Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalogue

Very good book regarding the principal religious philosophies in the world today. Although the author has an admitted theosophic viewpoint, it does not often or significantly affect his writing. Perhaps the best aspect of this book is the structured methodical analytic model which the author uses in examining each world view. The model examines each on the basis of eight criteria. Such a methodology, assuming relevant criteria are chosen (and they appear to be here), gives the analysis a much more objective review the unstructured subjective writing. Moreover, using the same criteria for all world views allows more usable comparison of the fundamental issues. One downside is the the criteria method may provide the reader with a means of comparison, but in doing so it may leave out some of the great depth and vitality of some religions. This is not a book to read to learn the theology of a specific religion, but rather it is means to compare religions based upon certain fundamental and very relevant worldviews which they hold.

An excellent tract, so long as its espoused purpose is kept in mind.

This book gives an excellent review of the Christian worldview using eight basic questions. It then uses the same eight questions to compare and contrast the worldviews of deism, naturalism, nihilism, existentialism, eastern pantheistic monism, new age spirituality, and postmodernism. A new chapter was added in this 5th edition on Islamic theism.

[ASIN:0830838503 The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, 5th Edition] The book does not address the new research of early Indian Christianity thru the apostle Thomas, one of the 12 disciples, who was martyred in South India. The land of India was the most affluent in the world at this time (Angus Madison's research), and, Rome had excellent trade relations with the land of India.

There are many PhD theses published on the influence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ on Indian literature. Also the first evidence of Sanskrit is seen only in 150 AD and the neglect of Sanskrit by Asoka, if the language was in use, would be contrary to his practice since his inscriptions are even in Greek and Aramaic apart from Prakrit. In any Sanskrit literature such as the Vedas, Upanishads, Brahma Sutras or Bhagavad Gita, the Christian influence can be seen since they were all written after the 2nd c AD. History reveals that the doctrines of incarnation, divine fulfillment of sacrifice, salvation by faith and total surrender to God are not seen in the Indian religions and worships of the pre-New Testament Era.

James Sire, like many others, has founded his book on the common erroneous premise that Hinduism, a term coined by the British, is very ancient and is founded on the Vedas. Hence, I recommend that James Sire rewrite his book and take into consideration the new evidences of early Indian Christianity available today.

Felt like it missed the mark ever so slightly. For example, when discussing nihilism, could have used a reference to A. Wheelis' The Moralist and debunked with that. Failed to distinguish between secular humanism and Christian humanism, just "humanism." Specifics do matter. Then again, I'm coming at this at a different age in life and with a different educational background from most students.

Product arrived on time, undamaged, in good order.

I needed this book for my business ethics class. It has a lot of good information in it. It will definitely help you determine your own world view. It is not all easy reading, but well worth the effort.

Nope - you find out how and were worldviews were born and when the faded. Some are still alive and well. Nevertheless you'll have no trouble figuring out what your worldview is and why its so important. The text is informative and eye opening.

The book is great but my copy showed up with two stickers, one on the front cover and the other along the binding covering the title of the book. I tried removing them but they were very difficult to get off and left a sticky residue on the book which is proving tough to remove. Not sure why these were on but I would at least expect for the book to be clean when receiving it. Wasn't too impressed.

Now in its fifth edition, James W. Sire has written the go-to introduction to nine major worldviews. Sire has written this book with the desire for people (especially Christians) to grasp the importance of understanding what a worldview is, what are the other worldviews other then their own and what their own worldview is. Sire defines a worldview as a

"Commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) that we hold (consciously or unconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being." (p. 20)

The book takes a very inform approach to presenting and evaluating the nine worldviews. Sire examines the worldviews by asking eight basic questions that all worldviews must answer:

1. What is prime reality? - This question gets to the foundation of what a worldview understands to be the foundation of reality. For Sire this is the first and foundational question that must be answered before the other seven.
2. What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us? - This looks at whether we see the world around us as created or autonomous, material or immaterial, etc.
3. What is a human being? - For instance, are people made in the image of God or just a machine/
4. What happens to a person at death? - This looks at options like extinction, reincarnation or transfer to a higher state of existence.
5. Why is it possible to know anything at all? - Answers include being created in the image of God or just the result of an evolutionary process.
6. How do we know what is right and wrong? - This explores whether morality is determined by people and culture or if there is a transcendent objective moral law that does not change.
7. What is the meaning of human history? - Does it have a purpose and if so what is it?
8. What personal, life-orienting core commitments are consistent with this worldview? - Each different worldview will require a person to believe and life certain things in order to be consistent with it.

In addition to answering these eight questions Sire gives a brief history of the development of each worldview along with a critique of how each one answers (or cannot answer) the questions. Further, Sire explores the various forms each worldview might express itself.

Sire unapologetically writes from a Christian theist worldview but adherents from other worldviews should see that he deals fairly with theirs. Sire rightly notes in the beginning of the book that neutrality in evaluating other worldviews is impossible. He also rightly points out the role of presuppositions in ones worldview as well as the importance of propositional truth in developing, evaluating and propagating a worldview.

