TAUG Spring 2014

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

SCIENCE + FAITH Volume 7 | Issue 1 | Spring 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter

From the Editor

>>Natalie Cha

Themed Articles Scope of Scientific Inquiry >>Mu Young Jeong Fides Quaerens Intellectum >>Josh Joo Unexpected Miracles >>Lisa Ann Yu

6 8 10

Don't Believe Everything You Think >>Alex Freeman

2  To An Unknown God | Spring 2014

12

4

Cont/ Themed Articles The Limitations of Science and the Necessity of Faith >>Seong Min [Daniel] Yoo Adoration >>Hanna Choi The Fisherman and the Scientist >>Joseph Beltran The Science of Christianity >>Noah Cho

14 16 17 18

An Interview with Professor Reimer >>Jonathan Chen and Chloe Ng On Olber's Paradox >>Sharon Liu

20 25

UNThemed Articles Would You Still Call Me Brother? >>Wesleigh Anderson Paving the Path >>Stephen Haw The Question, The

Answer

>>Krystal Han Strength From Thorns >>Calvin Fong

POETRY No Mystery to You >>Jeremy Lai Inherent Art >>James Frederick

26 28 30 32

33 34 Spring 2014 | To An Unknown God  3

Letter From the Editor Dear Reader,

T

his age-old conversation about the relationship between science and faith has been discussed from a myriad of different perspectives. Philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others from various cultures have studied the link between the two over the course of centuries. Some claim that science and faith are inherently in conflict while others reason these seemingly opposites can be reconciled. Still, others propose science and faith are two separate spheres with very little interaction. Furthermore, there are endless nuances within the discussion other than this inquiry of truth, such as diverging opinions on the mere definitions of “science” and “faith”.

Even within the classrooms of UC Berkeley, students and professors assert multiple opinions. Some believe there is a clear divide, rallying behind the prominent modern day voices of Richard Dawkins who proclaims, “God is dead!” or William Lane Craig who defends the “reasonable faith”. Others contend that every aspect of both science and faith can coexist, supplement and enrich each other. In the present moment, the discourse continues.

Therefore, the purpose of this journal is not to reach a conclusion to this ancient dialogue. To attempt such an impossible feat would be incredibly foolish. Instead, the next thirty pages will be the two cents we, as Cal undergraduates, will throw into the centuries deep discussion. This journal will not side with a particular perspective nor will it ignore the relevant questions raised in the examination of how science and faith can relate to one another.

Despite how long this exchange has gone on, it does not appear to end any time soon. Thus it is important to formulate one’s perspective on it.

For those who profess Jesus as their Lord and Savior, it is also beneficial to engage in this dialogue. Many, including myself, have chosen to be disengaged and remain apathetic, concluding there is no point to the hostile endless argument. However, we then yield to the dominant perspective that science and faith must be in conflict with one another, and fail to see the other sides to the discourse.

As Christians it’s easy for us to remain within our circle of believers that isolate us from those who do not think, or speak or believe what we do. We choose to remain content within our understanding of faith, and ignore the science aspect. But understanding the realm of science is an act of worship. Since God has created all knowledge, trying to understand more of what He has created helps us understand more of Him as a creator. “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (Romans 1:20). Consequently, as we choose to engage in this dialogue, perhaps we will determine that science and faith do not need to be in conflict but are instead two interrelated, harmonious realms.

In Christ,

Natalie Cha, Editor-in-Chief

4 To An Unknown

God | Spring 2014

To An Unknown God is not affiliated with any church or any religious group, and opinions expressed in the articles do not necessarily represent those of the editors. We are completely student-run and funded partly by the student body as an ASUC-sponsored student publication. Funding is provided through individual donations. Distribution is free while supplies last.

Editor-in-Chief Natalie Cha

Publishers Jonathan Chen Evan Keum

Executive Editors Josh Joo Desiree Macchia

Editor-in-Chief In Training Micaela Walker

Managing Editors Joice Lee Jonathan Lim Poetry Editor Stephen Haw

Managing Editor In Training Chloe Ng Associate Editors Hanna Choi, Amanda Gee, Lauren Inouye, Solomon Kim, Bon Jin Koo, Richard Lee, Lisa Ann Yu

Editors Emeriti Wesleigh Anderson, Chris Han, Sarah Cho, Stephanie Chiao, Laura Ferris, Cliff Mak, John Montague, Whitney Moret

Advisory Board Steven Fish Department of Political Science

Jan de Vries Department of History

Tsu Jae King Liu Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences

Jeffrey Reimer Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering

Spring 2014 | To An Unknown God  5

Scope of Scientific Inquiry Mu Young Jeong, CONTRIBUTING WRITER

T

his is a short treatise on the preliminary considerations of the nature and limits of scientific knowledge. As such, most of this paper will be concerned with what we are capable of deriving by the means of scientific inquiry. However, this paper will also consider some of the criticisms made by science on Christianity and suggest some possible solutions.

Although there can be numerous and complicated disagreements about complete and precise nature of science, certain things about science can be said without much controversy. The first and perhaps the most fundamental of these is the aim or the purpose of science: to obtain something that which is true of reality.

However, such an aim does not belong to science alone. This aim of inquiring into the truth of reality is also shared by philosophy and religion. But it would be certainly untrue to say all three are identical; philosophy is not religion, neither is religion a science. There are clear distinctions between all three ways (if you will) of inquiring into the truth of reality, and seeing these distinctions will allow us to better grasp what qualifies a particular kind of knowledge as scientific knowledge. And the qualifications of scientific knowledge will aid us in seeing to what extent science is capable of speaking what is true about the reality, and in turn, concerning what is true about religion.

Each way of inquiry pursues after truth through different means. Therefore, a distinction can be made in the methods by which each way seeks to establish what can be known about the world. Science1, among the three, employs a method that involves a synthesis of reason2 and empirical evidence. This is distinct from both philosophy and religion because philosophy does not necessarily have to collapse into empirical verification as science needs to by necessity, and religion pursues after truth in quite a different way than the other two.3 In any case, we now very roughly perceive a part of what it means to inquire scientifically.

However, given that we agree on the method of scientific inquiry, we see very clearly also the possible

6  To An Unknown God | Spring 2014

limitations of its capacity to inquire: science can only inquire to the extent that the object of the inquiry is in some way empirically verifiable. Thus, science concerns itself with physical reality by virtue of its methodology, and cannot exceed its limitation which it placed in itself as a precondition for anything to qualify as scientific knowledge; it follows from its methodology that proper object of scientific inquiry is the natural world.

Granted that reality beyond the physical exists, science would have no say at all as to the nature and the truth of such reality. If it made any claim on religion apart from what is empirically verifiable, it would no longer be a scientific claim.

However, religion claims a bit stronger point than that, which is that what is beyond the physical, or what is supernatural, intervenes in the physical world, even to alter it momentarily here and there. The truth about religion is that it is not purely and entirely spiritual. All religions, especially Christianity, manifest themselves in time and thus lay claims to be a part of history. If Christianity denies its historicity, then the Bible would have to be mere allegorical accounts and myths of what may be true spiritually, but never physically. However, with Christianity there can be no such alternatives. The claims that Christianity makes of history are essential to its faith. If Jesus never rose again, then Christianity falls apart on itself. We are told that God works in time, and we witness many Scriptural recounts of God’s supernatural intervention on the physical. The resurrection, virgin birth, walking on water, and other such supernatural and miraculous accounts seem not only to merely step onto the turf of science, they smear their presence as if it was rightfully their playground from the beginning. Science now appears to be perfectly qualified to lay scientific judgments on religion. And it is. Even still, scientific judgments, insofar as they are scientific, remain irrelevant to determine the claims of religion. In order to illustrate this point, I must distinguish another characteristic of science.

Let us assume that incarnation, virgin birth, atonement, and resurrection actually occurred in history. God was born through a virgin in a human form. He was crucified on the cross which atoned for the sins of people. And after three days rose again.4 If a historian5 was to investigate what happened in the past, he might find that a child was born under a certain person, on a certain date. But can he ever show, by means of scientifically disposed historical investigation, that he was of virgin birth and really God incarnate? Even granted that incarnation is true, it would not be a domain of science to determine the truth of that. It is the same with atonement. The historian may well prove that crucifixion of a person named Jesus occurred in history, but would never find out, through the method he restricts himself, that that particular act of dying has reconciled men to God. The resurrection is somewhat different in that although historical research might even show the probability of the victim of crucifixion being seen alive by other people after three days, it will either have to leave it as an unexplained phenomenon or make sense of it within the naturalistic picture, that he might have not died on the cross in the first place.

Even given the actuality of these miraculous occurrences, science is only allowed that which belongs to its proper scope of investigation; its limitation predetermines the nature of the consequent knowledge prior to its investigation. But a scientist, a physicist maybe, may argue that we know these things to be false because they violate the laws of nature. However, the same point can be made to any such claim that prescribes beforehand a boundary to its systemization of knowledge.

Why can’t the laws of nature be violated? Whether or not they can be, it would not be a scientific inquiry that will produce the relevant answers; for science is essentially irrelevant to anything beyond its method of investigation. Science can only infer from the implications of the physical phenomena those that are of the same order—other physical phenomena. Science may guide us to a direction of interpretation of what physical events may potentially retain, but never the knowledge of those things that are taken by faith. I think Mackintosh makes quite a nice point concerning the worry: “The possibilities have been fixed in advance; the facts are compelled to fit the method by which they are to be treated; just as, though an automatic machine when opened may disgorge nothing but unbent pennies, this is not because the outer world is made up of unbent pennies and nothing else, but because the selective mechanism at work will accept no other sort”.6 The fact about science is that it already adopts a metaphysically predetermined methodological attitude which does not allow itself to transgress; it proceeds from assumptions of reality, which by the very nature of its own methodology cannot prove or disprove.

