t ia di es e sia jap ula a ug m ge sia ng ine a D ia u es D ge tria ngu ule ii r f u ug D tia sa ae ar na D s c ch i s a po lan na a s tigr nsi a io a p pl lan ia ue lat th lo ra A r t ra n o o p r d k y c u a u s r r a y i ub tis ae Au C M i c G i a r e n t a r d i l b m e s u b t e l h a l l u ca i i m r s ug D sia ato nto lap and m e ar ga m nl ctu um s i u e ug P gi u e t p s D a m gro un ea nsi ph sto a s um br l o r n o l d i m m i a c u ka i e n s i a i o o m ecy Ch o s t m u s b n a i of fe h i l s ic i p m y n sto eru ta osc mo ns a pl e r m ec o p lu r ilo m Si nn ch s m y n n a vo t a Ph s t e c A o n o l u p s a m i p u l ce n v i r s e C c Po om ra a e t a i r e c h o l a n ed Co t t i fe s t v o l u a v i s c u s i s m a Pa g i e r u o nv o m k l e l y v l t e n r d i sa a C st e o sy m h ap p b a m l i i u Sy An an ia ta ria e at to h a a th on na ul o Ap pos iof go tom an a g ass s o tr lo os gr ll cr an le g a de a tin A ap Pr m pa itt ele nta sus i H Ac i g a ie o so s l o a ra S a i t t o r r n v s k i s l g co P a ca l e S a e m u s wa i n a u m as y s o e s t t i c ca Ph ic s k D glo sus int lan ati alis a r at oc ion ioic s no os na a t la gl o u C i o m d e m n a ra d m t a i B a cco s u m o i ca t z Sa l re e ro lia lum le Py Tha lio op nia la p ro da s i u a o ik D O m t ye t h i a l o r a n a s f i i d S n a e d t h ke i s y er H o c o m e p ca n o o s u s t al c o i H i o s s c s a u s g i n ve l l a s h hu lu in ti lti hu nc c ua rh en s a at seu a p v s ra y n q o l B o r S h i n t o s b u n s s o ca l u s o t l s a o ot Ec b to d teu ia cli gu s N n o a s l yo o s A m r o e n t u i o s hi b o te ar ta rp s R Se P pi h e h n c ca r i u Le a u to ch us e p s u l l u p u s i n u ra s u t nd C lur ypr mig ki s C us hu rd nc Tu rhy o nc

YOU ARE HERE

TAUG

Sp P m e Sc he seu ria n et elo od de ch er p o m al ys um od or n u on s pu sc n ga T n a r p un c ip e t u O r y or rdu G lat du tat ta m s al ct u y l o i m lu rh at s R lag ssis ig s g in us at u s i ra a o s t s p l u t Ic T H l h y M s cu pi or us H th ph o m us nor nic en ius y G y p o o p l o n o m ve u l u s i s ra g h e us gi c s n e i c c s Sc D dis op s b tes a p ul us u i a s h i o a G p h co n i s n n n a t e n s as io glo ia a ro an an s t s N rop p i s es h X e u s s s u l t e t ra c u El om r y no h s p rna tu s eu p olb ic ns s an ne th c ti a us ro tu A er m o B s th rol lae ok s u by d a in v i s t c t H fo v o m e n i s A om yl yl m a a s Pl ph Si a us a c llic sse is re m c M et i u ine ep ti yx ho um n i n ex i n e r e s in a L d a a eg a te c o t t lu Pe mp n y rid rm anu us tin tro et o ac e m o s m ra n h a t y d i a En a yz ae lo lu As d o E p a t l a o n py s s m tr pt ee ob m t n x St a o t O ra e ro p h c A n c r i t r e i c h a r i n ra ng n t ag u h yl Op iop io ted us us f s o l n o pa sto is A m ce n h i o o c u co n u s n s s e r ra t i tr m O p h i o t u y xa j a p t r i r ra e p p o c t St hio ho s p bre ni tum a cu L i i c h ca n l i s u r p v i r s Ps po o o sq u im yc t r p u p s u a ra t a h ap s As ro Cu ja fug ma us e p p z th i t o c e n t e u m a ve o n i e n s a s os st cu l a s i om on ria Ec M gi sy ens eo Ar hi a c k no B m b a ow a u i o n Ec d a ci ca r i s hi ve a s t o a rd so no di En ium psi ntr lixu ni c s sc i l u s o p e co l y r co s a Ce a nt a r d i fe C b r o E u cF e l a s i s p b e a t u ra la s r st e e p i d a s t e i d u r f o ra n m ris r s l u ra h P St Sp sa D an tr zel s m tus ro i ng C hae mm ade us c ibu and iti yl olo re ec m or loi ia s oc d e c o a en boc hin hin se na es tr en us us to tu ot s s m t O g p h u s r o t ra i l i u m Te S a Tr i p i o p i n t u s n u l a r i s a a e m lm n n o a c e u h o l r m t ra t r i s ed u st is pl is St s e a e iu o s c u sp A sm o M e r u s h a g ra u l e s ti ta tro pn sp h er pe eu ilia ard oid lla w es A s c tes te s g l lc n v ob icki te yo ni P rias irre ario ulu i di or gu la s um an am la ris Pl u ge ia p re ris u S m l u n ar y mb ate atin lvil sis e ll o l n t n t s i i o n a r e s u mu s si a p p di a h ben and ens ce i l e o t h l l i n d e g d e ra ni ro a ar e i g ra ce r d a e a m nu pi m a f i o s ce o n s op rdic ae ed um ch atu s ar ric um a er na gi i ga s lli