At the end of the book Sire closes with four characteristics of a viable worldview:

1. Humility - A worldview must leave room for what we simply do not know or are not sure of. We are finite and our knowledge is limited.
2. Able to comprehend the data of reality - If it cannot account for reality then it either has some work to do or needs to be abandoned.
3. Should explain what it claims to explain - Assertions are not explanations and a worldview needs to have some explanation for what it claims to be able to explain over against another worldview.
4. Should be subjectively satisfactory - That is, it satisfies the person by being true whether or not the person likes what reality is.

There is a reason why The Universe Next Door is in its fifth printing. This is the kind of book I would give to every senior in high school before they take their next step in life be it college or their first full-time job. This book works well as a tool for high school or college intro class to worldviews. It even works well as a small group book for churches. I highly recommend this book.

The author makes a heroic effort to present a well-organized, cogent balanced academic presentation of the major world-views in existence today including my own "Atheistic Existentialism." I am not ashamed to admit that this obviously Christian author has given a thorough, coherent, readable, academic presentation that goes about as far as any comparable book of its kind on this subject has gone (and no matter how academically sophisticated!)

According to my system of evaluation, that alone gets this book at least five stars. However, as the reader will discover, this book deserves a rating well beyond the normal five star rating. Why? Because for the first time, it gives the reader an ontological/metaphysical and epistemological yardstick with which to gauge and better situate, and thus, better understand ones own worldview. For that, I am giving the book another 25 stars for a total of 30 stars.

The Organization of the Book

Mr. Sire uses a loose Socratic method as the framework for his analysis. He begins by explaining that the imperative of man's existence is to survive in the brief time between birth and a certain death by using his self-conscious awareness and intellect as a way to create "meaning" and "value" in a cold, isolated and impersonal world.

The first critical ontological problem is whether the world environment in which all of the world views operate, is to be considered "open" or "closed." An "open" environment of course admits to exogenous and transcendent inputs, such as gods and spirits, while a "closed" one does not.

The second philosophical problem is the division of the world into objectivity and subjectivity. Arguably only as "subjects" can meaning be attached to man. As "objects" man disappears into the woodworks of an already cold, impersonal and inanimate world.

The measuring stick used to decide these issues as well as to compare the attributes of each world view is a series of parallel questions the author uses to interrogate the attributes of each world view. Through these questions, the author shows how each world view fares as an intact universe of meaning and value in either an "open" or a "closed" world environment -- and when measured against the same set of ontological/metaphysical and epistemological criteria. Through this rather simple framework, he covers a lot of rough philosophical terrain, answers all the questions that our world poses for us, and does so effortlessly, leaving it up to the reader to decide which world view best suits one's own predilections.

Even though in the end this turns out to be a sophisticated yet transparent, "Christian theist's" polemic, it is my kind of polemic: The author made the most honest effort he could of explaining the other world-views, but in the end he did not fail to show his own Christian worldview in the best possible light.

That the author took this approach, did not bother me in the least for two reasons. First, each of us has his own "crap detection devise;" and second, because most Christians never get anywhere near as far in explaining their worldview as this author has done here, it was a singular joy to, for just once, hear a serious academic defense of the Christian word view. In fact, had the word "Christian" appeared in the title of the book, I probably would have passed it up as I usually do when I see "Christian" in a title. That is a measure of just how much I distrust those who advocate for Christian causes.

A summary of the Substance of the book

After explicating the attributes of Theism, Deism, Naturalism, Nihilism, Existentialism, and Postmodernism, the author gets down to the crux of the matter when he asserts that ethics and morality can only be derived from an "open" world where a transcendent creator with moral authority is allowed.

In one fell swoop, this of course forecloses both the possibility that our existing world might indeed be "closed" (which unsurprisingly is accepted as a given by most of the other world-views), as well as foreclosing the possibility of having ethics and morality within a "closed" world that necessarily is without either a creator or an external repository of moral authority.

Rather than admit this is at least an alternative possibility, the author uses Sartre's formulation of being "naive" or "inauthentic" as a label to discredit anyone who would admit to such a possibility? Somehow, the author seemed to have forgotten that even within his own Christian family, there are ethical systems that arise wholly without reference to having a higher external transcendental moral authority? The Western system of government and law --both separated from religion by decree are best cases in point. And of course the same can be said for most non-Christians faiths -- although not for Islamic religions which have their own sharia laws handed down from Allah.

The second point the author makes is related to the first and thus suffers the same logical weakness. It is that in a "closed" world, any pretense to being moral, is just that a pretense, an illusion, as it were. This certainly is irrefutably true as the author states. However, is he not forgetting that the very creation of an external transcendental God in his "open" world is also a most monumental illusion on the same plane as, and congruent with, that created by those in a "closed" world?

Indeed, it is axiomatic that man uses his symbols (including most especially his symbols of his gods) to fashion illusions to which he then attaches meaning. If there is another way that man can attach meaning other than through the use of symbols in this world (whether "open" or "closed"), I am all ears. 30 stars

The only reason I gave this review 3 stars instead of 5, is I took a philosophy class last semester that used this book as the main textbook. As a book, I think it is okay but as a textbook, it sucks!