Science is an art, produced by the unity of our mind’s eyes with our natural eyes. Thus, the product of science is a thing of beauty for those who see value in knowing how our reality is. But at the same time, it is an art with a specific medium. Just as a painter cannot paint outside the canvas he set himself to work within, so is science. Science performs a beneficial and perhaps even a necessary function in our lives. But we cannot see with our ears and smell with our eyes, and we cannot and should not attempt to go beyond the function in which science so prospers.

1. We are here concerned with a particular kind of science that is relevant to the discussion of religion; thus, theoretical sciences, like mathematics, are not discussed.

2. A logical system of deduction based on certain assumptions 3. Religion does not aim at knowledge in the same way as science or philosophy.

Religion is said to follow after truth because it orients one's being in accordance with the truth, both divine and natural.

4. The particular examples are taken from John Macquarrie's book, The Scope of Demythologizing.

5. The historian whose interpretation of history is essentially scientific.

6. Mackintosh, H.R., Types of Modern Theology, 1964 My name is MuYoung Jeong, and I am a junior in Berkeley studying philosophy.

Spring 2014 | To An Unknown God 7

Fides Quaerens Intellectum Josh Joo, STAFF WRITER

8 To An Unknown God | Spring 2014

I do not understand you, Fides.

What is it that you do not understand, Conscientia?

You are The Faith and I am Knowledge. Are we not fundamentally incompatible?

Why is that?

I am acquired through rigorous testing and must be proven. But you do not have such a foundation. If anything, you are arbitrary. We are opposites.

But how can that be if we are both of the same rational human mind? Yes, I am The Faith but that does not mean I am not reasonable.

Are we not in a state of war? I seek to find the truth. But you are satisfied with blindness. You ‘just believe’ without any solid reason.

Why do you accuse me of such things? We are of the same substance – a rational mind. I do not merely believe – I know too. What I believe is from the testimony of others. But what I know is by my own experience and I have experienced something greater than me, the world, and life itself.

I, the finite, have experienced the infinite; I have not conceived the infinite, but I have experienced the infinite. And through the tools I have been given such as logic and reason, I can show you the truth that I have come to know.

If you claim to know the truth and claim to be willing to show me, then why have you stood in my way for all these years?

When has The Faith ever stood in the way of Knowledge? We are not two oppositional forces. How can we be when we have the same foundation?

We are both of reason, rationality, logic, and the like. While you use the foundation to build fantastic constructions, I continually build the foundation itself – a foundation you often take for granted.

But even if you are the foundation of my own existence, will I not end up destroying you? For by nature I am what is proven through testing and retesting. Faith in anything is arbitrary. If your foundation is built upon the subjective and not objective, then you will fall.

But I am still here, am I not? If The Faith were not a strong foundation, would I have not fallen long ago? Hundreds of years of refinement and verification have only dispelled false faith. Yet here I am.

If I cannot overcome you, then why do you not overcome me?

I cannot overcome you for we are not contradictory.

Then why do we both exist?

I can do what you cannot and you do what I cannot. You can describe what will happen but I can describe the cause. There exists cause and effect.

Your domain is the effect but my domain is the cause, but both are simply aspects of the whole truth.

Then we are not so different, you and I. We are of the same. And we are both held to the same standard – one of testing and retesting; of verification and confirmation.

Then why do people regard us so differently? Why do they hold me in such high regard while looking down upon you?

Perhaps they have been misinformed. We have never been enemies. We are both allies in the search for truth.

If we both seek truth and abide by the same standards, then are we not the same?

I do not know. Are we?

Maybe we are.

Josh Joo is currently a second year political science major who can’t help but write down what the voices in his head say.

Spring 2014 | To An Unknown God 9

UNEXPECTED MIRACLES

10 To An Unknown God | Spring 2014

Lisa Ann Yu, STAFF WRITER ’ve attended church my whole life, even as a single cell.

From birth I’ve heard about miracles: God creating the world, Moses parting the Red Sea, and Jesus turning water into wine, just to name a few. But I have always longed to see a “real” miracle with my own eyes. However, miracles do not occur so people can ooh and aah over them. They have a greater purpose, displaying God’s provision and power.

Miracles allow God to bless His children by providing for their needs. Paul assured the Philippians that “my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.1” Oftentimes He provides in ways that can only be attributed to divine intervention. The Israelites survived forty years in the wilderness because God sent them quail and manna. Daniel survived the lion’s den because God sealed the lions’ mouths.

Jonah survived the belly of the fish because God caused the fish to vomit him out.

Yet sometimes God’s provisions seem rather commonplace.

Before college, I did not have any Christian friends I lived alongside, nor did I expect to, as there were very few Christians at my high school. My third day in Berkeley, I discovered that my next-door neighbor shared my faith. God knew I would need Christian friends as I entered a period of independence, so He provided one for me.

Besides meeting needs, miracles also exemplify God’s omnipotence. A miracle performed in Capernaum shows Jesus’s authority through His power. Four men lowered their paralytic friend through the roof of a crowded home until he was in front of Jesus.

Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, “Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven.” And some of the scribes said to themselves, “This fellow blasphemes.” And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, “Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.” And he got up and went home.2

I

Anyone can say, “Your sins are forgiven,” and no one can determine if they actually are. However, only by the power of Jesus can someone say, “Pick up your bed and go home” to a paralytic man and see him walk for the first time in years. Jesus’s power to heal this man showed His authority to forgive sins, since only God can do either. The miracle for this man was twofold, the miracle inside his heart and the miracle inside his limbs.

The same power that rebuilt this man’s muscles is at work in believers’ lives, renewing their inner selves day by day3. Before meeting Christ, I was paralyzed by pride, self-interest, and the need for universal acceptance. I am still an arrogant person who is reluctant to admit my mistakes. I am still a self-seeking person, who lives in order to please myself alone. I am still a needy person who longs for love and acceptance from everything and everyone apart from Christ. Only by being renewed by the power of the Spirit could I even want to be someone humble enough to value restored relationships over pride, far-sighted enough to put off self-glorification in light of an eternal glory, and forbearing enough to forgive those who do not deserve to be forgiven. If the same power that made the lame walk is at work in me, anything is possible.

I have never seen what would explicitly be called a miracle.

However, sometimes God is not in the head-turning wind, fire, or earthquake, but rather in the still small voice4. The way He provides for my every need is still extraordinary and the way my heart is being renewed day by day is nothing short of a miracle. I just have to look more closely to see God’s hand in my life.

1. Philippians 4:19 (ESV, emphasis mine) 2. Matthew 9:2-7 (ESV) 3. 2 Corinthians 4:16 (ESV) 4. 1 Kings 19:11-12

Lisa Ann Yu is a sophomore studying statistics and psychology who loves puzzles, pretzels, and problem-solving.

Spring 2014 | To An Unknown God 11

R

DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU THINK Alex Freeman, CONTRIBUTING WRITER 12 To An Unknown God | Spring 2014

ecently, Bill Nye and Ken Ham debated whether Biblical creationism is a viable scientific theory. Though I fully agree with Nye that it is not, I thought the arguments he presented were pretty unremarkable, until the moderator asked both debaters the question, “What, if anything, would ever change your mind?”1 Their radically different answers revealed this debate as a manifestation of the age-old conflict between science and faith. This conflict has gone unresolved for thousands of years, and at its core it is a conflict between epistemological systems, ways of answering the question, “How do we know anything?”

Science and faith are so often pitted against each other because they exist for the same reason: human brains are not made for discerning truth. Though they are reliable most of the time, there is no denying that our minds are prone to unfounded biases and fallacious reasoning, and even our own senses can deceive us.

Yet, all any of us can rely on is our fallible sensory experiences, which is problematic for trying to discover absolute truth. When presented with a proposition, there is no way for anyone to determine whether the proposition corresponds with reality because we have no access to reality itself, only to our perceptions of it.2 To be clear, absolute truth exists, but there also exists an impenetrable barrier between our subjective experiences and the objective reality that creates them. Both science and faith attempt to reach past this barrier and give us grounds to make declarations about the reality despite the limited nature of our own minds, but they do this by different methods and with different results.

Science uses an epistemic framework wherein a proposition only has value if it is testable. In other words, the only beliefs worth scientific consideration are those that make predictions about the outcomes of certain actions. A belief that makes no predictions about the world is impossible to test experimentally and lies outside the domain of science. This is because the scientific method holds no proposition to be true; the propositions we use in our current models of the world are simply those that have not yet been proven false. According to this idea, when a hypothesis is tested, the evidence either supports or falsifies it, and skepticism cautions the scientist against believing any proposition that has not withstood rigorous attempts at falsification. If no such experiments are possible for a proposition, then it can be neither supported nor falsified and should be discarded from scientific models until evidence is presented for one side or another. These are the limits of scientific knowledge, but these restrictions also give science its greatest strength: universal adaptability to changing evidence. Beliefs based on science are not dogmatic but tentative and open to change. When the predictions of a scientific theory turn out false, that theory is abandoned, and a new one is formulated to account for the new data. Faith, on the other hand, does not require beliefs to be testable and in fact makes a

virtue of holding fast to one’s beliefs. Thus, it is antithetical to the skepticism that makes science the only reliable method for discovering the nature of the real world.