S A al lb m on ula o t al vu rut os lp ta oi es d es

F E AT U R I N G S

WORDS NIKKI CHEUNG

Human Nature

n my second grade Sunday school at church, I was taught that humans are souls created by God on the sixth day in the book of Genesis. They are most definitely not animals; rather, they were put on Earth with a purpose to do good and join their Heavenly Father in his Promised Land, where the streets are paved with gold and the rivers flow with milk and honey. In my high school biology class, I was always taught that humans are, on the most basic level, animals. They are barbaric, primitive, savage creatures that behave as any animal would in the wild; and, despite their differences, they share DNA with dinosaurs, wolves, and apes due to evolution and common ancestry. As a confused eight-year-old, I avoided this “science vs. religion conflict” like the plague because I feared any contradiction between Sunday school and regular school—I guess you could say I didn’t want to believe that the Bible could ever be wrong. However, now that I’m older and I understand the fundamental disagreement between the two theories, I’ve found myself raising this question more often: are humans actually masterfully created souls, or are they just a result of evolution? Evolution is the theory that “the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other pre-existing types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.” 1 In other words, it is the idea that through natural selection, populations diverge and change drastically over time to adapt to their environments, producing new species. This explains the detailed differences between species in different parts 1

Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. “Evolution,” published December 6, 2017.

22 TAUG

of the world, and why humans share traits with many other types of animals. Creationism is the theory that all things in the universe were created, or at least initiated, by a higher power. (Christians believe that God created the universe along with the humans in it.) This explains how humans are so perfectly complex and why each one is unique. The premise of this theory that addresses the distinction between humans and animals is that animals were created to live in God’s name 2 while humans were created with the purpose to live in honor of Him and perform good deeds for his Kingdom. He gave humans the freedom to choose Him of their own accord. He hopes that, with that freedom, for them to live peacefully and harmoniously with all of His creation. I can’t even count the amount of times I wanted to believe that humans really are just like the animals you see on safari (even at times when I had a good relationship with the Lord). Every time I see the latest breaking story about a tragically hateful act, I question whether humans were truly created by God as having good intentions. The idea of humans being violent scares me, and with every major act of violence, I notice myself distancing from the beliefs of creationism. In the Bible, humans are supposedly superior to animals: “Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ ” 3 However, when you strip away laws and the constructs of society, humans can be vicious, greedy, and territorial like the animals mentioned in that verse. 2

Gn 2:19, Ps 145:15, Ps 150:6 English Standard Version.

Gn 1:26

They are only truly interested in doing what they need to do to survive in their environment. This reflects Thomas Hobbes’s social contract theory, which states that humans surrender some of their basic freedoms in exchange for protection when they agree to a social contract under government. This construct prevents anarchy. However, when you take away the social contract, humans return to chaos, behaving like animals in the wild. During war, people raid towns when they have nothing left, they murder those who are trying to attack them, and they trespass to seek refuge. You could argue that if those people were truly living for God’s purpose, they wouldn’t commit crimes like that even in the most desperate of situations. It shows that humans are inherently survival-oriented, and even the most spiritual humans can’t be programmed to stray from competitive, animalistic ways. There is so much scientific evidence in support of the idea that humans are nothing more than creatures looking out for only their survival in this world, but for some reason I still believe that there is another force driving human existence; and it’s because I see evidence behind it, and not just because my Sunday School teachers told me. If humans are truly animals, how is it that they are still driven to do good for others and make a positive change in their community? Some people say it’s the effect of culture and society on humans’ perceptions of others. But how does that explain why humans feel an inevitable sense of empathy, even when they are never required to? Why do humans feel the need to pick up their trash, give a homeless person money, or help a random stranger with a flat tire on the side of the road, if it will all go unnoticed anyway? Why do humans cry at ASPCA commercials or sympathize with or-

phaned children even though it has no direct effect on them? Humans do have innate good qualities and a sense of community that drives them to do good deeds even with no economic benefit (a trait that animals do not appear to possess). Given that humans have the same biological composition as other animals, there must be another influence present that gives humans this distinct sense of sympathy and compassion. It makes sense that this influence would come from a higher power. Beliefs divide humans, and I know that humankind will never find a way to completely agree on their origin. After all, I’ve spent over a decade retracing all these thoughts in my head, trying to answer this question. To me, humans are animals to some degree because of their proven survival instincts, anatomical resemblance to other animals, and competitive interactions with each other. However, something drives us away from that primitive animal lifestyle and leads us to empathy and kindness: our faith. We may be scientifically defined as animals, but we still are united with God and we live for his purpose. In the end, my goal isn’t to find the definite answer to this question, but rather to challenge myself to find the balance between the opposing theories. So I also encourage you to think about this topic, and challenge yourself to discover where your beliefs stand on the spectrum between evolution and creationism. To put it simply, consider how you would characterize the origins of human nature.

