J.W. Wartick - Reconstructing Faith
Irreverent. That’s how I would describe Hardwired
by James Miller in one word. Miller appeared unimpressed by Natural Theology, and perhaps even less impressed by current scholarly apologetics. Yet this is, unabashedly, an apologetics work. It’s just not the type that many readers would expect going in. Miller’s approach is presuppositional: that is, he sought to discuss the questions about faith by analyzing those things that people already assume or know.
Illustrative was his comment early on in the work. Miller was approached by a mother who was heartbroken over her son leaving the faith. She asked him, “‘How do I convince him there is a God?'” Miller’s answer is indicative of his apologetic method: “He already believes in God.” This startling statement forms the basis for the rest of the book. Miller’s approach revolved around showing people the God they “already know.”
How might one justify this outlandish…
View original post 1,379 more words
I read Mr. Wartick’s criticisms and would like to know your opinion, Jim. Do you feel that his claim of “evidentialist” tendencies in a presuppositional approach is valid? If not, where do you feel the misleading happened?