James W. Sire has been a college professor of English literature, philosophy and theology, the chief editor of InterVarsity Press, a lecturer at over two hundred universities in the U.S., Canada, Eastern and Western Europe and Asia, and is the author of books such as Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible,Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept,Habits of the Mind: Intellectual Life as a Christian Calling, etc. [NOTE: I am reviewing the original 1976 239-page IVP edition.]

He wrote in the Introduction, "The struggle to discover our own faith, our own world view, our beliefs about reality is what this book is all about. Formally stated, the purposes of this book are (1) to outline the basic world views that underlie the way we in the Western world think about ourselves, other people, the natural world and God or ultimate reality, (2) to trace historically how these world views have developed from a breakdown in the theistic world view, moving in turn into deism, naturalism, nihilism, existentialism, Eastern mysticism and the new consciousness and (3) to encougage us all to think in terms of world views, that is, with a consciousness of not only our own way of thought but also that of other people, so that we can first understand and then genuinely communicate with others in our pluralistic society." (Pg. 15)

He says, "Deism did not prove to be a very stable world view... Preceded by theism, it was followed by naturalism. What made deism so emphemeral?... the inconsistencies within world view itself and the impracticability of some of its principles... Today, we would find even more aspects of deism to question. Scientists have largely abandoned thinking of the universe as a giant clock. Electrons... do not behave like minute pieces of machinery... Furthermore, the personality of man is a 'fact' of the universe. If God made that, must he not be personal?" (Pg. 56)

He argues against naturalism, "could a being whose origins were so 'iffy' trust his own capacity to know? If his mind is coterminous with his brain, if he is only a thinking machine, how can he trust his thought? If consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter, perhaps the appearance of human freedom which lays the basis for morality is an epiphenomenon or either chance or inexorable law. Perhaps chance or the nature of things only built into man the 'feeling' that he is free and actually he is not. These and similar questions do not arise from outside the naturalist world view. They are inherent in it." (Pg. 74-75)

He writes, "As I write this, young and old are flocking to various gurus. Bookstores are filled with books pointing East, their spines to the West, of course... So Westerners are still trekking East. And so long as the East holds out promise---promise of peace, of meaning, of significance---people are likely to respond. What will they receive? Not just an Eastern bandaid for a Western scratch for a whole new world view and lifestyle." (Pg. 148)

He asserts, "We are caught in an impasse: The issue is primary; either the self is god and the new consciousness is a readout of the implications of that, or the self is not god and thus is subject to the existence of things other than itself... Most people do not go that route... So we opt for the existence of not only our own self but the selves of others, and thus we require a system that will bring not only unity to our world but knowledge as well. We want to know who and what else inhabits our world. But it we are not the unity-giver (god), who or what is?... We also need a basis for thinking that these needs can be met. Where do we go for that?" (Pg. 202-203)

He concludes, "To accept Christian theism only as an intellectual construct is not to accept it fully. There is a deeply personal dimension involved with grasping and living within this world view, for it involves acknowledging our own individual dependence on God as his creatures, our own individual rebellion against God and our own individual reliance on God for restoration to fellowship with him... To be a Christian theist... leads to an examined life that is well worth living." (Pg. 213-214)

The persistence of this book into a 5th edition is eloquent testimony to its continuing relevance to Christians looking at the world and people around themselves.

This modest-sized book is presented as concise descriptions of several worldviews and related thinking, those being Christian Theism, Deism, Naturalism, Nihilism, Existentialism, Eastern Pantheistic Monism (Hinduism), New Ageism, and Postmodernism. The basics of worldviews are: "the nature and character of ultimate reality, the nature of the universe, the nature of humanity and what happens at death, the basis of human knowing and ethics, and the meaning of history." The book is not as impartial in its consideration of the worldviews as might be expected for a catalog; the book slants characterizations of the worldviews based on the standard of Christian Theism.

The basic tenets of Christian Theism are well known in the US: "God is infinite and personal, transcendent and immanent, omniscient, sovereign and good." He is self-conscious, thinks, and acts, and therefore, since humans are created in the image of God, they possess personality, morality, and creativity, capable, according to the author, of transcending the cosmos. This set of beliefs is accepted unquestionably, despite the fact that there is no credible evidence that any of the suppositions are anything other than the product of enterprising minds. See postmodernism below.

The principle challenge to theism since the Enlightenment has come from naturalism. The ultimate reality for naturalists is the physical universe - that is, matter with physical and chemical properties. There is no supernatural realm of a creator God - only matter exists. Humans have evolved to become the most complex living species in the universe, yet their actions, thoughts, and personalities are all ultimately based on highly complex chemical and physical processes. They do not transcend the universe, but are an integral part of it.