Nikki Cheung is a first-year chemistry student at UC Berkeley. In her free time, she enjoys basketball, playing the violin, sleeping, and eating.

TAUG

WORDS ANDREW KYONG

A Musing on Avoiding Environment Activists on Sproul

24 TAUG

F E AT U R I N G S

“HEY THERE, DO YOU HAVE A FEW MINUTES TO HEAR ABOUT HOW YOU CAN HELP SAVE ENDANGERED PANDAS?”

s a typical Berkeley student, it’s fairly common to get bombarded on Sproul by representatives of CALPIRG and other environmentally-focused groups to help save the environment and push for a cleaner world, and as a typical Berkeley student, it’s also fairly common to ignore them when walking to or from class. The dialog usually goes something like this: “Hey there, do you have a few minutes to hear about how you can help save endangered pandas?” “No, sorry I got to go to class.” “I promise it won’t take that long and you’d be helping out a great cause!” “No, it’s okay. Sorry.” After apologizing, that’s when I’d usually slip away from them while feeling the slightest tinge of guilt as I left. I’ve been recently asking myself why I feel so guilty. Is it because I look bad not caring about the environment or is it because I generally don’t care about the environment which makes me a bad person? This article reflects some of my thoughts on the matter in regards to how I am called to view nature as a Christian since my faith is something that is very important in informing my worldview. Now a reader may object and question why the Christian perspective is valid in evaluating nature given its past use in justifying the oppression and degradation of nature. Indeed, Christianity has been historically used to support two popular ethical schools of thought, egocentric and homocentric ethics. Egocentric ethics focuses on whether an action or consequence is morally good or bad in relation to how it affects a certain individual, while homocentric ethics focuses on whether an action or consequence is good or bad in relation to how it affects mankind as a whole. Those who hold to egocentric ethics see a biblical mandate in Christianity to conquer the Earth citing biblical passages, such as Genesis 1:28 which says to man to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.” 1 1

New International Version

With homocentric ethics, there is a slightly different emphasis on man’s role. Citing passages such as Matthew 25:14 which talk about the stewardship of talents that God has given to man, man is not a conqueror as in egocentric ethics, but a beneficiary over the Earth. In either case, both homocentric and egocentric ethics presume and focus on man’s greater authority over nature. This in turn has led to the critique of Christianity’s prioritization of man since it has led to selfish ethical systems that fail to consider other parties as equally important (if important at all as taken by environmentalist Carol Merchant in her book Radical Ecology). For example, the rights of a rainforest are usually not things that come to mind for egocentrists or homocentrists when deciding on whether to proceed with the deforestation of a rainforest or not. What is usually considered is how much money can be profited from all the resources that are mined and whether a nation is fine with all the construction going on. Even if there are more environmental concerns such as the loss of biodiversity, it goes back to how it affects humans with less food choices and how the protection of nature is only for the cause of preserving it for future human generations. Nature has no value outside of its use to humans in an egocentric or homocentric ethic perspective. It’s no surprise, then. for some environmentalists that we’re currently experiencing things such as increasing climate change and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. According to them, these are merely symptoms of a bigger problem of how we value nature too little, and so to address this problem, we need a new ethical standard separate from Christianity. In pondering how my faith informs my ethical views, I’ve begun to see that while Christianity affirms the early belief in man’s higher status over nature, the reason why reveals an ethical standard that is fundamentally different than the ones given by egocentric and homocentric ethics. Theologically, man’s elevated status comes from man being

uniquely made in the likeness of God (Genesis 1:26) and from being viewed by God as distinctively very good in all of His creation (Genesis 1:31). What this means is profound: things are valued and understood according to their relation to God. Value is not found in what man deems as valuable, but from what God deems as valuable. God’s opinion upholds ethics and value and so man must always be conscious of what God deems significant. Why does God’s opinion matter? Well, it comes from the fact that God is the one who created everything and is still continually holding everything in existence (Colossians 1:16–17) and so He has final say over what matters (Romans 9:20). Another reason is because God’s opinion comes from his nature of absolute truth. He is not fickle like human beings in what he says (Malachi 3:6), but He is always consistent, so consistent in fact that consistency finds its very definition in God (John 14:6). The inherent worth of nature is then a natural progression for the Christian. Because God found nature good (Genesis 1:25) even before the creation of man, nature has