Faith, as I use it here, can be defined as complete trust and confidence in something, or a wholehearted belief that some proposition is true. By this definition, faith can be entirely based on evidence, but even if this is the case, there is no room for such a thing in science, as science has an unattainably high bar for what can be considered true. Where faith is useful is in supporting beliefs that cannot be tested, as well as providing comfort and a sense of community to believers. These benefits are not trivial, but history has shown that reality is better discerned by experimentation than revelation. The certainty with which faithbased beliefs are held stands in opposition to the tentativeness of scientific claims, making faith incompatible with a scientific worldview. This is why faith is typically relegated to questions that are beyond science’s capacity to answer.

The nature of science raises problems for faith, however, as science continues to expand its domain and encroach on territory once firmly governed by faith. The moment we can find evidence for or against faith-based claims, they become scientific claims and should be modified to fit new findings. This has already happened in numerous cases, the most notable in recent decades being evolutionary theory overturning the model of creation as described in the Bible. The irreconcilability of evolutionary theory with a “young-earth” view of human origins has led some to retreat behind faith and assert that no proposition that contradicts Biblical claims can be true. This is a fine tactic for personal reassurance, but to take the entire Bible as axiomatic in this way will inevitably cause one’s worldview to fall out of touch. Ken Ham’s epistemology leaves no room for change based on new observed phenomena, and his answer to the question of what would change his mind reveals this. When Ham says that his starting point is the Bible, he admits that there is no evidence that would change his mind about certain propositions.3 Bill Nye speaks next, and this is where I believe he delivers the fatal blow to Ham’s total reliance on Scripture. What would change his mind, says Nye, is one piece of evidence, such as a fossil found in rocks supposedly too old to contain such a creature. While this would seriously challenge the prevailing theory of a geologic column laid down over billions of years, scientists would embrace such a challenge as an opportunity to ask and answer more questions about the world. By staying open to the possibility of being wrong, Nye’s worldview can, with each new finding, bring itself closer to how the world really is in a way that Ham’s simply cannot.

Finally, I would like to address another issue about the nature of science that is often raised when science and faith are discussed.

In an article on his website, Christian apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig states that “religion furnishes the conceptual

framework in which science can flourish.”4 Craig argues that the rationality and consistency of the world are Christian ideas that scientists must simply assume, as they have no grounding in a naturalistic worldview. The flaw in this line of reasoning is that scientists do not assume consistency; they demonstrate consistency by observing exactly what would be expected given a consistent universe. Universal constants can be shown to be universal and constant insofar as repeatable experiments give reliable outcomes. For the entire history of science, the universe has been observed to operate the same way, and there is no known mechanism by which physical laws could be made to work any differently. Until an inconsistency in physical laws is observed, we can safely say that these laws are universal, and, because they are simply man-made ideas that describe what happens, they require no universal lawgiver.

Craig also appeals to the laws of logic, asserting that Christianity has an explanation for their existence while science does not. While this is true, Craig overlooks the point that the laws of logic need no explanation. The laws of logic are axioms; that is, we define them as true in order to establish a basis for determining other truths. Why do we choose these axioms (identity, noncontradiction, etc.) and not others? Because they are useful, and seem to describe well what we observe (we never see something that is both red and not red). We choose them because reasoning based on these axioms leads to practical conclusions more often than does reasoning based on any other set of axioms.

I doubt that this article has shaken anyone’s faith or converted anyone to scientific naturalism, but that was not my goal. I simply want to present my non-Christian perspective for a Christian audience in the hope that you will consider these ideas worth looking into. If I could have you take away one thing from here it would be this: in true Berkeley spirit, question everything. When something is presented as fact, ask, “How do you know this?”

And remember, as the saying goes, “Don’t believe everything you think.”

1.“Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (Official),” 2:04:00, Answers in Genesis, accessed March 5, 2014, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8Babr_n4w.

2. “Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics,” AntiCitizenX, accessed March 6, 2014, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YnlW59--JE. This video and the rest in the series provide a decent treatment of this topic and have inspired many of the ideas expressed in this article.

3. “Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham” 4. William Lane Craig, “What is the Relation between Science and Religion,” Reasonable Faith, accessed March 6, 2014, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ what-is-the-relation-between-science-and-religion.

Alex Freeman is a first-year cognitive science student, an avid Go player, and a member of the Berkeley Atheists and Skeptics Society.

Spring 2014 | To An Unknown God 13

Seong Min (Daniel) Yoo, CONTIBUTING WRITER efore anyone jumps to conclusions that I am an ignorant idiot who knows nothing of science, let me attempt to establish my ethos. I was born to scientists and have been trained in the sciences from my youth. My father has a Mechanical Engineering PhD from Yonsei, and my mother a Chemistry PhD from KAIST. I had the scientific method drilled into me by the third grade, was programming by the fourth, was running experiments with ethanol candles by the seventh, and was working at the Fagan Lab in the University of Maryland by the eleventh. All this to say, I consider science an important part of my identity, and I do not demean the discipline lightly.

That said, we will examine four of science’s limitations. This is not meant to be a definitive list, nor is it meant to be a rigorous treatment of science and philosophy. Indeed, there will be overlaps within these categories, but I believe they will be helpful in dismantling the lie that science is the answer to everything. The first is that science cannot prove the existence of anything. The second is that science cannot teach everything. The third is that science can only test repeatable phenomena. Finally the fourth is that science cannot answer philosophical questions.

In speaking of science and faith, I have come to realize that many people seem to forget that science is ultimately rooted in faith as well. To put this in simplistic terms, in order for us to accept any findings of scientific research, we must have faith that such findings can even exist. In other words, the observation of reality must be possible. As observation cannot be proven true, any observation must be taken on faith to be true.

Thus is the first great limitation of science: science, or observation, cannot prove its own existence, or more generally, prove the existence of anything. Although Rene Descartes famously stated, “I think therefore I am,” to show that something ought to exist (as him doubting his existence is in fact something, and thus something must be doing the doubting), we do not know in what form this existence takes. Indeed this can be displayed through the brain in a box thought experiment which states that we cannot know if what we feel and experience are really “real,” or we are simply brains in boxes stimulated by electronic pulses to makes us feel what we feel. Ultimately, science must rely on faith that seeing truly is believing.

This is exemplified in Kurt Gödel’s two incompleteness theorems. While a full treatment of the proofs will not be presented, the simplified conclusion of his theorems was that in any system whose statements can all be true at once, it is impossible to prove every statement within that system. In technical terms, an axiomatic system cannot both be complete and consistent at once. In laymen’s terms, there are some statements that must

B

14 To An Unknown God | Spring 2014

THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE AND THE NECESSITY OF FAITH be assumed true in any set of statements that can all be true at once. A very conservative conclusion can be reached that in all things true, certain things need to be taken on faith. Thus the foundation of all science, math, and knowledge is faith.

The second great limitation of science is that it cannot teach everything. In other words, not everything is knowable. Scientific determinism reigned in the 1900s, when science, or observation, was believed to be able to discover knowledge of everything in theory. However, this was proven false by multiple scientists and philosophers through the years. One example is Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. The essence of this principle is that by measuring the position of a particle, the velocity becomes indeterminable because to determine the position of a particle, particle interaction must be used. Imagine trying to find the location of a certain medicine ball flying in the air by throwing multiple balls at it, and determining where a collision occurs. As the collision happens, the velocity of the original ball has been changed, and thus becomes undeterminable. This collision movement could be minimized with a smaller particle, but as matter is quantized, no smaller particles exist. Technological advances physically cannot give us a smaller particle.

It is of some importance to note here that science also does not inoculate the human mind against blind faith. Einstein would perhaps be the most important example. As Einstein was so fully

convinced that science could reveal everything, he spent the last portion of his life attempting to disprove quantum mechanics in futility. He had blind faith that “God does not play dice,” and thus spent his golden years in futility, attempting to prove his blind faith.

A third important limitation of science is that it is limited to testing the veracity of repeatable phenomena. In other words, only events that can be repeated can be tested by science. The scientific process requires events to be repeatable in order for a causation or correlation to be prescribed. This can be seen through repeat trials and open peer review. This is undoubtedly a good thing, as repeatability usually leads to truth. If one were to claim that a certain miracle food leads to weight loss, yet there are no statistically significant results signifying this, it is very likely that the miracle food producer is a scam artist. Faith indeed has little need to be present in such a situation. Even if the partaker had immense faith that the miracle food did indeed lead to weight loss, the bogus miracle food would have no effect on weight loss beyond that of placebo.

Yet this emphasis on repeatability can become a liability if science is used as the sole purveyor of truth. What of nonrepeatable phenomena? Consider this thought experiment by C.S. Lewis. Imagine that there were two universes or realms of existence A and B. A and B have separate and different laws of

nature. A’s natural order of being is not B’s natural order of things, and thus A’s nature would seem supernatural to the inhabitants of B, and vice versa. If for some reason A’s plane of existence touched B’s for a moment, the natural laws of each would be upended for the other for that moment. It would seem to inhabitants of both worlds something supernatural had occurred, and the scientists of each realm would be helpless to explain the phenomena of the other. This is what may be called miraculous or supernatural events, which some scientists determined a priori does not exist, simply on the basis that it cannot be replicated reliably by human means.

This leads us to perhaps the most important limitation of science, which is that science is helpless in determining philosophy and morality. Of course science can help in illuminating misunderstandings about reality and how nature works, but in terms of trying to ascertain right and wrong, scientists must accede to philosophers. After all, what experiment could one run in establishing whether Utilitarianism or National Sovereignty should have preeminence? What experiment could one run to determine the value of life? What experiment could one run to see what it means to be human?

In all of these cases, science cannot give a definitive answer.

Sure we could run regressions on national output or government power, research and find a numeric answer for a cost of life as determined by health care policy, and even sequence the human genome and come up with a set of shared genes within the species, but none of these truly touches the essence of these questions. Science cannot give a definitive answer, because these questions are simply out of the scope of science.