Human beings, from the naturalist perspective, are not the robotic, mechanical creatures that theists contend. In their view, humans can hardly rely upon a hypothetical God to reveal moral values and ethical behavior. Such concepts have to be constructed with real-world considerations as the only guide; their decisions are ultimately judged by how well they sustain the survival and well-being of mankind. Though human actions most certainly have antecedent causes, it certainly seems that humans do exercise choice and responsibility within the naturalistic framework.

There have been any number of reactions to the basic implication of naturalism: that God is dead. Nihilism is the reaction of despair to the absence of transcendent meaning in the world, which can take the form of a variety of psychotic behaviors. Existentialism seeks to transcend nihilism by positing a physical world of inexorability and a subjective, but free, world of the mind. But a burden is placed on humans to create themselves. The authentic person must revolt against the alien, absurd objective world and create value. Choice becomes an ethical good in and of itself. Fortunately, real-world naturalist systems of laws and social standards enforce ethical standards.

The New Age reaction to naturalism places ultimate reality within each individual person - he or she becomes God. A consciousness is emphasized that transcends the limitations of time, space, and conventional morality. Somewhat like existentialism, two worlds are envisaged: the visible universe and the invisible accessible only through altered states of consciousness. Since the self is God, ethics is relative only to a person. New Age philosophy accepts each person's perceived world as equally valid - beyond criticism. Each person is the sole judge of whether his or her system works. As the author points out, this is a form of epistemological nihilism: there is no non-relative reality. Many view New Age philosophy as a form of megalomania.

Eastern, pantheistic monism holds that one infinite, impersonal element constitutes reality - that is, God. God is the cosmos and each person is God - nothing exists that is not God. Contrary to theism, human beings in their essence - their truest, fullest being - are impersonal. To realize one's oneness with the cosmos is to pass beyond knowledge and beyond good and evil - the cosmos is perfect at every moment. The main road to oneness requires quiet and solitude, enhanced by chanting an intellectually contentless word such as "Om." The self-effacement of Eastern thought is barely comprehensible to Westerners who assume complex self-aware and self-determining personalities.

Postmodernism is not so much a worldview as it is a critique of those who try to construct a worldview. Postmodernists contend that reality, truth, ethics, etc are basically unknowable; they are only constructs of language which is no more than the expression of the current regime of power. Human beings are in fact constructs of language, which is an existentialist view. The social good is whatever those who wield power in society choose to make it.

The author takes postmodernism mainly to be a criticism of the modernist concept of naturalism which is primarily based on human reason and rationality. However, it is hardly conceivable that a worldview that is based on a transcendent God, where humans are made in the image of God and justice is divinely revealed would or should escape a postmodernist analysis. It's hard to imagine a philosophy that is more likely to invoke the postmodern contention that meta-narratives are at best an illusion.

The author does not suggest that he fully captures all of the subtleties of the worldviews that he chooses to explicate. Instead of the agenda of discrediting the thinking of modernist naturalists, a more fruitful direction would have been to assess all worldviews in general including the theistic. One does not have to be a giant of perception to appreciate that it is science and reason that have revealed the modern world in all of its complexity. It is the world that all people actually live in, work in, communicate in, etc. Despite incomplete understanding, it is not an illusory world - a world of only bogus constructions. Human society would have collapsed long ago from the sheer weight of any such widespread fantasies. It is clearly ironic that theism, New Ageism, and postmodernism construct supernatural or subjective worldviews, knowing full well that there is a real world based on human reason and understanding to depend on.

Postmodernism has legitimacy in its corrective to the notion that human thought and action is entirely straightforward. Power does dictate the shape of human societies and the language used to describe such societies. Yet that power can be analyzed by those willing to dig beyond the propaganda. The fact that such power is wielded does not translate into a contention that an unknowable, transcendent God somehow provides a frame of reference for understanding or even living in our world. Genuine knowledge may be hard to come by, but escaping into the supernatural or worlds of fantasy will hardly work. The author unwittingly makes the case for naturalism being the only worldview that has even the remotest chance of maintaining human society, though that is an unfinished task. Unfortunately, naturalists are placed in the position of having to provide the foundation to support those who engage in non-rational, even delusional, prescriptions.

Contrary to some, it was not expected that a "catalog" of worldviews would be an apologetic for Christian theism. Nonetheless, the book is thought provoking.

In his book, The Universe Next Door, Sire evaluated basic worldviews in light of basic questions concerning reality, human existence, human understanding of truth and morality, as well as the meaning of human history. (Sire, 20) At the end of his book, Sire stated that an adopted world view should possess following characteristics:
* Internal consistency, inner intellectual coherence.
* Adequate handling of data, able to comprehend the data of reality.
* Should explain what it claims to explain.
* Subjectively satisfactory, by being true. It must meet our sense of personal need.
Sire used the three areas of metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology to portray theism as a complete worldview. He then expressed his views of deism, naturalism, nihilism, existentialism, eastern pantheism, western pantheism, and postmodernism.

Overall, Sire's statements concerning the relationship between faith and reason seem to be inconsistent.
Although I agree with Sire that theism is a complete worldview, there are many Christians holding a theistic worldview who advocate faith contrary to reason. This common misunderstanding of the relationship between faith and reason undermines the credibility of Christianity, especially in academic circles.
Overall, Sire's view of the relationship between faith and reason seems contradictory and confuses his reader. Nevertheless, due to Sire's analysis of various worldviews, I would recommend his book to others.