TAUG

inherent worth apart from its usefulness to man, unlike in the view of nature taken by homocentric and egocentric ethics. Thus, the takeaway from the biblical mandate to “subdue and fill the earth” is not pride and abuse of power, but humility and wise stewardship over a sacred place owned by God, a place where “land must not be sold permanently” (Leviticus 25:23) and fruit trees may not be senselessly cut down even in times of war (Deuteronomy 20:19). With this ethical outlook, Christianity differentiates itself from other environmentally-focused ethics that prioritize the wellbeing of the environment as a whole over the wellbeing of humanity by “finding a philosophically adequate justification for the intrinsic value of non-human beings.” 2 Christian ethics does this by answering one of the main issues with secular environmentally-focused ethics, namely: how can what is objectively seen inform man of what is subjectively important? The justification for the intrinsic value of nature in Christianity is simple. As God finds value in nature and as His opinion is supreme, so nature is inherently valuable. With all this in mind, Christian ethics provides an impetus for mindfulness of nature, contrary to the dissociation of man and nature prevalent in modern society. As Professor Kenneth Worthy from UC Berkeley highlights in his book The Invisible Nature, most people’s minds are currently “occupied with abstractions that have only distant connections with the natural world, such as income, spreadsheets, management problems, television programs” while “wild nature is segregated to parks and wilderness areas, and to a lesser degree to backyards and median strips…constrained to those assigned places, 2 Carolyn Merchant, “Environmental Ethics and Political Conflict,” in Radical Ecology, (New York: Routledge Press, 2005), 79.

rather than inhabiting our regular lives and environs.” 3 People don’t have a reason to regularly think about their relationship with nature as there’s no need to directly interact with it anymore. We only have to drive in our cars to pick up food from the grocery store instead of having to rely on the seasons of sunlight and rain to grow our own food, and so it seems natural that we become dissociated with nature and we forget how our carelessness with nature has ramifications. In contrast, the Christian is continually called to reflect on the wonders of the natural world as passages such as Psalm 111:2, Psalm 8:1–9, Psalm 147:1–9, and Psalm 145:5 suggest. No more is nature relegated to the occasional hike, but it is now meant to frequently occupy the mind of the Christian, for by nature can a Christian visibly remind themselves of God’s attributes such as His power in creating and sustaining the world. Because of this constant awareness of nature, the Christian is able to more easily be in “contact with the rich, vibrant, complex realm of nature in landscapes and seascapes, with the air, soil, and water around,” whether physically or mentally, and this awareness allows them to “begin to fully understand and experience nature’s needs and thus be in a reciprocal and caring relationship with it.” 4 Ethical actions and caring for nature then become related, where the righteous are those who care not just for the needs of other humans, but also for the needs of their animals (Proverbs 12:10). How we treat nature which is visible can reflect how we treat God who is invisible. So what does all this mean for a Berkeley student like myself? Well, it can mean stopping to hear and even support what environmentalist groups have to talk about when I have the time to talk since the environmental issues they bring up do pertain to the expression of my faith. It can also mean actively appreciating the world around me more often. This can take place in small ways such as when I become thankful for the beautiful sunrise I just witnessed doing an all-nighter and so now I can turn off the lights that I don’t need any more. This appreciation for the environment may sound pretty sappy and probably similar to something you 3

Kenneth Worthy, “Introduction in Invisible Nature: Healing the Destructive Divide between People and the Environment (New York: Prometheus Books, 2013), 30.

26 TAUG

ibid., 28.

“HOW WE TREAT NATURE WHICH IS VISIBLE CAN REFLECT HOW WE TREAT GOD WHO IS INVISIBLE.” would hear from an environmentalist. But what makes this appreciation that I’m talking about different is that it’s directed to the personal God of Christianity, not to nothing or to an impersonal entity. Thanksgiving to God is the engine of the Christian faith. This is because Christianity is founded upon the concept of grace, which means receiving something that we didn’t deserve, and as Christians, we understand that we don’t deserve anything in this life such as nature or a renewed relationship with God. Yet we’ve been given all these things anyways by grace, and so because of how much we’ve been given, we’re called to live a life of gratitude in response to all that God has done! When we don’t live like this and see everything as an immense privilege, we become entitled and it’s natural that we take the world and people around us for granted. But when we live with eyes of wonder, the environment and people around us become so much more valuable and we learn to respect them as such. With the right perspective, nature becomes more than just a resource to be used; it becomes a celebration of God’s grace! Andrew Kyong is a third-year student at UC Berkeley majoring in Mechanical Engineering. He enjoys eating food at any time of the day whether it be at a typical mealtime or at an unusual hour when a student is typically sleeping.

