Contact
Biography
R. L. Elam is a native of San Francisco. Being surrounded by every conceivable kind of liberal revolt from childhood, he had to revolt into something, so he revolted into the only thing left - Christianity (paraphrasing G.K. Chesterton in The Man Who Was Thursday at p. 40).
He has a bachelor's degree, magna cum lade, in history from Georgetown University. During his college years, he studied rhetoric and competed in national debate tournaments and won many awards. He earned his law degree, juris doctor, from Stanford Law School. He also has master diplomas from Sacramento State University with a focus in public policy and the University of Edinburgh, Scotland in economic history. He was a Fulbright Scholar and goodwill ambassador to the United Kingdom and a Senate Fellow in the California state legislature.
He currently lives in the Bay Area with his wife and beagle. He is a young litigator and worked for one of the largest national law firms. The website address is inspired by one of his high school classmates, Mr. Lim, and he owes a debt of gratitude to him.
Purpose
1. I am certain that the Christian doctrine is the most reasonable moral worldview.
It is even more defensible than choosing ‘neutrality’, as even subconsciously we are: (a) shaped by habits and can fall victim to adopting a view chosen by our urges, our environment, or others; (b) all fallible, and may not know that we are not truly neutral, such that Descartes in meditation 4 of Meditations on First Philosophy described error as a person’s volition (free will) exceeding their understanding; and (c) not choosing is still choosing, just as the verse by the rock band Rush in Free Will reads “[i]f you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” But most importantly, I am not in a position, as a lawyer, to argue a non-position before a judge. In our daily lives, we are compelled by exigencies to reach decisions and make a choice.
2. I am less certain that it is the Truth, though my reasoning can only conclude that it is true.
While my worldview acknowledges a Truth, wholly independent and separate from our world, I have not crossed over and returned to categorically confirm my hypothesis, and so, I am the first to admit my doubts and that they are an integral part of my faith; indeed, these doubts only strengthen it. However, I can pledge that my reasoning is a faithful servant to all that is true and just and I would never advance an unsound or untrue argument to persuade my readers of statement 1.
3. I am even less certain, though hopeful, that honest reasoning with open-minded readers may lead some to embrace statement 1.
While many associate the religious with blind faith; Christianity, right from the beginning, embraced discourse and reason. We should “be ready to make [a] defense for our faith.” (1 Peter 3:15). Indeed, the right to a defense, and requiring a defense advocate, was first introduced during the Middle Ages in the ecclesiastical courts of the Catholic Church. I welcome skeptics and critics, the unbelievers and believers of all faiths to comment on this blog for the mutual pursuit of truth. I intend to listen and learn from the readers and improve or dismiss my arguments with their insights.
4. I am uncertain, but I will try, to really listen to my skeptical friends and answer your questions directly and honestly.
In my travels, I have met many individuals who have abandoned their faith in God because their faith in Man has been crushed. I apologize to all who were raised in communities that suffocated you; that encountered pastors and churches that ignored your earnest questions; and for judgmental Christians who threw stones at you. I offer myself as a lover of truth and wisdom, logic and science, who will listen and considers your questions of the greatest import. As Christianity is such an expansive topic, I am confining myself to the core principles of the Christian doctrine – what C.S. Lewis referred to as “mere Christianity.” The term mere means the heart of the faith, which can be eloquently recited in the Apostles’ Creed. I am not qualified to discourse on such weighty issues as, for example, the Holy Trinity or Original Sin. Indeed, if my words in any way obstruct or undermine your own spiritual journey, I apologize in advance, and urge the reader to discard them. The single best blog one can read is the New Testament. Finally, I commend all readers to craft their comments with a loving concern for your fellow brother and sister. The use of any inflammatory or derisive language will result in the summarily removal of the false comment. For truth does not destroy opposition, but welcomes it, and in the light of day reveals the deceit and falsehoods of its rivals.
Methodology
I like science, especially physics. My high school teacher, Mr. Lapp, encouraged live experimentation, whether sending static electrical currents through the clasped hands of schoolmates, lying on a bed of nails, or firing a rifle in class (subsequently banned). Science was both a class where I was free to ask questions and yet expect definitive answers. For me, science was a method that was reliable, trustworthy, and proven. As Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling stated, “[s]cience is the search for the truth.” There was a strong temptation to assume that the scientific method was the only way to discover truths and consider all other ways as mere opinion, superstitious beliefs, or blind faith.
My approach is also a search for the truth, but instead of arbitrarily imposing the dogmatic theories of materialism, I refuse to limit myself. As an attorney, I was trained to not only ask questions but duty-bound in the defense of my client to pursue answers wherever they would take me. It is unreasonable to rule out an argument at the outset just because it is novel. Indeed, a bold new discovery in science will always be perceived as novel and sometimes overturn conventional wisdom itself.
To that end, I will weigh possibilities based on inference to the best explanation. This is a form of practical reasoning we all use in our daily lives. This method states that if we want to explain an event, we must first consider the entire range of hypotheses and infer to the one that would provide the best explanation. The information we find drives this method. As we gather more and more data, we can compare the results to all the possible explanations and the explanation that can explain the whole range of data is our answer. We all reach conclusions with a high degree of confidence using this form of reasoning. Lawyers and scientists use this approach. This model can enable us to achieve a high degree of practical certainty.
If science has its limits, so be it. But any search should be grounded in as much science as possible, and only the most reliable contemporary scientific research should be our guide. I seek the freedom to pursue all possibilities. And when we look at the evidence from cosmology, physics, philosophy, biology, ethics, and human consciousness, we will find that theism has amazing explanatory scope and power. The existence of God explains the evidence I will present more simply, adequately, and comprehensively than any other worldview. Perhaps you too have wondered whether you can believe in God confronted with what science has uncovered about nature. If so, please suspend your preconceived views and open your mind to these proposed arguments for the existence of God. At the end, you can decide for yourself whether these arguments stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
Copyright Notice
Copyright Notice, Copyright © 2008 Author R.L. Elam. The contents of all material available on this Internet site are copyrighted by R.L. Elam unless otherwise indicated. All rights are reserved by R.L. Elam, and content may not be reproduced, downloaded, disseminated, published, or transferred in any form or by any means, except with the prior written permission of R.L. Elam. Copyright infringement is a violation of federal law subject to criminal and civil penalties.