I read the 4th edition of this book and I really enjoyed it. Even though the author writes about complicated matters the language he uses is not boring. Of course, his descriptions of the worldviews are simplified but I would not join some reviewers in their critique of that point. After all, those who are hungry for more can always read a specific book on let's say Naturalism.

Last week I purchased this 5th edition of the book (paperback) and ... I was really disappointed due to the poor quality of print. Guys from the IVP, what's going on? The print is not black enough, blurry, and small. And the footnotes are virtually unreadable! My advise is: if you want to damage your eyes, read this book! I'm going to stick to my 4th edition which when it comes to print is way superior!

James W. Sire’s The Universe Next Door takes the reader through an explanation of the nine most popular and prevalent worldviews of the modern age: Christian theism, deism, naturalism, nihilism, existentialism, eastern pantheistic monism, the New Age movement, postmodernism and Islamic theism.
Sire begins his exploration through these nine worldviews by first defining what a worldview truly is. “A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions that we hold about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being,” (Sire, 20). James Sire creates eight ‘worldview questions’ in The Universe Next Door to better explore the worldviews he presents. Some of these questions include: what is prime reality, what is a human being and what happens to a person at death. Sire takes these questions and with each introduction of a new worldview, answers the questions through the eyes of someone who holds that worldview. Not every question, however, is answered for every worldview due to the way each is orientated. Also, each question is not answered in a specific order. The questions are answered in relation to the importance the answers have to the people that hold that worldview, if the questions pertain to the worldview at all.
Sire does a commendable job trying to make each worldview comprehensible for the reader, explaining the intricacies in such a way that can be understood. However, because each worldview cannot be formatted in the same fashion, it can be difficult to follow and understand the belief systems of each worldview in turn.
James Sire identifies himself as a follower of Christian theism within the first chapter of the book. He explains that, no matter how subtle, bias is easily woven into any explanation. He does, though, give an image of each worldview to the reader without showcasing his own worldview.
The Universe Next Door is a distinguished source of information for readers who are interested in analyzing other worldviews. Sire presents a thorough explanation of eight common worldviews of the modern time and shows why people follow them and how their belief changes how they perceive the world. The inconsistency in structure, though unavoidable, can make each worldview difficult to grasp because each can be very different from the last. Sire’s scholar’s vocabulary also forces the reader to pay close attention to ensure complete comprehension of his intent.

The Universe Next Door
James W. Sire
This review is on the Second Edition of the book, copyright 1988. That being the case there may be major changes in the book that address some current trends in worldviews (I hope that's actually the case).

What's the Point of The Book?
To give us a basic overview and introduction to several worldviews beginning from the author's own worldview (Christian Theism) all the way through the New Age Movement. The author is not trying to indoctrinate us in every point found in the worldview or even the major divisions throughout but he wishes to underscore some major features and question some major problems.

The Good
This is tough because it could also be a "bad" and only that because of the date of the original publication (1976). The meat of the book comes in 219 pages with bibliographical notes that bring the count up to 241 (The remaining 5 pages are devoted to the index). Those biographical notes are a godsend for anyone wanting to dig further into the material and are stated as such by the author. This edition actually features a much appreciated rewrite of the New Age movement section in light of how much has happened from 76 to 88. The worldviews are given pretty fair treatment considering what the author is doing (overview and not in-depth apologetics). The language is fitting with the subject and as worldviews grow increasingly complex the author stands with that view and exposes us to the language being used.

The Bad
The theistic section should have covered different theistic worldviews. I know his purpose was to give an overview and finally summarize how each of these fall short but by ignoring alternate theisms he doesn't really underscore how Christian Theism stands out. In this book it seems that it's either Christian Theism or Naturalism and all that grows out of that. Failing to mention, say Islamic Theism, is a huge oversight and one that can leave the reader saying "fine, naturalism is wacky but why not believe in {X Creator God} instead of the Christian God?" I also think that the nihilism section may have consisted of some ungrounded generalizations for instance he opens that chapter with "Nihilism is more a feeling than a philosophy. Strictly speaking, nihilism is not a philosophy at all." After this he proceeds to show how nihilism leads to despair and despair is the teaching of nihilism that grows out of a naturalistic framework. If he established it up front I wouldn't be as critical.

The Ugly
The cover illustration is dated but that is to be expected with a 1988 title. The book could have been longer and still accomplished its overview goal while simultaneously shedding some light on alternate worldviews.

Star Rating
All my remarks aside, I still think this book is well worth reading as an introduction into worldviews and understanding that the author doesn't intend for the book to do any more. I would warn the reader that the section on Eastern Pantheistic Monism is utterly confusing and demands a second and third reading but that is no fault of the author. Some of the things being dealt with in that philosophy are so outside Westerners' thinking that he or she may have to saturate themselves with the words so as to understand what is wrong with them.