F E AT U R I N G S

WORDS

ANNA PARK

Nature to Nurture The

TAUG

Warm sunlight blankets our bodies Side by side on the living room couch Your right cheek spilling over slightly But mine with discomfort I willingly bury Because I want to look upon your face Long lashes stream down closed eyelids Smooth skin impersonates fuzzy plums Ridged lips pout ever so slightly All remain still save for your small breaths Each exhale drawing infant scent I breathe inaudibly and dare not move sensing the life within those small breaths And desire wells up strongly within me To protect, to love, and to nurture Of nothing else am I so certain Can I then understand God’s love To be tangibly similar to mine Innate, inexplicable, insurmountable He sent his own to willingly die To allow me to draw nearer to him But inevitable sin cycles mercilessly Hypocrisy binds me in repetition Human nature a weight far too burdensome But breaking my limited understanding Is grace, and it cannot compare To the countless doubts I have To the constant worries in my head Sufficiency in the face of my insufficiencies Satisfies, I think I now can allow Him To love me as I am too

“I REMEMBER BEING I N AW E O F H OW SMALL, FRAGILE, AND VULNERABLE H E WA S . ” 28 TAUG

“I

want to be a mom” has been my half-joking, half-serious answer whenever someone asks me about my career aspirations. It’s partly because I’m a very indecisive person and don’t know what I want to do yet, but also because this formative memory left a lasting impact on me. When I was about four years old and my younger brother was about one, I remember lying next to him on the couch while he was taking a nap. We were so small that we fit shoulder-to-shoulder beside each other. I remember being in awe of how small, fragile, and vulnerable he was. And at that moment, I saw his life as something pure and precious. An irresistible desire and duty grew within me to do whatever I could to treasure and protect that life. Still now, I have the same unexplainable, unwavering love towards him. At first, I thought this reaction I had towards my baby brother was because of my “maternal instinct.” People around me would comment on how motherly I was and it was common for my friends to call me the mom of the group, so it was easy to accept. To claim that I have a “maternal instinct,” however, is far from claiming to exhibit motherly behavior. This terminology is used to describe women’s supposed biological desire to have a child as well as mothers’ natural instincts in child rearing practices. In other words, it means that there’s something in women’s biology that makes them want to have and nurture children. I thought perhaps my love and will to take care of my brother had to do with my female biology and genetic “wiring.” I entertained this idea for a while but it didn’t seem satisfactory enough of an answer. Furthermore, I soon found that the notion linked womanhood to motherhood in a way that did not sit well with me. Was the experience of womanhood contingent upon, and exclusive to, bearing and raising children? This creates normative expectations of what it means to be a woman and what it means to be a mother. If all women are supposed to have this maternal instinct, those who do not wish to have a child fall out of line of social expectations and are viewed as unnatural and even selfish. I was a mere child at the time and had no thoughts of wanting children of my own. Maybe this concept excludes children but even so, why should the caring aspects of motherhood be exclusive to females? Surely even my older brother could have easily felt similar feelings of

“PEOPLE DON’T WEIGH THE CONSEQUENCES THEIR DECISIONS MAY HAVE ON THE HUMAN RACE WHEN THINKING ABOUT HAVING CHILDREN” wanting to love and protect me. dered roles. My mother stayed at home watching after me Another perspective is that the human desire to nur- and my brothers while my father left to work. I played ture is not really an instinct, but can be thought more of with baby dolls and fake food while my brothers had as a drive. Both are innate, but instincts are automatic robot figurines and toy cars. Even then, I find it diffiresponses that apply across all individuals in a species, like cult to solely attribute my sense of duty and care towards sharply recoiling one’s hand at the touch of something my younger brother to a binary social construct. Rather, hot. Human drives push behavior in certain directions, I think it has more to do with the overarching human providing motivation to behave in a certain way. So the nature to nurture, or to love other humans. The concept argument proposes that people are merely strongly driven, of nurturing I use here is beyond merely surviving. It’s or inclined towards wanting children, not necessarily deeper than biological instinct and something unique to biologically wired to want them. This begs the question: the human experience. That is, the inclination to nurture is it coincidental that some human drives are beneficial in the human experience, is a reflection of the divine. towards survival, and thus emerged through evolution? From a Christian perspective, I see this rooted in the The question alone implicitly suggests that wanting to belief that people were created in the image of God. This have children is tied to survival, much like how animals image extends beyond our physicality; like God, we are reproduce through survival instincts to preserve their spe- spiritual beings that socially live in relationship with cies. Maybe humans were like this in prehistoric times, one another, desiring to love and be loved. The desire to but it has become increasingly obvious that people be- nurture, to care for one another to grow and develop, is have differently as a species in with respect to reproduc- part of our spirituality and a natural response that comes tion for the sake of long-term survival of the human race. about when we love one another. In his letter to the EpheOther socioeconomic factors such as financial stability, sians, apostle Paul reminds us of the greater purpose of career objectives, and access to resources such as educa- why we do this. As we build each other up, we will not tion all play arguably stronger roles in one’s decision to only become more unified, mature, and stronger in our have a child. It can be safely assumed that people don’t convictions, but we will also become more like Christ, to weigh the consequences their decisions may have on the be more like the image we were created to be in. human race when thinking about having children, at least in terms of avoiding extinction. “…so that the body of Christ may be built up until we So if not by instinct nor by innate drive, what could all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the the source of my motherly love be? Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole Perhaps it could have been by how I myself was “nur- measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer tured” in an environment that I came to have such strong be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown nurturing feelings towards my brother. The popular here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunnature vs. nurture debate discusses whether human be- ning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. havior is biologically inherited through our genes or if Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to beit is socially acquired through our experiences. Nurture come in every respect the mature body of him who is the (fittingly intentionally), is the side that would argue that head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined human behavior is acquired through exposure to external, and held together by every supporting ligament, grows environmental factors; motherhood is a learned value, a and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.” cultural development reinforced in social structure. His- (Eph 4:12–16 New International Version) tory reflects this in Western culture with the sexual division of labor in preindustrial America. The outdated idea that women should be housewives who watch children at home while men work outside still has deep ramifications Anna Park is a third-year student from SoCal majoring in in our society today. Cognitive Science. Besides the people in her life, she also Even at a young age, I was already exposed to gen- adores Pilates, persimmons, and pale purples.