Yet in all these things, science can indeed illuminate, but not guide the man in search of truth. Indeed there were and are great men of faith who fathered the majority of our modern sciences.

From the Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel named the Father of Modern Genetics to Isaac Newton, the Father of Newtonian Physics and Integral Calculus, history is filled with scientists of faith. Science and faith ultimately do not preclude each other, and the scientific process can lead faith in understanding the reality in which we live. Ultimately, as seekers of truth, let us apply both our faith and study to the ultimate understanding of truth, with faith and knowledge complementing the other.

Seong Min (Daniel) Yoo is a Junior studying Economics and MCB. He is a member of the ASPI small group ministry, and will be teaching for Epic Ministry in the coming semesters.

Spring 2014 | To An Unknown God 15

Adoration

For holy skies are o’er ye; and the high, Mysterious things of God’s immensity Are leading upward like the wing of prayer!

And heaven’s own language to the pure of Earth, Written in stars at Nature’s mighty birth, Is burning on the sky!

--Adoration by John G.Whittier

Hanna Choi, STAFF WRITER wanted solitude, a foreign feeling to an extrovert that thrives on the company of people. On that particular day, there was something on my mind that traveled down to my heart and weighed heavily on it—I’ve since forgotten the subject, but my heart remembers the weight. I seated myself in the far corner of the flat concrete roof after dinner—twice there were awkward encounters with those seeking the same liberating privacy. After a while, assuming that news of the roof ’s occupation had already traveled, I lay down.

It was a wintry summer night. The weight had since left. Only my face was exposed to the cold wind, my eyes threatened by whiplashing strands of hair but still open to the stars. ‘Many’ and ‘beautiful’ are words much too trite to describe those stars; but they were many, and they were beautiful. The more I gazed, the more I was overcome by the grandeur of the earth that held me, overwhelmed by the skies that enveloped me. I warmed with emotion and realization as tears streamed out of the corners of my eyes.

There are so many ways to view the same thing. I have very little scientific (or some might argue, real) knowledge of the world that I hold, yet my acquaintance with its Creator has given me knowledge that no “study-of ” can uncover. I know that the earth and the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork. How often— in how many people does nature spark thoughts of a divine presence? Bolivia afforded me the luxury of removing myself from my usual business and familiar distractions. And it was only there that my bewilderment grew, each moment I spent appreciating the natural craftsmanship that surrounded me.

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.1 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

So they are without excuse.2 The stars were beautiful. But ultimately it was neither the multitude of stars nor the brilliance of the light that moved me. He could have set His sight upon any one of His majestic creations, but He chose to cast His loving gaze on me, only made remarkable because I was made in His likeness. He could have chosen to incline His ear to the fierce roar of a lion or the pleasant chirping of birds, but He chose to listen to my voice, feeble and flawed. I was surrounded by such greatness, but I was chosen to be placed on and over it.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.3 The vast skies made me feel small, terribly tiny in comparison, but the truth remained that the One who’s greater not only sees and hears me, but cares about what He sees and hears. That night I whispered to Him— “what am I that you are mindful of me, and who am I that you care for me?”

I

1. Psalm 19:1 (ESV) 2. Romans 1: 19-20 (ESV) 3. Genesis 1: 26-27 (ESV) Hanna Choi returned starstruck from Bolivia and will never see skies the same way again.

16 To An Unknown God | Spring 2014

the Fi s herman &the SCIENTIST Joseph Beltran, CONTRIBUTING WRITER cience must have really annoyed Jesus. …I’m paraphrasing.

I don’t say this to justify Christian skepticism of Luckily, our society has changed considerably since then today’s scientific advances. (for better or for worse), and with technological advance after I just say it because, really, it’s a funny thought. technological advance, we seem to be constantly pushing Think about it. If you had the capacity to do things like, the barrier for what is held to be true. Just look at the world oh, I don’t know, multiply food, change water to alcohol, around us. We praise those who have done so with [insert summon fish from the sea for your tax money... Why award of choice here], while simultaneously persecuting and wouldn’t you hate science for its intrinsic boundaries on the scoffing at the same uneducated fishermen, tax collectors human race? and zealots of today who continue to believe in things not In the same way am I led to envision a “Kendrick seen and almost impossible to explain...

Lamar-ified” Jesus walking on water, healing the blind, and All while forgetting that it takes the faith and willingness resurrecting from the dead to the helpless objections of His of a fisherman to dispel the doubt and uncertainty inhibiting dumbfounded haters, simply smirking in the middle of it all, us from walking on water and pursuing the unknown; it rapping, “Science, don’t kill my vibe…” When part of His takes the humility and contrition of a tax collector to accept mission on this earth was to reflect the glory of His unseen change, revision, correction; it takes the heart and persistence Father in Heaven whose power transcends all understanding of the zealot to see what the eye cannot see, to believe what and reason, it would only make sense that He would defy the world might reject, to challenge the status quo. human reason or the laws of nature every once in a while.

Against human reason and expectation, perhaps Jesus I guess to His benefit, we could also see why He would knew what He was doing when He chose His 12 apostles. choose uneducated fishermen and tax collectors and zealots And perhaps He continues to know what He is doing with to be His first disciples within the backdrop of a society each new proposal, finding, occurrence, article, and journal that wasn’t quite as concerned with explaining the physical more so than we can ever imagine. properties of water or inventing a plausible means for mass And maybe, just maybe, the 21st century fisherman and food production just yet. Probability would dictate that these scientist could be one and the same after all - inspired by men out of all the other men in Judea really would not know the same fear and awe of the unknown, pursuing the light any better than to follow the random son of a carpenter of knowledge and experience to illuminate the darkness of who would say crazy things along the lines of, “You better humanity, reaching toward the same goal. forcefully remove your eyeball if you’re thinking about Carpe Veritatem, as the saying goes in Latin. checking out that cute girl in bio lecture ever again (Matt.

Seize the Truth.

5:28),” or “you would probably have a better chance at fitting a camel through the eye of a needle than to go to Heaven if you can already afford to pay off your student loans (Mark Joseph Beltran is a first year cognitive science major who aspires one day to 10:25)” - take your pick. take a Vine with Pope Francis and a bunch of bishops doing the Nae Nae.

S

Spring 2014 | To An Unknown God 17

The Science of

Christianity Noah Cho, CONTRIBUTING WRITER y name is Noah Cho. I am currently a third year and studying Integrative Biology because I am fascinated by science, work in a research lab that focuses on genetics and evolution, and I am a Christian.

Usually, when people hear the words “biology” and “Christianity” near each other in the same sentence, flags begin to shoot up. The two ideas appear to contradict each other and consequently, we are expected to either choose only one of them.

As someone with a science background, it is easy to see why this is the case. So many ideas seem to clash: creationism vs. evolution, altruism for personal gain vs. compassion, and many more.

Here, however, I’m not going to write about which ideas are correct or which are wrong. I’m not going to pull up facts from one side in order to prove the other one incorrect. Instead, I’m going to explain how I, as a biologist and Christian, came to have them coexist in a way that is harmonious and beautiful.

God is infinite. Yes, there are facets of our Creator that we can slowly learn, but if we ever try to grasp the idea of God, it’s impossible. An entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent is overwhelming. We can see this in Psalms, where

M

18 To An Unknown God | Spring 2014

it says, “Great is our Lord in power; His understanding has no limit.1” This is also seen in Isaiah, where it says, “The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.2” Not only do we see God’s infinite power and knowledge, but in the latter part of the verse it says that “no one can fathom” God’s understanding. No one. If this is the case, then why bother at all?

Why try to learn more about God when it is impossible to fully understand Him? This, for me, is where I always thank God for blessing us with science. The Merriam dictionary defines science as: “knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.3” It involves natural laws that the world obeys, and the more of these laws that we understand, the more knowledge we possess for everything. Science conflicts with Christianity because there is no need for a God if these laws exist.

There is no need for creationism if there is evolution, and no need for miracle healings with medicine.

To me, science is something that is not in conflict with God, but is something that He has given us to help understand His unfathomable self.

I believe that God is the creator of everything. The best way that I can think about this is how an artist creates masterpieces. In Psalms, it says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands4.”

Let me bring up an actual example that I’m sure you have heard of before. There is a phenomenon in this world known as “photosynthesis.” This is a widely accepted belief for how plants are able to metabolize energy.

With this idea, I don’t see a question of whether plants are able to receive energy and function because God wants them to have energy, or if they receive energy because they have evolved that way. I believe that plants are able to exist, provide oxygen and sustenance for us, and they are able to survive because of a process that God has created to allow plants to survive.

If we look at another topic, things become more applicable to my life. I have family members who have been diagnosed with cancer. There’s always the question of whether people are supposed to undergo chemotherapy and curse God for allowing the tragedy

to happen, and there are people who are more extreme that will just pray and believe that it is God’s will.

I do believe that it is God’s will for these tragedies to happen.

Again, God is all-powerful and gives and takes everything. I think that humans are to accept this, but at the same time praise God and use what He has given us to try to treat the patient. This includes undergoing chemotherapy and taking whatever medical precautions are necessary, for at this point, God has given us the knowledge to understand the laws of nature and how to fight them.

Some of my loved ones have beat cancer, and others have passed away. Does this mean that God failed? Not quite. Can we blame the medicine in this case then? Not entirely. God has bestowed upon us the knowledge to understand the human body and how it can and cannot work, and has given us some knowledge to cure it. If it fails, however, then it was entirely in God’s will.

God has given us the necessary tools to see miracles every day.

