Rating: 
Summary: Basic Worlview Catalog
Review: "Few people have anything approaching an articulate philosophy -- at least as epitomized by the great philosophers. Even fewer, I suspect, have a carefully constructed theology. But everyone has a worldview. . . In fact, it is only the assumption of a worldview -- however basic or simple -- that allows us to think at all."
Sire gives his reader a significant, albeit "basic", unpacking of several so-called worldviews (a worldview being a presupposed, "more or less coherent frame of reference for all thought and action"). In a highly approachable 200 pages, we find valuable foundational expositions into eight (or 12, if we count specific variants) such frameworks. The author's examinations of Christian theism, deism, naturalism / nihilism, and the ideological spawns of nihilism (including New Age and appeals to Hindu monism and to Zen Buddhism), are obviously not exhaustive. Note the word "Basic" in the book's subtitle. The reader, whatever his worldview, will likely find a point of disagreement with the author. But in its systematic conciseness and scope, you aren't likely to find any other volume that does what this one does in exposing the universe(s) "next door". Reference notes are extensive, for those who wish to dig deeper. The book (this review is of the third edition) well deserves its continued interest and has been used as a college text in philosophy, comparative religion, history, and English literature courses.
Most of Sire's insights are well considered: "[W]hen Nietzsche says 'truth is a mobile army of metaphors' or conventional 'lies,' he is making a charge which implicitly claims to be true but on its own account cannot be." This is one of those rare books you may want to read again at a later date. . .
This of positivism: "If the mind is strictly a 'naturally' produced brain-machine, then human thought is ultimately determined by prior causal mechanisms, which, to fit the philosophic demand of naturalism, were accidental (not intelligently purposed) events, then what is human thought? If 'the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile' (Pierre Jean Georges Cabanis), what can be said of what the brain 'secretes'? We see that whatever thought essentially is, it is inherently referenced to specific events, to the exclusion of other possible histories to which it is not referenced. In other words, human thought is merely the accidental 'secretion' of accidental histories; that is to say human thought is programmed by natural evolution and has no other reference, and can thus posses little epistemological integrity. As Nietzsche argued, no human thought could be known to resemble truth, and even if it did we could not distinguish this 'truth' from the usual delusions. If the mind is strictly a 'naturally' produced brain-machine, all thought must be assumed to be delusional. Thus, the positivist/naturalist/materialist must arrive at the conclusion that human thought is delusional 'bile'. Positivism thus commits suicide."
Rating:
Summary: Basic Worlview Catalog
Review: "Few people have anything approaching an articulate philosophy -- at least as epitomized by the great philosophers. Even fewer, I suspect, have a carefully constructed theology. But everyone has a worldview. . . In fact, it is only the assumption of a worldview -- however basic or simple -- that allows us to think at all."
Sire gives his reader a significant, albeit "basic", unpacking of several so-called worldviews (a worldview being a presupposed, "more or less coherent frame of reference for all thought and action"). In a highly approachable 200 pages, we find valuable foundational expositions into eight (or 12, if we count specific variants) such frameworks. The author's examinations of Christian theism, deism, naturalism / nihilism, and the ideological spawns of nihilism (including New Age and appeals to Hindu monism and to Zen Buddhism), are obviously not exhaustive. Note the word "Basic" in the book's subtitle. The reader, whatever his worldview, will likely find a point of disagreement with the author. But in its systematic conciseness and scope, you aren't likely to find any other volume that does what this one does in exposing the universe(s) "next door". Reference notes are extensive, for those who wish to dig deeper. The book (this review is of the third edition) well deserves its continued interest and has been used as a college text in philosophy, comparative religion, history, and English literature courses.
Most of Sire's insights are well considered: "[W]hen Nietzsche says 'truth is a mobile army of metaphors' or conventional 'lies,' he is making a charge which implicitly claims to be true but on its own account cannot be." This is one of those rare books you may want to read again at a later date. . .
This of positivism: "If the mind is strictly a 'naturally' produced brain-machine, then human thought is ultimately determined by prior causal mechanisms, which, to fit the philosophic demand of naturalism, were accidental (not intelligently purposed) events, then what is human thought? If 'the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile' (Pierre Jean Georges Cabanis), what can be said of what the brain 'secretes'? We see that whatever thought essentially is, it is inherently referenced to specific events, to the exclusion of other possible histories to which it is not referenced. In other words, human thought is merely the accidental 'secretion' of accidental histories; that is to say human thought is programmed by natural evolution and has no other reference, and can thus posses little epistemological integrity. As Nietzsche argued, no human thought could be known to resemble truth, and even if it did we could not distinguish this 'truth' from the usual delusions. If the mind is strictly a 'naturally' produced brain-machine, all thought must be assumed to be delusional. Thus, the positivist/naturalist/materialist must arrive at the conclusion that human thought is delusional 'bile'. Positivism thus commits suicide."