TAUG

WORDS KYLIE CHENG

Biophilia

“

I LEARN TO TRUST THE

”

SAME ONE WHO ‘KNIT ME

TOGETHER IN MY MOTHER’S WOMB’ TO PERFECTLY KNIT MY LIFE STORY.

30 TAUG

erkeley’s general biology textbook costs $114.24—at that price, it should be worth reading. One introductory paragraph I found discusses how science deals with the natural, not with the supernatural. The writers assure that, belonging in a different realm of study, science cannot disprove religion, the implication being that the two can coexist in peace and harmony… or at least in stable equilibrium. This sentiment is absent in the book’s latter half, though. From introducing Darwin’s backstory to exercises comparing intelligent design against natural selection, a bias does exist. The scientific community largely favors the side of the physical and purely observable. Of course, the writers of a science textbook have such a mission, to teach about what they have concrete evidence for. God doesn’t appear as a factor to them. Somehow, though, I find God all over biology. While I’m drawn to the intricate ways living bodies work, the forms and functions, the innards and interactions—to me, they have always carried tiny whispered screams of God’s glory in His knowing each and ev-

REFLECTIONS

ery one of them. I can’t argue over evolution, but still I believe God has orchestrated all biochemical processes both in their conception and in their continued functioning. I lie awake at night feeling my pulse, comforted with the faith that I will wake up the next morning with lungs still breathing and heart still beating through no effort of my conscious mind. At least, I think of it as faith. A physiologist would probably point to the pulmonary and cardiovascular systems that do their jobs in most humans, mentioning that a female with my age, background, current environment, and health shouldn’t fear heart failure. I love the details of this perspective, the escalating levels of organization of cells, tissues, organs, systems. Yet as I see parts working for a unified whole, I also see God’s hand moving in the interstitial spaces. I can’t help but look at it both ways. There’s something called biophilia, the love of biology. I’m not sure what it’s like for other people; maybe leaves turning sunlight into sugar by photosynthesis or ancient fossils giving the world beauty and meaning by them-

selves. For me, I marvel at the mechanism of DNA synthesis and the colors of flowers trying to reproduce, but my sense of awe ultimately ends up directed towards He who made them—a Creator behind it all. As Job declares, “In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind.” 1 Neither does God disappear when we discover how it works. We understand more about the world than we did before thanks to science. Still, God’s glory can never be diminished by anything we do; I think that scientific discovery doesn’t take away God’s hand, but adds on to our understanding and appreciation of Him. He is not only the God of the unknown but also of the known. In my UC application essay, I couldn’t quite figure out an explanation for why I had a passion for biology. There was no epiphany I could point to. I can only conclude that God had planted it into my heart with some future plan I’ll uncover if I keep pursuing this field. That explanation felt too vague to write in that essay, but now it’s one of my main 1

Job 12:10 English Standard Version.

motivations for just going to class. I still don’t know what my future looks like, but He does. I learn to trust the same One who “knit me together in my mother’s womb” to perfectly knit my life story. 2 Science means being curious and asking questions to find out more—that is, seeking. And I believe that as long as I’m following His will and open to what He wants to reveal to me, I’ll see God fulfill his promise: “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.” 3 So far, I’ve found the fingerprints of God in biology, so I’ll keep seeking (hypothesizing, if you will) to discover more of Him there. Kylie Cheng is a second-year MCB student whose other passions include baking cookies for people, writing stories (that are rarely finished) and playing worship music on her guitar.