When my uncle passed away due to cancer, I was devastated. I couldn’t understand how God would allow that, but it made me realize that it was his time to pass away and be with God. When my aunt survived cancer though, it gave me so much joy. While it may seem that it was the chemotherapy that cured her, even that is a miracle from God. This is what has allowed me to see God through science. With something as tangible and accessible as the laws of physics and the power of medicine, I am able to see God working all the time. There are moments when I still have no idea why things are happening, but there are also times when I see the power that God has and how perfectly He has created the world. It is through this that I have come to not reject Christianity or science, but see the two work together.

1. Psalms 147:5, NIV 2. Isaiah 40:28, NIV 3. “science.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011. Web. 8 May 2011.

4. Psalms 19:1 NIV Noah Cho is a third year Integrative Biology student and enjoys eating burritos at the tops of mountains.

Spring 2014 | To An Unknown God 19

AN INTERVIEW WITH

PROFESSOR REIMER

JONATHAN CHEN & CHLOE NG, STAFF WRITERS

Professor Jeffrey Reimer is the Chair of the Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Department and the head of Berkeley Faculty Fellowship at the University of California, Berkeley. He sits down with To An Unknown God to share his views on science and faith and his experiences as a Christian professor.

Due to space constraints, this interview has been condensed and edited from its original form.

20  To An Unknown God | Spring 2014

TO AN UNKNOWN GOD (TAUG): How did you become Christian and when did you decide to pursue science?

PROFESSOR JEFFREY REIMER: I grew up in a church-going home, and my family went to a small Lutheran church. There was a revival meeting that I went to in seventh grade. That was the event where I responded to an altar call and accepted Christ as my Savior. That decision has both informed and directed my life since that time.

Science is a passion I’ve had for all my childhood memories. Although I was just a little boy, I remember the excitement of the first American to orbit the earth. That time was when science was special in our culture, so it was easy to get excited about science. In sixth grade I gave a talk to my class on air friction, and I still have the grade from my teacher who gave me an A+ and said that I should be a professor someday. Both my personal relationship with Jesus and my passion to be a scientist really come from childhood.

TAUG: In the culture back then, was there a tension between science and faith as there is now?

REIMER: I did not perceive a conflict between science and faith at that time. Astronauts were portrayed in the media as Christian men, sci fi movies like Forbidden Planet invoked God as creator of planets, and most of all science was seen as the chief protagonist in the battle against the “godless” Soviets and “Red China.”

TAUG: Many Christian students studying science have a hard time coming to terms with both now. Was there a time during your undergraduate or graduate studies when you struggled with that?

REIMER: When students declare themselves to be Christian in front of their faculty and peers—there’s plenty of evidence for condemnation. But I never really saw these two parts of my life as in conflict with each other in undergraduate, graduate school, or starting here as a professor.

I never had this angst of, “Oh, I can’t be a scientist because it’s contrary to Christian faith,” or vice versa. In fact, right after my PhD in 1980 when I went to IBM in New York, as part of a church organization, I went to Baptist churches up and down the East Coast making presentations about science and Christianity. A lot of Christians struggled with accepting the authority of science in their lives, and I tried to assure them that the authority of Christ in their lives was not threatened by the preeminence of science in our culture.

TAUG: What were your thoughts about the emerging struggle between science and faith, when you were making your presentations?

REIMER: What I saw from the Christian community was that they felt scientific discovery and the particular origins of life were threatening their Biblical worldview. I was befuddled by that, but I understand that there are some of our Christian peers who have a very different interpretation of the Bible than I do—literal seven-day creationists—and that’s a community Spring 2014 | To An Unknown God 21

that is in conflict with science. But it’s so far out of mainstream Christianity that it’s hard for me to get all worked up about that.

On the flip side, some scientists get angry because they see some Christians declaring that the conduct and observations of scientists are tainted to support their own atheist worldview.

I think that makes many scientists really angry, and this is unfortunate. When I look at what I call the “extreme Darwinists,” like Richard Dawkins, (retired Oxford University professor of evolutionary biology and author of The God Delusion) I don’t see that person as being a common voice in science at all. I think he’s as extreme in the scientific community as a literal seven-day creationist is in the Christian community. It’s a very small number of people that have very deeply-held beliefs and yes, people like Richard Dawkins are threatened by Christianity.

When I talk to students and colleagues, I try to avoid those two extremes. I don’t engage with people who are in that literal sevenday community and people who are in the Dawkins community because there is no point to it really. There are a huge number of Christians and scientists who are in between and are confused. I try to speak to both communities about how scientists have no interest in telling Christians how to live, and how Christians don’t have any interest in telling scientists that they’re a special class of sinners.

Scientists are not a special class of sinners, and Christians are not a special class of anti-scientists.

TAUG: Then, do you see science and faith as separate realms, related, or integrated?

REIMER: For me, the revelation that’s clear in Scripture and in my experiential life—when I walk and talk with Jesus every day— are very real to me, although I understand that there’s faith in their construction. Similarly, I do science and write about it every day and that’s also very experiential. But it also is a certain kind of faith. You have a hypothesis, which is based on nothing more than a lot of educated guesses, so I see them in a very similar realm. Both look to have data to reinforce the faith that you have.

I think all Christians want to know, “What is God saying to me today?” and look for a way to do that, while scientists want to know, “What is nature saying to me today and how do I find that?” So their paths are similar. And maybe because they are so similar, the two extremes have grown. It’s like living with your brother. You’re different but you’re close, and that’s how conflict can arise too.

I don’t do evolutionary biology, and people in that community might feel differently. But I do a lot of quantum mechanics, 22 To An Unknown God | Spring 2014

and quantum mechanics and evolution are probably two of the most tested hypotheses in all of science. There’s yet to be a test that shows that they aren’t correct. The question for Christians is, “And so?” And so, does that really matter to your faith? Is it something that denies the authority of the Scriptures or the authority of your own walk with Christ? The answer is no.

TAUG: Would you say that your career as a scientist has affected your faith?

REIMER: Anyone who is successful professionally outside of the ministry has to ask, “To what extent has my faith been critical or important to my success?” In my case, I would say absolutely.

You think of me as a scientist, as someone of knowledge, but I’m really a professor and my calling is not only about science, but also about relationships. When I look at being a professor and at students in a classroom, my understanding of who Jesus is, has informed me of how I engage students. You may have had or heard of professors who are cynical and bitter. I have colleagues who are like that. Having a personal relationship with Christ formed by Scriptures really turns that around. If you are imbibed with the Holy Spirit, you can’t be a bitter, cynical person—they’re in contradiction with each other. Which is not to say that they can’t happen—all Christians are failed and continue to fail, even though we have our faith. But it really helps me understand who I am and what I need to be in these relationships. I can’t be cynical and bitter because that’s not a place Christians can go and be Christ-like.

SCIENTISTS ARE NOT A SPECIAL CLASS OF SINNERS, AND CHRISTIANS ARE NOT A SPECIAL CLASS OF ANTI-SCIENTISTS. TAUG: Berkeley has a reputation of being unreceptive towards Christianity and other religions. Have you experienced this in your relationships with your colleagues?

REIMER: I am unaware of any [bias] against me personally.

But I have seen [bias] against others and I have overheard things said that are deeply [intolerant] about my colleagues. I’ll give you a systemic example: if you are a professor in the arts and

humanities, you cannot come out as a Christian until after you have tenure.

If an untenured professor in the humanities stands up and welcomes you in the name of Christ or shares their faith in student meetings, they feel as though they are jeopardizing their tenure decision. If you are in the biological sciences and do the same thing you're perceived as jeopardizing your career.

A tenure decision is ultimately made by your peers. My junior colleagues who are not tenured will come to me at our faculty Christian group and say, “You cannot use my name in public in association with this group until I get tenure.” Only after, do they suddenly become more open. This is because in the very charged and subjective atmosphere associated with tenure, an affirmed Christian worldview might be perceived by some to limit the range of your scholarship.

However I don’t want students to think of professors as being some sort of martyrs. There are many segments of life in which if you identify as a Christian, you are going to experience some judgment from others. It’s true in science, it’s true in academia, but it’s also true if you're a garbage collector or work at Starbucks.

The Gospel has a very real edge which makes people feel really uncomfortable. Jesus makes it very clear that that’s going to happen. Thus it should not be considered a surprise.

On the other hand, there are professors whose visibility as a Christian is not seen as a problem, and they feel comfortable talking about it. I certainly do, and everybody in my department knows who I am and what I stand for.

TAUG: When you went through the tenure process here, did you have to experience not being open about your Christianity?

REIMER: During my interview I told one of my colleagues that I wanted to find a church where I could be a Sunday school teacher because that was an important part of my life. There was

no problem, and I didn’t feel like that was going to be threatening.

You see, engineering is a little bit different than some of the pure sciences. But I never felt like I needed to be shy about that.

TAUG: If you were to speak to a secular student seeking Christianity, what would you say to him or her?

REIMER: I do that often because I’m an academic advisor. I’m assigned 25 people, usually freshmen, and when I first meet them I’ll ask them these questions: “Who are you, and why do you exist?” Those are the two questions that all of us need to answer, and what’s funny is that almost every student acts surprised. As far as “who” they are, they always give their name—which is an interesting response to that question. Only once, has a student directly addressed the question “Why do I exist?” And you know what that student said? “I exist because my parents had unprotected sex.”

Those two questions are really the important questions in college; everything else is a detail. When you start down that path, you’re on a path of discovery about the spiritual nature of humans. What would be the origin of that nature, and what’s a framework in which I can express that nature in an uplifting and healthy way? The answer is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. That’s the path I try to go down.

TAUG: Have you been able to discuss that in depth with students?

REIMER: No. I’ve gone as far as we just did, and that’s usually it.