Rating: 
Summary: Biased introduction to worldviews
Review: "When The universe Next Door was first introduced more than twenty years ago, it set the standard for a clear, readable introduction to worldviews. In concise, easily understood prose, James W. Sire explained the basics of theism, deism, naturalism, nihilism, existentialism, Eastern monism and the new consciousness." This is what said on the back cover of the book, from where I believed it to be a good and objective introduction.Disappointingly, the author has shown his biased opinions throughout the book. As soon as in the first chapter, he declared that he himself is a Christian, which I think is undoubtedly a foolish act when writing a book of this kind. The author claimed in the introduction that "I have tried rigorously to be brief - to get to the heart of each worldview, suggest its strengths and weaknesses, and move to the next." And then in the next chapter on Christian Theism, he wrote NOTHING on its weaknesses, and eventually declared "... theism is a complete worldview". So theism is complete, what about others? "Deism did not prove to be a stable worldview," it is "inconsistent", "impracticable". "A practicing nihilist is a parasite on meaning". Such kind of biased descriptions is not uncommon in the book. In addition, the author had misunderstandings on certain interpretations of non-theist worldviews, not to mention his many invalid arguments. But I have to say that this book is not totally worthless, it can give you some ideas of different worldviews. But you DON'T adopt its values as the truth nor the sole source of information on the topic. That's my suggestion.
Rating: 
Summary: Saying it's bad is complementary
Review: A very small minded American, who has no understanding whatsoever of any 'worldview' except his own, i.e. Theism, rants on for a few hundred pages. Complete tripe.
Rating:
Summary: Comparing ways of thinking rather than comparing beliefs
Review: As a student of both psychology and philosophy I found this book to be a missing link in literature. The truth is I read this book many years ago and bought it again to read after I gave my original copy to my son in college. If you are a Christian and interested in understanding how the message of the Bible stacks up with other world views you cannot pass up this book. You may find the book tough reading in places, however the author has kept the content as simple as possible while still exploring differences in major world philosophical perspectives. If you are a Christian who wants to understand how your faith stacks up against alternative human views of creation, human nature, the existence of God, life after life, revelation and other issues you must read this book. One note...before you begin reading be determined to finish it. It is very important to read the entire book, no matter the effort, to get the most value from the message. A TRUE MASTERPIECE!!
Rating: 
Summary: Relational versus Compartmentalise Worldviews
Review: As I started reading the book "Church Between Temple and Mosque: A Study of the Relationship Between the Christian Faith and Other Religions" by J.H. Bavinck, I started seeing Worldviews differently. I have not finished reading this book however, this does not mean I can't address it's basic, fundamental questions. The questions in this book are good but does not see the world as of its real nature like relationships of webs. The questions in this book I think seems to me separe entities or concentps from each other. However, we never see the world as separate objects, entities or realities. We see it through our existence and our relationship to them. Therefore, I would suggest another way of looking to the Worldviews. For example, J.H. Bavinck says, there are five magnetic points that everyone has to answer:
1. I and Cosmos
2. I and the norm
3. I and the riddle of my existence
4. I and salvation
5. I and the Supreme power
However, Sire's questions presupposes divided or compartmentalised thinking like you will see below:
1. What is prime reality?
2. What is the nature of external realilty?
3. What is a human being?
4. What happens to a person at death?
5. Why is it possible to know anything at all?
6. How do we know what is right and wrong?
7. What is the meaning of human history?
If you compare questions above, you will see Sire's reference points does not include himself when he asks questions. Yes, one of the questions addresses himself which is human nature but what about the others? I don't think Sire's questions are wrong but I want to communicate to you here that the way Sire addresses worldviews or asks questions are not in relational among each other but they are divided or divorced from each other at moment of questions. It seems to me more clear that West seems to be thinking more compartmentalised way where as East seems to be thinking more relational and questions interact with each other as well as answers. Neither Sire nore Bavinck is wrong. If I look at the Thomas's questions from the Scriptures, It seems to me more epistemological his question and compartmentalised, "Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?" (John 14:5). However, Christ's reply includes ontology, epistemology and Cosmology and may be more!, "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6). Christ did not look at Thomas' question from one perspective but apparenlty His reply was more than Thomas asked for. Therefore, I would encourage you read the book "Church Between Temple and Mosque" along Sire's book so that we would not look at the world from one window only.