From the reviews I've read, some readers want this book to be something it's not. I'm much more excited about what it uniquely is: a brief overview of various philosophies (usually embodied in religions) about what's going on.

James Sire was head of InterVarsity Press, which was/ is? related to Britain's SCM Press, and which is related to InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, an evangelical student organization which exists on many college campuses. Right out of the box Sire tips his hand, revealing his own views (as opposed to those books where the author covertly tries to influence the reader). On the other hand, those looking for an apologetics book in support of the Christian world view will be disappointed (there are plenty of other books that take that tack and fill that niche for the enquiring reader).

What it is: an admirable if brief overview of comparative religions, which is to say how various people at various times have posed and answered (or theorized) about what seem to be perennial human questions. At the beginning of his book Mind and Nature, Gregory Bateson tells how his father would read the Bible at breakfast every morning so his kids wouldn't grow up to be "empty-headed atheists". Sire's book, on the other hand, will help readers not to be "empty-headed believers".

Sire took his title from a line from E.E. Cummings: "There's a hell of a good universe next door; let's go. I took my title from a Cat Stevens song. The searchin' 'sixties are over, someone may object, but what goes around comes around, and in our present age of non-meaning (nihilism), many seem again on the road to find out.

There are a number of reviewers who are under the impression that the only way to write a world-view catalog is from an objective position which has no bias at all.
This is unfortunate, because the book tries to show us how everyone has a presuppositional bias: there is no objective middle ground from which to weigh up the others.

This was required reading as a theology student, and I found it useful. His 7 questions are powerful and useful in deconstructing longer texts, but other sets of questions are more useful and easily deployed in analyzing world-views on a regular basis, such
1) what is my relationship to creation in this view
2) what is my relationship to other people in this view
3) what is my relationship to God in this view.

Another useful one is
1) What is the problem
2) What can save us/them from the problem
3) What does the world look like once it is saved?

Personally, I found it helpful to realize that not everyone thinks like me, and to use this book as a very useful quick guide to the way others may think. Of course he generalizes. Of course he is simplistic. But he is also helpful.

I recommend.
To those who criticize this book as validating Christians in their blinkered view, I suggest finding a different book to validate them in theirs. But isn't that rather Sire's point about us all having a world-view based on a series of assumptions which may or may not stack up?

In The Universe Next Door, author James Sire discusses the eight main worldviews that are held by different individuals in the twentieth century and then provides seven basic yet probative questions to help the reader recognize the primary presuppositions that underlie each main belief system. Further discussion is provided to help the reader analyze the cohesiveness and validity of each worldview presented. The history of each worldview is discussed in great detail so that the reader can see the progression of each view, why it arose and what events led to its overall acceptance or denial among the masses. Mr. Sire then compares and contrasts each worldview with others mentioned in the book, evaluating each worldview in turn. The emphasis is on awareness and understanding, encouraging the reader to become more consciously aware of what they believe, why they believe what they do, and how this belief colors the way they view life. The book concludes with a detailed chapter, entitled, "The Examined Life" that summarizes the basic points made throughout the book and then provides tools intended to help the leader choose the most logical, cohesive and consistent worldview.

Overall, the Universe Next Door is a very thorough, and yet manageable, discussion of the eight (or six, depending on how once classifies the material) main belief systems that exist in today's culture. Presented in a somewhat relaxed manner, the language used by Mr. Sire ensures understandability and readability, successfully moving difficult philosophical topics out of the university classroom and placing them in the hands of the layman. Because each worldview is discussed in relation to the six main questions presented at the beginning of the book, analysis of all views is both easy and consistent.

Written more as an informative discussion, the author's views, when present, are subdued. The emphasis is not on demonstrating the validity of one worldview over another but instead, in looking at the overall cohesiveness and non-contradictory nature of each worldview in turn. The reader is then left to make their own evaluation based on the information given.

Review provided by Jennifer Slattery, author of Shatterproof: Developing A Faith That Stands and Journey To The Ice

This book entails an easy to follow general overview of what the author breaks down as eight ideologies of the twentieth century and how they may evolve beyond. Religion and ideologies are no vacuum by any means and they are always changing, but inevitably taking much time to become integrated within the culture.
The right ideologies the author expresses in this book- which are difficult to quantify- are Christian theism, deism, naturalism, nihilism, existentialism, eastern pantheistic monism, the new age, and postmodernism.
This book made for a gripping read.

Well, organized, brief, fairly well balanced, I've read this book twice cover to cover and referred to it a hundred times by page and a thousand times in conversation.

It's one of the most referenced books in my library.

Practical use: that's the best recommendation I can think of.

Some say it's too Christian oriented; while, others say it's not enough. Every writer comes with bias, and the author clearly states his own, while making a conscious effort of avoiding inserting his own bias. What more could you ask?

My only complaint is that it treats each world view too briefly, but again, to make each section longer would just make the BOOK longer, and therefore reduce readability.

Everytime I think of a criticsm of this book, I can't think of any beter way to do it.