I had an interview once with an editor from a campus Christian magazine. She asked an interesting question, which was to please name the students that had come to Christ as a result of my engagement with them. The answer is I can’t. The woman from the magazine was very blunt. She said, “Well, if you can’t do this, then the interview is over.” And it was.

Spring 2014 | To An Unknown God 23

Two things came to mind: Am I supposed to be naming them?

Is that how you want to measure me as a Christian professor? In the faculty Christian group, we talk about evangelism and have serious discussions about these two questions. And I, being sort of a pseudo-Calvinist in my personal theology, feel it is very important to engage people. But I’m not sure if leading them to a certain set of words that I identify with being saved is really what I’m called to do. I try to be as upfront and engaging as possible about the two questions—who I am and why I exist. I try to engage students into going down that path. But your faith is a deeply personal thing. I’m afraid that a program that leads you to a certain response may not measure what it means for me to be a Christian professor. I like to think of myself as ministering to people around me. I don’t think of myself as someone who counts the names and numbers of people who are “saved.”

TAUG: On another subject, what do you think about Christians who try to use science to prove miracles in the Bible?

REIMER: I have a concern about people who try to use science, which is a human construct, to affirm the miracles that Scripture shows God as Creator. If we know deeply who God is and what God is about, then the notion of using something humans constructed in our brains to affirm God strikes me as unnecessary. Why would it make my faith deeper if the parting of the Red Sea could be explained by known meteorological phenomenon? Might that not constrict God to our current scientific laws in order to accomplish miracles? God could certainly use current meteorological things, but if I look at what Scripture says about who and what God is, then God does not need our scientific constructs to accomplish His will and his revelation.

If you share this point of view, then you can appreciate why I am puzzled at people who choose to use their intellect and talent as scientists to try to prove that things in the Bible are consistent with science, a human construct. Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent—God can create, or un-create, our scientific laws. So I have never really devoted any emotional, personal, or intellectual attention to whether or not the miracles in the Bible need to be verified.

I like a book I read in graduate school called Knowing God by J.I. Packer. The book reminds me that if you look very carefully in Scripture, the nature and character of God, is in many ways truly terrifying because all of what we see around us is within God’s will to change in any way. Yet some see God as bounded by the laws of science, as though once these laws were created

God stepped back and our perceived reality must work within those laws. In this context, water could not have turned into wine without a known process, such as fermentation. I see the character of God as being unbounded by physical laws, and the miracles must be taken literally as events that transcend our understanding of the natural world and reveal the character of God. It is that character and nature of God, then, that informs me about the Gospel story. I think about what it must have been like for a God of that character to present Jesus as, at least at that moment in time, a mortal human being. It clarifies for me the real sacrifice that happened on the cross on our behalf.

TAUG: What do you think about Christians who try to use scientific evidence to support historical accounts given in the Bible, such as Noah’s Ark or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?

REIMER: I believe that the accuracy and historicity of the Bible are foundational to Christian apologetics. When science affirms Biblical tradition, our fear of God deepens, as does our understanding of Christ as Savior. But in the end it is faith, not ancient pottery, that identifies us as Christians.

TAUG: Here’s a random question: who do you think would win in a fight, Jesus or a Tyrannosaurus Rex? REIMER: I’m not quite sure what this means. It could be a metaphor for, “Do I think dinosaurs existed at the same time as man?”—those are sort of seven-day questions.

Why do we have to set up this construct in which Jesus, and Noah, and everyone else, was standing there with a Tyrannosaurus? There’s no need for that. Christian faith doesn’t need that, and it sets up conflict with the community who isn’t offended by Christians. So let’s not go there. I take scientific evidence at its face value. There were dinosaurs. They existed x millions of years ago, and I don’t have a problem with that.

But if Jesus is the Son of God, and the authority of the Father, God the creator, comes through him then I know who’s going to win that battle. I think your question has many different sorts of layers to it, and I’m not quite sure where you’re going with it.

TAUG: I think we were trying to go in a silly way.

REIMER: Then the silly answer is, oh yeah, Jesus is the super one.

Jonathan Chen and Chloe Ng are both second year students from Fremont, California. Dinosaurs are extinct. Jesus is not. Enough said.

24 To An Unknown God | Spring 2014

On Olber’s Paradox “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.”

-1 Corinthians 2:14 (NASB) Sharon Liu, CONTRIBUTING WRITER

I

t was Olber’s Paradox that woke me. In the quiet stillness of a sunny afternoon, I had been nodding off to Professor Filippenko’s soothing webcasted voice. He had answered an agelong question, and without delay, I sat upright and reached for my phone to speed-dial my dad. “I have the answer to your question.”

One year prior, I was attempting to casually investigate my dad’s religious beliefs at the dinner table. This was no simple task, seeing as how his mind is one with nerves of steel and pure curiosity, which is precisely the opposite of my mom, who radiates love and emotion. The question my dad posed was this: “Does there necessarily have to have been a beginning?” Cryptic syntax aside, I carried this with me as the foundational question.

For me, it is even more puzzling than purpose, because of the way temporal distance relates to spatial distance, and the impossibility of empirically pursuing such a question. In other words, relativity tells us we can’t go back in time.

Yet Olber’s Paradox tackles exactly this. Our night sky is dark, but the nature of light deems that the tremendous amount of light radiating from surrounding stars should make the sky as bright as daytime. That light is traveling in all directions at the very speed of light. In our finite universe, the lack of an obvious brightness in space from such light means the light is still in the process of propagating out, not yet having reached the extents of

our universe. Thus, one significant conclusion is that the universe is young. Implicitly, it had a beginning.

He wasn’t all that excited when I told him. To be honest, I guess he either had forgotten about that conversation we had or hadn’t bothered to indicate otherwise. I, on the other hand, felt as if I had found myself on the precipice of discovery. In the interstices of scientific analysis, the familiar becomes unfamiliar and I lose myself in my thoughts. Come to think of it, seeking knowledge is the first sin, and though I do not have malicious intentions, somewhere buried deep is the desire for setting myself apart from those who do not bother to question. I have a personal tendency to romanticize notions, making claim to them as if they were my own. Similarly, I struggle with the dichotomy between logic and emotion; it is much like the supposed war between science and religion. This wonder both gives me an extraordinary gift of hope, but also instills me with doubt.

Is all vanity? As I impulsively question my own questions, every single one of my thought experiments comes down to this.

I can choose complete arbitrariness, or I can choose to simply not question the matter. What remains is that I am still waiting, neck craned up towards the sky, praying for contentedness in an answer that perhaps I could one day understand.

Sharon Liu was born in China and raised in the suburbian jungles of LA. She is a purveyor of curiosity, an amateur artist and endlessly seeking the infinite.

Spring 2014 | To An Unknown God 25

Brother? would you still call me

Wesleigh Anderson, CONTRIBUTING WRITER recently had the opportunity to view the film Blue Like Jazz, based on the book by Donald Miller. Admittedly, I’m far behind the curve; as one review stated, I’m firmly in the target audience of those “who have somehow managed to be left out of the ‘Emergent Church’ conversation of the last ten years.”1 Nevertheless, one early scene stuck out as continuing to be particularly relevant today. In it, the Christian main character Don sits with Lauryn, a new friend, under a bulletin board labeled “Coming Out,” where she asks him if he can find her picture. Against this backdrop, she advises him well-meaningly, “Do you have any idea of what your hateful, bullying tribe has been up to? Because around here, you represent a whole new category of despicable. So if you plan on ever making friends, or sharing a bowl, or seeing human vagina without a credit card, get in the closet, Baptist Boy, and stay there.”2 It’s an elegant little reversal of roles, in which the intolerance and violence that the church has so often perpetrated in the past is thrown back into our collective faces. Its impact is made greater by the understanding that this directive—be silent to be accepted—is precisely what the evangelical community has been saying to its own LGBT members in the debate over same-sex relationships. The most recent example of this is the furor that erupted at the Christian charitable organization World Vision, one of the largest non-profits in the United States, following their decision to not exclude Christians in same-sex marriages that have been blessed by their local churches.3 The backlash forced World Vision to quickly and completely retract that statement, and instead declare that a rejection of same-sex marriage was “core to our Trinitarian faith.”4 I understand, without condoning, the impulse on the part of many evangelical Christians, who believe that same-sex relationships are displeasing in the eyes of God, to disassociate themselves from people who identify as, or support those who identify as, LGBT. I grew up in that particular church culture, where same-sex relationships were the one unspeakable, unpardonable sin.

But I believe it is unbiblical to break fellowship with other believers on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

I

26 26 To To An An Unknown Unknown God God || Spring Spring 2014 2014

By “breaking fellowship,” I mean the fellowship of communities, not that of institutional churches, though churches are made up of communities. Institutional churches may determine the standards of doctrine that they believe, however much one personally disagrees with those doctrines. But as individual Christians, we also stand in relationship to each other in the Body of Christ, as members of the communities both inside our churches and outside. This may take forms such as friendships, non-church or para-church Christian organizations such as World Vision, and even interactions such as my speaking to you through this journal. In all of these interactions, we have a calling to embrace each other fully as brothers and sisters, no matter our individual opinions on the subject of same sex-relationships.

However, in much of the evangelical community, a person’s opinions on LGBT issues has become a litmus test to determine whether or not that person is saved. “There is no such thing as a ‘gay Christian,’” I have heard over and over again, as if believing in Jesus Christ, and his death and resurrection, were no longer enough. As if these men and women were no longer brothersand sisters-in-Christ, and as if anyone who dared to accept them was teetering dangerously on the brink of total apostasy. This is not a fringe view; it is the view that successfully pressured World Vision into backtracking completely on their policy change within 48 hours of the initial announcement, after years of prayer and consideration.5 It is what caused evangelicals to say, by way of withdrawing financial support to the tune of 10,000 sponsored children,6 “I supported World Vision because it was a Christian organization; but I cannot support them any longer.”