Psalm 139:13

Jeremiah 29:13

TAUG

WORDS MATTHEW SIT

More Than Just a Teacher Jesus not only disrupted the noisy world model, but also invalidated it completely, offering in its place a new model for living life. 32 TAUG

thing and you can’t figure it out, then you probably won’t ever be able to. Alternatively, there is the “growth mindset.” This is the idea that even though certain concepts may take more time or practice to grasp, you can learn anything. I decided that, while I found teaching to be daunting, the joy and impact that came with it was significant enough for me to try adopting a growth mindset and to find ways to become better. Another time in BEAM, we were building sail-powered cars. While everyone’s cars whizzed across the cafeteria floor, one boy wasn’t able to get his design to do the same. He began to cry. Immediately, a school administrator rushed to him: “What’s wrong, friend?” Between sniffles, he replied: “My sail keeps tipping my car over, and it won’t go very far. I just can’t do it!” “Nonsense, of course you can! Think about the Wright brothers! Do you think their airplane flew the very first time? No way! I bet they tried hundreds of times with no luck, but did they give up? They didn’t! They believed in themselves, and look at what they accomplished! Let’s see if we can fix your car, okay?” Hands down, this was one of the most amazing teacher-student interactions I had ever been a part of. This student was frustrated and ready to abandon his hopes of ever putting together a car that soars, but we provided him with an inspirational story to wash away his prior beliefs and self-doubt. By explaining the workflow of the Wright brothers, the administrator was illustrating the Engineering Design Process for the boy, which consists of improving a prototype by iteratively re-designing it. And as seen here, it’s an empowering message! Students need to be reminded that just because their first design failed, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t “valid” engineers. There shouldn’t be a stereotype for what an engineer looks like, because anyone can create, no matter who they are or how many broken messes they’ve made. What’s particularly interesting about this situation, is that this amazing outcome was only possible because the administrator happened to be in our classroom that day. Had she not been there, it would have only been

me and this discouraged little boy, and I can assure you I definitely did not have anything nearly as inspirational up my sleeve. I was inexperienced and lacking confidence—yet Newton’s laws somehow relaxed and the boy’s relationship with engineering emerged unscathed; I did not deserve this outcome, but somehow everything turned out fine. Furthermore, I realized how ironic it was that I was teaching these children to believe in their ability to improve their designs, yet I had so little faith in my own ability to mentor. I took this as an indicator that I had to trust in myself more and to learn with a growth mindset aggressively. As a result, I began volunteering as a lab assistant for CS 61A two summers ago. Because it was the summer session, enrollment was open and I remember coming across one visiting student in office hours who was struggling with the infamous Hog Project on the day it was due. His English was weak, but he bravely approached me for help. When I asked him to show me his code and explain the part of the project he needed help with, he showed me a pad of paper because it turned out that he did not own a laptop. Given very little of a question to work with—and the very long queue that was building up—I felt that the answer I was trained to give was to advise him to review the specs some more. Yet instead, I realized that if anyone could help him, it was me. So, I stayed past the end of my shift to read through the specifications with him and to help him draft a pseudocode outline. On top of the difficulty of the course itself, this student had to comprehend an unfamiliar language and he also had to write computer programming assignments without a personal computer; he had to go out of his way to access school machines unlike most everyone else. I empathized with him in my upcoming semesters a little because it was only after three semesters of volunteering when I had the opportunity to be hired onto course staff (people typically volunteer for only one or two semesters). Maybe it is our self-centered thoughts that prod our minds to compare ourselves to others, but sometimes it seems that the world isn’t equitable in its mercies.

TAUG

REFLECTIONS

“I

t’s time to clean up, it’s time to clean up!” announced the site leader. And clean the third-graders did, mopping up their slimy polymers from their desks and restoring their sunlit classroom back to its minimally entropic state. But, one student was too intrigued to finish up just yet. Walking to him, I gently asked, “It’s time to go home. Can you help us clean up?” “Aw, do I have to throw my slime away?” “Um, no. That’s okay. Just contain it inside your cup and wipe down your table. Sound good?” And that was that, or so I thought. Moments later, I saw my site leader addressing that same student, “Why aren’t you cleaned up? I thought we told you to throw everything away!” His eyes widened. “But MATT said I could keep it!” I first started teaching in the spring of freshman year with Berkeley Engineers and Mentors, a Decal that brings after-school lessons to local elementary and middle schools, ensuring that students of all socioeconomic backgrounds can gain confidence in STEM. It sounds rosy, but not every week ends with all your students lining up for hugs as you leave (surprisingly, this was actually a norm at one school). I’ve always imagined that above all, caring mentors recognize and promote sparks of curiosity. Then, I discovered otherwise. Here, I was responsible for making sure all the students cleaned up and that the order of the classroom was properly restored before we left. But in making this exception, I compromised our team’s goal. Now, other students might be misled into thinking that it was okay to continue playing with their slime. Weeks like this convinced me that teaching is the hardest thing I’ve ever done: I tried to develop a teaching philosophy, but I failed despite my preparation. Some people believe in what psychologists call a “fixed mindset,” which is the belief that intelligence is fixed and if after trying some-