If you're Christian, this book will reinforce your beliefs by explaining to you how Christian theism is a truly complete and fully rational world view. A full faith buy-in is required regarding by-the-book Christianity for this to work, Sire explains. He then goes on to explain to you what is missing and/or wrong about other major modern world views.

Likewise, if you're not Christian, this book will also make you feel quite good about your world view. How's that? It's because Sire, who is held in high regard as a Christian scientist, will attempt to explain to you why your more modern world view (as compared to a traditional theistic Christian belief in god) inevitably leads you to Nihilism and an inability to deal with modern life. But how could that be? Because, Sire claims, without a belief in an outside god your life is ultimately directionless, morality and ethics do not exist in your godless universe, which Sire refers to as a "closed system." Without belief in a god who dwells outside of the rules of physics, life as a human is not special or meaningful in itself, humankind cannot be heading toward any particular goal, and finally the best of all -- you cannot be sure you truly know anything, i.e. you have no epistemological basis for believing in any facts whatsoever. Sire would say that the fact that you believe you are reading a real review of a book that exists, proves that you do not truly believe there is no higher power. Now, as a reader you man think, "but I am not a nihilist and I don't believe in a theistic Christian world view." Sire will go on to inform you that the only reason for this is that you are not leading an examined life, not being truthful with yourself. This is just in the beginning few chapters of the book, it goes on from there.

It's a shame that Sire can't write in a less biased manner, he is obviously a brilliant and well read philosopher who had potential for reaching out beyond a Christian audience. The absurdity of Sire's breakdown of non-Christian world views is unfortunate and demonstrates a general lack of respect for them as there can be little doubt that Sire is fully capable of understanding them and discussing them in a reasonable manner. That all said, Sire cannot possibly expect anyone who is not fully Christian to view his work with any great deal of respect if they actually purchased this book with the hope of learning something.

Honestly, I did learn from this book, however, the majority of what I learned was how a hardcore Christian philosopher explains away competing beliefs and world views using bias and spectacular leaps of logic. Sire's purpose for this book, to some degree or another, is obviously to convince people to accept a theistic Christian world view, but despite his contention that most people who do not believe in the Christian god are nihilistic or not truly examining their lives, you actually come away with the feeling that Sire is working very hard to convince himself of theism but isn't quite sure of himself...for otherwise why would he not give the other competing world views a fair shake?

If you want to learn about philosophy, this is not the book for you (unless you want a biased Christian version of philosophy). If you are Christian and want someone to pat you on the back and reinforce your views, press the "add to cart" button now.

Final thought -- someone should write a similar but better and unbiased book for a general audience, as there is obviously interest in the subject. If you know of such a book, please post its title in a comment.

It seems that the reviews here have turned more into an open forum than an effort at objective reviewing. As a Calvinist I found this book excellent. The various world views are given a brief overview from a Christian perspective. In his critiques Sire's point is that there is only one world view that is able to answer all the questions he postulates. His questions do not deal with "I" because he does not see himself as the center of creation. Eventually all world views must admit some sort of origin, which is why all questions necessarily lead back to a Creator.

For the Christian, this book is an excellent overview of varying world views.

For those who are not Christians, this book gives a good understanding of how Scripture relates to and answers the challenges of each of these world views.

In this Sire has accomplished his purpose. Five big fat stars.

This book was basic for my understanding how and why humans are able to comprehend their experience of existence. To each his own, but I didn't find this book's relatively few pages tedious or 'wordy' at all. As well, I've noted this work used as a source for a good # of other books relating to the subject of "world views." In my estimation it's a 'classic' on the subject. After reading this at least 2x (underlining it heavily), I've found a need for no other work on this subject.

This is a book that I would not normally read, but it was required reading for a Worldviews course I took at Colorado Christian University. The basics of the following eight worldviews are explained:

A. Christian theism
B. deism
C. naturalism
D. nihilism
E. existentialism
F. Eastern pantheistic monism
G. New Age philosophy
H. postmodernism

We need to know what our worldview is as well as the worldview of others. Examining our thoughts and behaviors helps us to understand ourselves and communicate with those around us. To not evaluate how and why we think and act the way we do is simply foolish. What is our purpose? What happens to us after we die? How do we know what is right and wrong? These are some of the vital questions that we must tackle that are addressed in this book. I am thankful that this book was assigned to my class.

This book helped me when I first started my philosophical investigations back in 2009. I would recommend it, even though now I know that worldview theory leads to never-ending debates of who has the true outlook on reality (and skepticism). Just watch debates between such nominalist Christians as W.L.Craig and likewise nominalist atheists, which only convince the already converted. Or debates between Islamic apologists whose epistemology is based on Mohammed's 'ideas', and evangelical Christian apologists who, whether they know it or not, are based on Lockean epistemology; he may have been the first in the West (bar Plato) to postulate "ideas" between us and reality (nowadays the word used is "concepts")

Perhaps aware of this issue, Sire made the analogy between a glove (worldview) and a hand (reality): if that glove does not fit the hand, then it's a false worldview. A problem with this analogy is that its epistemology is Kantian; reality is filtered through the worldview; circular reasoning. But the biggest problem is that worldview theory masks the true motives (both bad and good) behind the cloak of 'concepts'.