I witness the evangelical church—the community in which I was raised, and which I continue to love, painful as it may be— making their doctrine about LGBT people into something that is of unparalleled importance to their faith. It has reserved for this issue a level of passion and argumentation that completely eclipses the energy it expends defending in a secular culture something as fundamental as, for example, the divinity of Christ.

In effect, it has separated itself from the greater Body of Christ by drawing a line and excluding anyone who falls on the other side of it. “We welcome anyone and everyone,” the evangelical church has said, “from lepers to adulterers to tax-collectors.

Except same-sex couples. They’re unacceptable.”

I doubt that most evangelicals would say so in as many words; in fact, I trust that in their hearts, they do truly love their brothers and sisters, and are grieved because they believe that same-sex relationships go against the Word of God. But I cannot see any love in their actions. I do not believe that this has helped to further the message of the gospel.

In Blue Like Jazz, Lauryn warns Don that his acceptance into the community at Reed College is contingent upon his hiding or abandoning his Christian faith. Likewise, within evangelical

culture, friendship, fellowship, and relationships have been made contingent upon a person’s sharing of a particular set of beliefs.

The line, though often cloaked behind statements such as “hate the sin, love the sinner,” or “it’s not being gay that’s a sin, but participating in the ‘gay lifestyle,’” is perfectly clear, and anyone who steps outside of the boundary is immediately rejected, ostracized and marginalized.

The most heartbreaking result of all this is that gay and lesbian Christians inside the evangelical community who hide their identity and lie about who they are, are embraced and accepted and loved, while those who are open and honest are cast out into the darkness.

I am left tremendously saddened and disappointed by the actions of the evangelical church. And I ask: if I believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died and was resurrected for my sin; if I believe in the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Spirit; if I believe in the Bible as God’s word to us; if I struggle with my sins, just as you struggle with yours, and I rejoice in God’s victories, as you also do; if I eagerly anticipate the second coming of Christ; if I strive to follow God faithfully while I sojourn on this earth, and I desire to do his kingdom work; if I believe and do all this and I also believe that there is nothing inherently sinful about gay relationships in the eyes of the Lord, would you still break bread with me? Would you still fellowship with me? Would you still call me your brother?

If you want to learn more about the struggles of LGBT Christians in the church, I highly recommend Jeff Chu’s Does Jesus Really Love Me: A Gay Christian’s Pilgrimage in Search of God in America (New York: Harper, 2013). If you’re interested in discussing the topic further, I would love to continue the conversation with you at taug.callmebrother@ outlook.com.

1. Jones, Jennifer E. “Movie Review: ‘Blue Like Jazz’” Beliefnet. Beliefnet, Inc. 26 Mar. 2014. <http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Movies/Articles/ Movie-Review-Blue-Like-Jazz.aspx/> 2. Blue Like Jazz. Dir. Steve Taylor. Ruckus Films, 2012.3 3. Gracey, Celeste and Weber, Tony. “World Vision: Why We’re Hiring Gay Christians in Same-Sex Marriages” Christianity Today. Christianity Today. 27 Mar. 2014. <http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/worldvision-why-hiring-gay-christians-same-sex-marriage.html/> 4. Gracey, Celeste and Weber, Tony. “World Vision Reverses Decision To Hire Christians in Same-Sex Marriages” Christianity Today. Christianity Today. 27 Mar. 2014. <http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/worldvision-reverses-decision-gay-same-sex-marriage.html/>.

5. Jones, Tony. “Let’s Talk about What Happened Yesterday at World Vision” Theoblogy.

Patheos. 27 Mar. 2014. < http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2014/03/27/ lets-talk-about-what-happened-yesterday-at-world-vision/>.

6. Weiseth, Nish, <http://nishweiseth.com/blog/2014/4/ten-thousandkids/>; Turner, Matthew Paul, <matthewpaulturner.com/2014/04/03/tenthousand-kids-in-2-days/>; Esther, Elizabeth, <http://www.elizabethesther. com/2014/04/christians-dont-abandon-10000-children-unless-were-standingup-for-our-beliefs.html>.

Wesleigh Anderson is a TAUG alumus who will be entering law school in the coming fall.

Spring 2014 | To An Unknown God 27

PAV THE

The Crossroads of Thomas

Stephen Haw, CONTRIBUTING WRITER n The Matrix, Keanu Reeves plays the role of Thomas Anderson, computer programmer by day and legendary computer hacker, identified as Neo, by night. However, he doesn’t know how important his role is to the Matrix until the day he is contacted by the crew of the Nebuchadnezzar. The captain of the ship, Morpheus, informs him of the truth: he is the One prophesized to deliver mankind and save them from the machines and the combine of the Matrix. Throughout the movie, his role to be the savior constantly conflicts with his nature as a new believer.

A summary for those who have yet to watch the fifteen year-old classic, The Matrix: An artificial world created by artificial intelligence is programmed to emulate the end of the 20th century and the dawn of the 21st century. As people go through their normal routines, only a few know the truth. The Matrix was created to contain the minds of human beings so that artificially intelligent machines could harvest the humans’ energy to thrive. Despite this impending doom, a band of humans, who see beyond the Matrix’s programming, attempt to overthrow the machines’ rule and liberate the humans. All the while, the humans search for “The One,” a being whose existence can shape and control the Matrix to adhere to his or her will.

Thomas Anderson and Neo, although both represented by Keanu Reeves and essentially the same character, are actually two different people. Thomas Anderson lived in a routine, not believing in anything. He was a bland man with some curiosity, but not enough to stir him into action. Neo may be his alias, but he represents a totally different persona. While Mr. Anderson lived routinely, Neo constantly searched for the answers to his questions. He searched everywhere he could and even dared to believe. As Morpheus and the crew of the Nebuchadnezzar continued to believe in Mr. Anderson and called him Neo, he did not believe until he finally referred to himself as Neo. While Thomas represents someone who does not believe, Neo represents a Christian - new or old, but in this case, new - who wants to keep learning and pursuing. However, his role as the One conflicts with this.

The coming of the One can be seen as an allusion to the coming of Jesus Christ. Just as

I

28 To An Unknown God | Spring 2014

ING

PATH

Anderson and Neo of The Matrix1 the prophet Isaiah, among many who spoke of Jesus’s coming, proclaimed the coming of the Messiah, the Oracle prophesized the coming of the One. As Isaiah foretold that John the Baptist would prepare the way of Jesus, the Oracle told Morpheus that he “would find the One” and prepare him. And just as Jesus had died and resurrected, Neo was also killed and revived. These are only a few of the many comparisons between Neo and Jesus and the characters surrounding them. However, it isn’t an exact comparison. For example, in The Matrix, the prophecy was for the second coming of the One, as opposed to Isaiah’s prophecy of Jesus’s birth. The prophecy of Jesus’ first coming, referred to throughout the Old Testament, is different form the prophecy of Jesus’s second coming which is also mentioned in the New Testament. Nevertheless, the comparison between Neo and Jesus still holds.

But then how can Neo represent Jesus if he still has the mindset of a new believer? For even though Neo is the One, he is also a new believer. In fact, he was only told the truth when he chose between the red and blue pills. But even then, he was slow to believe the lessons that Morpheus taught him and remained in doubt. For example, in the jumping simulation “no one ever gets it the first time” because everyone always has the doubt to jump from one building to another. Thus, Neo encountered the same doubt that one could argue, caused Peter to sink when he walked on water to Jesus. Neo continues to confirm his own doubts throughout his journey with Morpheus in the Matrix, that he isn’t the One and that he isn’t capable of being such a believer. Only when he faces the trial to rescue Morpheus does he begin to believe more.

Once he understands, Morpheus tells him, “Sooner or later, you’re going to realize, just as I did, there’s a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.” Once Neo starts believing, he is able to accomplish feats that are comparable to the abilities of those of the Agents. He begins to understand that anything is possible with faith.

As Neo goes through his transformation to become a believer, he pushes through trials and tribulations that lead to him transforming into someone that fits the role of the One. 1. Dir. Lana Wachowski and Andy Wachowski. The Matrix. Perf. Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne. Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999.

Spring 2014 | To An Unknown God 29

The Question:

Krsytal Han, CONTRIBUTING WRITER It was two hours before the biology final and there was nowhere to cram.

Mara stood outside Pimentel, her arms cradled around several textbooks. She had left the bible study early, thinking that she could cram before the exam. Each of the benches was, however, crowded with students. As Mara looked around for an open spot, several pieces of trash blew past her. Forcing a smile, she shifted her books to one arm and opened the door. It was almost pitch black outside anyways, Mara thought as she went inside. It was probably better to study inside.

Her classmates apparently had the same idea.

Students with notecards, open laptops, and textbooks in their arms were scattered about the hallway. The classroom was still closed. Miffed, Mara walked past the line of students.

She went up and down the hall, hoping that an open space would miraculously appear. Her heart began to sink, before she spotted a staircase leading underground. Mara’s spirits rose.

Surely there would be a perfect place to study below, one with plenty of peace and quiet.

Mara bounded down the steps, a prayer of thanks on her lips.

--When Mara reached the bottom of the steps, she found two unmarked doors separated by a square foot of floor tiling. These must be the infamous Pimentel bathrooms, Mara realized with a start. She paced uneasily between the two doors. All was not lost, she convinced herself. Perhaps she could study in the bathroom.

After identifying the girl’s bathroom door, she opened it with determined grit. It was pitch dark inside. The first thing that assaulted her was the stench. Mara fumbled around for the light switch, gagging on the fumes while she searched.