Rating:
Summary: way too vitriolic and lacking in fairness
Review: As much as I admire the task James Sire has undertaken in "The Universe Next Door," I cannot endorse his book. Having given my life to Christ as an adult, I have some perspective on some of the worldviews Sire discusses (having once subscribed to some of them). Sire does not approach any of these worldviews on their own terms. He is constantly sketching out incomplete pictures of what he discusses, sometimes reverting to straw men and logical fallacies to try and push his weakest points. Particularly grievous is his ad hoc dismissal of Eastern thought on the grounds that it does not fit into a rationalistic western paradigm. More disturbing still is the mocking, often superior tone he takes in his arguments. This is especially tragic because these forms of non-arguments are most often used to delegitimize Christians trying engage in an intellectual exchange. No subject is addressed in its entirety. The chapter on New Age thinking focuses so exclusively on a couple of personalities that it ignores whole systems of New Age thought. The consequences of modern Naturalism are not really addressed (Far too many apologists write against Darwin's thought rather than what is currently taught--Sire is a card-carrying member of this club.) Zen Buddhism is treated almost as an afterthought. A lot of these problems probably come from Sire's over-reliance on secondary source material. Though from time to time he throws in a quote from Hesse's Siddhartha (which is also secondary if you ask me), most of the time he is quoting from like-minded colleagues. While I share Sire's final estimation--that Jesus Christ is Lord and the rest of these things are just fantasy lands, I was severely disappointed with this book. It does not really engage any of the other systems in a fair debate. Sire is playing with a stacked deck. I do not recommend "The Universe Next Door" to any serious student of worldview thinking.
Rating:
Summary: An Enduring Work
Review: I chuckled as I read reviews critical of this ambitious little book. What did its critics expect? A book critical of theism from InterVarsity Press would be shocking. I first read this book when it was published about twenty years ago. It is not as detailed as Norm Geisler's Introduction to Apologetics but it serves a different purpose and is aimed at a different audience. The value of the book is obvious from the number of reprints it has enjoyed over the years. The author writes with understanding and appreciation for other worldviews. I expect this from a professor of English who wrote a book entitled "How to Read Slowly." One of Sire's favorite authors is Saul Bellow; Sire would purchase Bellow's books sight unseen. His literary tastes should tell discerning readers a great deal about the author. As a professor of English, Sire writes clearly and lucidly about a subject that others fumble and stumble through. The only other author who has attempted such an ambitious book about understanding worldviews is Mortimer Adler, the deceased editor of Encyclopedia Britanica. Adler's and Sire's works on worldviews compare favorably. If anything, this single book by Sire has a greater scope than any of Adler's books except for The Great Ideas: A Lexicon of Western Thought. And Sire is just about at the same level for concise, pointed critiques of various worldviews. A critical assessment of postmodernism (Foucault, Derrida, etc.) is a welcome chapter in the book. I don't believe that Foucault's dependence on Heidegger is acknowledged. Barthes and Lucan are not discussed. I find Tasic's Mathematics and the Roots of Postmodern Thought to be among the most interesting and sympathetic surveys of the complex postmodern phenomenon. It might serve as an excellent supplementary text although it might prove to be challenging reading. This well-written book is highly recommended for readers looking for a single book that fairly and concisely assesses worldviews.
Rating:
Summary: Praise from a "Pagan"
Review: I first read Mr. Sire's book when I was earnestly striving to be an evangelical protestant. As I eventually became a universalist mystic, one might safely assume that Sire's Christian theistic arguments failed to convince me. Nevertheless, I found the book a useful introduction then, and still refer to it now, although for quite different purposes than the author likely intended. This is an excellent introduction to different philosophical points of view, and although the categories are rather broad, the footnotes are extensive and give great amplification to the text. As one might expect, Mr. Sire's pro-Christian bias is unapologetically present throughout [as he himself admits in the introduction], yet he is nevertheless fair in presenting the basic arguments for each worldview in it's own terms and often in the words of those who champion each school of thought. In closing, I would recommend this book to anyone who is seeking an accessible introduction to the major modern worldviews, whether they be Christian or not. Hopefully others will find this book as great a help in forging their personal philosophies as I have found it in creating mine.
Rating:
Summary: Great Book! Everyone should read!
Review: I have been a fan of this book for nearly 10 years now . . . it is one of the most OUTSTANDING books on various worldviews from a Christian perspective. Unlike some of the other reviewers, I found Sire's BIAS refreshing--not only because I agreed with it, but Sire CONFESSES his bias early in the introduction of the text. It is refreshing to see an author who is intellectually honest with his audience who can recognize and admit to his own bias--so few with dogmatic opinions recognize the source or nature of their own bias/prejudice. This is not intended as a book discussing major world religions or cults, but is a study of large universally encompassing world views as expressed in several categories that Sire expounds upon so that the reader can make informed, rational comparisons. Sire carefully deconstructs the ideology of each world view from a scriptural viewpoint that allows the readers to see the philosophical errors of false doctrine of the various world views in light of Christian theology. Anyone who appreciates intellectual honesty will find this book both informative and refreshing.
|