We think we understand our world. We expect the linear combination of inputs we provide, which can include our efforts, time, experience, connections, passion, etc., to give rise to output results that we think we deserve. But naturally, this world model is filled with noise—rather than receiving the exact outputs we expect, more often than not we receive results that are randomly either better or worse than our expectations. Nonetheless, I refused to abandon chasing my dream to become a GSI despite the bumpiness of my path to get there because I wanted to be the one who took the time to care for each student as an individual and to reinforce their confidence during times of self-doubt. I wanted to be that unnatural, intervening force against the natural world model, denoising outputs for those bullied by it. Last summer, I became a GSI for CS 61B for the first time and enrolled in a teaching methodologies class, which is part of the 300 series in any department. The class emphasized two ideas. The first idea was that stu-

For the longest time, I struggled with the question of how my life, as academicdriven as it has been, can be of any use to God’s kingdom. As I thought about what I had learned about teaching, it occurred to me that I might discover this answer by observing the teaching approaches of the Great Teacher. It turned out, the more I learned about His character, the more I realized how effective and appropriate His teaching was. He begins by coming down to earth as a man, meeting us at our level of view so that we could know a God who is accessible. During His ministry on earth, He then spends time reaching out to those discouraged by the world model and transforming their imperfections into praise. When He was asked difficult questions, He told parables related to daily culture so that we could have an image of hope. But above all, Jesus identified the barrier that stood between Him and people: sin. So He, a perfect man undeserving of punishment and mockery, paid the absolute penalty for our shortcomings in full, by dy-

“THIS WORLD MODEL IS FILLED WITH NOISE…I WANTED TO BE THAT UNNATURAL, AGAINST THE NATURAL WORLD INTERVENING FORCE MODEL, DE-NOISING OUTPUTS FOR THOSE BULLIED BY IT.” dent interactions matter; students should feel comfortable approaching their instructors for help. I keep this in mind when I work with students one-on-one by making sure that I either sit or kneel next to them so that they don’t feel like they are talking to someone who is towering over them and out of reach. Similarly, when I teach discussions, I move the large TA desk away from the front of the room so there isn’t a barrier separating me from my students. The second idea was reminiscent of the growth mindset mentality and the Engineering Design Process; it is that we should continually grow in our teaching. We practiced this by shadowing two other GSI’s to compare our observations of what works and what doesn’t to video recordings of our own teaching.

34 TAUG

ing on the cross in our place and rising again. There exists no sin that has not already been overcome by the cross. It doesn’t matter how many times you’ve failed Him or how far away you’ve drifted. Jesus already paid the ultimate price on the cross! Surely you can count on his promise of grace: that He will deliver you time and time again. The world model is enslaving. Your inputs result in noisy outputs that you have limited control over. And it doesn’t end there. The world then urges you to constantly “engineer” yourself through rounds and rounds of redesigns—to adopt that growth mindset and to recursively produce greater and greater results. However Jesus not only disrupted the noisy world model, but also invalidated it completely, offering in its place a new model

for living life. But this makes no sense. Why would God love such undeserving people so much that He would send His only son to go through this? It is amazingly unnatural that there is mercy for people who are powerless to save themselves. Through my experiences in the classroom, I learned over and over again that working hard and trying to pursue extraordinary results on my own often yields results that do not meet the ever-increasing expectations of the world. Yet through grace and Jesus’ death on the cross, I no longer need to obsess over my own outputs and failures because, by resurrecting from the dead, Jesus overcame any power the world had and asserted His authority over it. Instead of letting the demands of the world be my master, if I give God that place in my heart, I know that I can be joyful. I know that I can depart from the idea of repeatedly trying to exhaust away my shortcomings and instead put my hope in God and His desire to transform me through my imperfections. This means praying for wisdom in how to spend my energy and being okay with possibly leaving career advancement opportunities behind so that I may pursue God better. My work and faith seemed disjointed because I had to first understand what Jesus did for me; my identity is not rooted as a teacher, but as a follower of Christ. Only then could I understand what I could do for other people and how God uses my passions for His glory. One of my best friends always loves to share the following: “When you start to know Jesus, you’ll begin to love what He loves, and your heart will break for what His heart breaks for.” I suspect that as I learn more about God and witness the ways He is working in my life, the more I will treasure the opportunities I have to de-noise the world for my students and to give them a glimpse of a disruption to the natural world model that is not simply unnatural, but supernatural.

Matthew Sit is a junior at UC Berkeley majoring in Bioengineering and EECS. He firmly believes that arrays should be indexed starting at 0.

Artwork Credit

Harmonie Lau, Anna Park, Ami Yuen

Front Cover

Harmonie Lau

2, 3

Simon Kuang

Cynthia Hsu

Harmonie Lau

16, 17

Ami Yuen

Harmonie Lau

Deborah Kyong, Harmonie Lau, Ami Yuen

Millie Ma, Ami Yuen

TAUG

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. Psalm 19:1â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2

UnknownGodJournal.com