The bathroom light revealed a huge avalanche of paper towels and other debris on the floor. Exasperated, she forced her way into one of the stalls. After gingerly closing the lid, and the placing several layers of toilet paper on top of that, Mara finally sat down and opened her textbook.

But before she began, a string of graffiti written in bold, black letters on the stall door caught her attention. It read: “Don’t know what to do. Don’t have control. Can’t tell anyone. I wish I was—“ The last word was illegible. Mara leaned forward. Although the message was disturbing,

30 To An Unknown God | Sprinvg Spring 2014 2014

what were equally involving were the messages that surrounded it. Contrary to the shallow, crude comments that she usually saw written on the desks, walls, and stalls of the school, many rallied to this person’s confession. “It’s okay, you can always find someone to talk to”; “Don’t give up, don’t ever lose hope”; “You can get through this”; and the like. Mara was moved by this rousing display of compassion for a stranger. She unearthed a pen from her pocket and lifted it up, ready to join the chorus.

Then a small doubt crossed her mind. Was this person’s plea for help real? She lowered the pen, leaving a smudged black line.

Mara didn’t know this person. Furthermore, didn’t she witness individuals spin similar fabrications online and in real life in order to gain such a reaction? These people took advantage of other’s kindness. Surely they didn’t deserve it.

Flushed, Mara dropped the pen. She had a final to take. She simply couldn’t.

But as she ascended the staircase, another fleeting thought crossed her mind. What if this person was sincere?

The Answer: Ruth ran into the Pimentel bathroom, sobbing. Her frame wracked with sobs, she slammed the door and collapsed onto the floor. She cried.

The graffiti on the stalls distracted her. Ruth began to read. She was struck by the love demonstrated to a total stranger.

Smiling through tears, Ruth picked up the pen on the floor and wrote “thank you” under a black smudge left on the stall door. She walked out the door with peace in her heart.

-EndKrystal Han- loves Chronicles of Narnia, tea, and board games; scared of the Pimentel bathrooms.

Spring Spring 2014 2012 || To To An An Unknown Unknown God God 31 31

strength from thorns Calvin Fong, CONTRIBUTING WRITER need help. Sometimes those are really difficult words to say, especially for me. It’s hard to admit that you can’t do things on your own. But when I broke my leg and ended up immobile, I definitely needed help. I found I could not even find something to eat without someone else alongside me. And needless to say, my pride took a hard hit to the head. I have quickly discovered there’s only so much you can do on one leg.

But one of them is to read. The day after the surgery, I read a passage in 2 Corinthians 12. Paul had just explained how he had witnessed revelations of God’s glory—having possibly been in God’s presence. But to prevent Paul from exalting himself, God gave him a “thorn in his flesh.”

“Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.”1 God’s sufficient grace is the reason why Paul sees his struggles as something to boast about and delight in. Only by God’s grace can His power work and be seen through our weaknesses. I think grace is God loving us constantly even when we are not worthy of it. Grace is God providing for our every need and giving us strength for every situation, even when we deserve to be tossed aside, cast away as sinners.

Paul possibly would have been tempted to be prideful, having experienced the magnificence of God’s presence. But to God,

I

32 To An Unknown God | Spring 2014

humility was more important than comfort. And God used a messenger of Satan for His purposes. Paul’s thorn gave him no other choice but to rely on God’s grace. I think this required a great amount of faith on Paul’s part. Paul understood that God was going to use this weakness to show His power. And he trusted that if God would be glorified—whether in his weakness or in his strength—he would be content in any weakness or hardship.

Paul prayed that his struggles, whether physical or psychological, would be taken away from him. When I was in the hospital before the surgery, there were definitely times when I prayed that God would take this away from me. Because frankly, the idea of someone cutting me open just didn’t appeal to me. Maybe God would provide me a miracle—a miracle to make me more comfortable. But it turned out that a miraculous recovery right before the surgery was not in God’s plans. He had better plans.

I may not fully see the purpose God has in mind for my broken leg yet, but I have no doubt that this is part His sovereign plan. It’s only by His grace that I am where I am now. Life has slowed down a lot in the past few weeks. And in the quiet and still moments, I am reminded of God’s unfailing promises. I know His grace, His provisions, and His daily mercies are enough for me. I know that this weakness I have now is here to make me realize my utter need for God’s grace. And if God can work through my injury in some way, if I can magnify the love of Christ even more through this situation, then I would be content with my weakness. Because when I am weak, then I am strong.

1. 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 (NIV) Calvin Fong is a fourth year media studies major. He hopes to go into teaching after he graduates.

No Mystery to You Jeremy Lai, CONTRIBUTING WRITER

The universe is no mystery to you Why the sky’s vast and blue The passing sun’s rays Scattering ever constant and true Dancing gleefully in the azure heights The universe is no mystery to you Why lightning strikes the earth Dancing from cloud to cloud Electrons whirling around in mirth Visiting even seas, thunder laughing aloud The universe is no mystery to you How humpbacks of the deep feed Blowing bubble nets Herding fish, killer whales listened Deep songs you taught them even as young calves The universe is no mystery to you How life knows to begin The heart, a simplest sign Small bundle of muscle from within Faithfully drumming, always keeping the time The universe is no mystery to you But to me whether it be Stars, sunshine, seasons fly Questions I have, reasons I can’t find So I’ll continue to seek, the one who knows

Spring 2014 | To An Unknown God 33

Vast blue oceans and open skies clear Lush green forests and animals you hear All in the world infinitely complex A girl in the field stands in awe.

Suddenly a sorceress sends a hex cursing the girl from ankle to jaw.

inherent art James Frederick, CONTRIBUTING WRITER

The girl can no longer live alive and free: She must harvest the earth and the sea She needs many things so she can survive And must think and toil in order to thrive Now itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hard to find joy while mending, Studying and working toward a break from all the suffering that seems unending in this world whose heart it seems to ache.

Remembering the beauty that was found, But with much forgotten in distractions.

Continuing to explore the things around But forgetting what motivates the actions.

A wizard from the north prepares to come He can break the curse and all the glum, restore joy and creativity, and remove the deathly negativity.

34â&#x20AC;&#x192; To An Unknown God | Spring 2014

decal

To An Unknown God Decal A Journal of Christian Thought At Berkeley Join the decal and be a part of the next issue!

Learn about editing, layout design, and publishing.

2 units, Thursdays 5-7 pm, Location TBD For more info, visit: "decal.org/courses" and search for TAUG.

Artist Credits: Cover: 1) Jesus: "face_of_jesus46" (flic.kr/p/9s6dtr) by Waiting For The Word is licensed under CC BY 2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)/Cropped Jesus; 2) Fish: " Drawing of fish observed in the Hawaiian Islands" by John Richard/ Cropped fish; 3) "plant-purple-green-macro.jpg" (flic.kr/p/hZVZJp) by r. nial bradshaw is licensed under CC BY 2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)/Cropped plant; 4) "Red substance in half filled test tube" (flic.kr/p/7vBoHV) by Horia Varlan is licensed under CC BY 2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)/Cropped test tube; 5) "Visitors Viewing Friendship 7" (flic.kr/p/ ehTT7Y) by Unknown is licensed under CC BY 2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)/Cropped; 6) Monkey: "Capuchin Monkey closeup"(flic.kr/p/5RzbBq) by Ivan Mlinaric is licensed under CC BY 2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)/Cropped; 7) Glasses: Andrew Kuo; 8) Nebula: " Tarantula Nebula (NASA, Chandra, Hubble, Spitzer, 04/17/12)" by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center is licensed under CC BY 2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)/Cropped 5: Christine Han; 6: Artwork by Joice Lee; 8: "AllĂŠe des rois" (flic.kr/p/hxFQPC) by Alpha du centaure is licensed under CC BY 2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)/Black and white from the orignal; 10: "Statue Hands" (flic.kr/p/3v1HF) by Mark is licensed under CC BY 2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/2.0/)/ Black and white from the orignal; 12,13: Joice Lee; 14,15: Katherine Tsen; 16: Artwork by Joice Lee; 18,19: Species: Metrosideros Collina; Family: Combretaceae by Sydney Parkinson; CITATION: Solander, D. Pl. Otaheit.: 9, 18, 98 'Metrosideros spectabilis'; Solander, D. Slip Catalogue XI: 531 - 536; Banks, J. Cat. Pl.: 26 See Carr, D. J. [Ed.] 1983 pl. 80 p. 88, col. pl.; FROM: botany.si.edu/botart/; MODIFICATIONS: Black and white from the orignal; 20: Chloe Ng; 23: Chloe Ng; 25: Artwork by Joice Lee; 26: Jocelyn Chiou; 28,29: Hand artwork by "nadinepau/brusheezy.com"; 30,31: "Notebook" (flic.kr/p/ic2dQb) by Kelly Sikkema is licensed under CC BY 2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)/ Black and white from the orignal; 32: Winston Kim; 33 top, middle, bottom: Artwork by Joice Lee; 34: "sparkles.JPG" (flic.kr/p/4kU7x3) by Michelle Tribe is licensed under CC BY 2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)/ Black and white from the orignal; 35: Joice Lee; Back cover: Andrew Kuo

Spring 2014 | To An Unknown Godâ&#x20AC;&#x192; 35

Every semester, To An Unknown God relies heavily on private donations to fund its printing costs. Please prayerfully consider donating to make our next issue possible! Any amount is highly appreciated. Thank you for your generosity! Checks should be made out to ASUC/To An Unknown God and mailed to:

ASUC/To An Unknown God University of California 112 Hearst Gym, MC 4520 Berkeley, CA 94720-4520

36â&#x20AC;&#x192; To An Unknown God | Spring 2014