So what's the solution? Going back to an epistemology that accounts for a direct knowledge of reality, as well as an explicit acknowledgement of human powers of rationalizing away our better judgements -- some for less than benign goals, others in deference to authority. Aristetolean/ Aquinas's empirical epistemology (not the same as empiricist) which postulates forms' being extracted by the knowing subject from particular situations and 'essences' underlying those 'forms' ('information' is the 21st century equivalent). In other words, the intellect extracts 'information' and then does something with it.

But perhaps more importantly, we need academic openness into human true motives when they follow the dictates of some 'worldview'. To be fair, Sire has pointed out elsewhere that worldview theory does not reach to the heart of the matter (pun intended).

Mr. Sires provides a methodical examination of common worldviews. Regardless of your background, it provides an examination worth considering. Another reviewer comments that Mr. Sires takes unfounded leaps of faith, and yet the reviewer provides no basis for his opinion. The reviewer states the Mr. Sires is biased. So what? Truth is inherently biased, and truth is certainly a good thing! If the logic is good, and the logic points to a particular conclusion, the the conclusion is good. Bias is neither good or bad. Really, the question is, "are the statements true?" And if they are true, are we willing to examine our own biases to see if they are based on a solid foundation or bias?

If you're expecting an unbiased, basic explanation of worldviews as he indicated in his introduction, think again. He presents other worldviews, then bashes them in his conclusion, explaining that Christian Theism is the only "logical" way to go. What's curious is the fact that he doesn't place his own worldview under the same scrutiny as he placed others.

I'm ok with what he has written IF he had entitled it something like "Guide for Christian Apologetics: proof we're right". It's so annoying that this is presented as objective information...this'll be great kindling for my next fire, though.

Since the late 1970s, I have taught this book, in all of its editions, to graduates and undergraduates. While I was in college, it helped me get grounded in the basic philosophical options for metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics: that is in worldviews. This conceptual category (worldview) is neutral with respect to rational engagement of the various philosophies and religions. It simply allows you to organize their truth claims rationally and to consider testing them rationally.

Sire is a Christian and commends Christianity, but he is imminently fair to views he explicates but does not endorse. Further, he is a masterly clear and clever writer, who meticulously documents his sources. Fine companion books to The Universe Next Door is Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There and Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth, among dozens of others.

Mr.Sire's book is exactly what it claims to be; a basic worldview catalog. It is well written and covers its topic nicely. His points are not always fully fleshed out, but that is expected for a brief work on such a broad topic. If interested, one should take Mr. Sire's advice and dig deeper into the subject.

To me, Sire spent too much time trying to interpret worldviews rather than letting them speak for themselves. He is an intellectual, which is nice, but his generalizations felt a bit too prevalent. I would recommend something by Ravi Zacharias if you're looking for a less in-your-face approach to worldviews presented by a Christian author. I hope he revises this book and tones down the rhetoric, as it does contain some redeeming material.

James Sire's book "The Universe Next Door" is absolutely essential to understanding people's ways of looking at the world. Keep in mind that this book only deals with Western thought, so it's not completely exhaustive. Sire outlines the points of each chapter very well, but sometimes the thoughts themselves are hard to comprehend at first read. If you want to get everything out of this book, you're going to have to devote your complete attention to it. Highly recommeneded.

This book is based with Christian Theism as the primary world view and all other world views are critiqued against it. While the book does have a great deal of information on various world views, it assumes that all other options are inferior to the author's personal world view.

The author is unable to correspond other world view concepts to his own in a comparative manner, as if God and all spiritual concepts were recently invented by Christians. In Chapter 7 (Eastern Pantheistic Monism), the author is so perplexed by the urreligion of Hinduism that he cannot even explain the simplest concepts with any manner of authority. In Chapter 8 (The New Age - Spirituality without Religion), Sire delves into the most fringe figures, and highlights quotes from Shirley MacLain, while entering into a superficial overview of the concepts.

If you are looking for a book that tells you how superior the Christian Theistic world view is in superficial relation to other world views, then this is the book for you. If you are looking for a serious work on world views, then pick up "Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of Human Beliefs" by Ninian Smart. Better yet, read sacred texts from other world views and compare them for yourself.

This book presents itself as a "basic worldview catalog." While it does cover many of the major themes it is heavily tainted by the authors inability to see things from anything but a Christian perspective.

A quote from the end of the book says it all in my mind: "In terms of possible worldviews, our options are numerous but, as we have seen, limited. Of those we have investigated, all but theism were found to have serious flaws."

While no worldview is perfect, to not see the flaws in theism requires a very blinkered view of the world and this shows its self again and again through the book.

If you want to read something that tells you why Christianity is the best worldview there is - go ahead and buy it. If you want something more objective I would look elsewhere.

If you are a Christian (in the Western tradition) and you want to reinforce what you already believe, by all means get this book and be happily naive. This will supply you with trite arguments against misrepresented belief systems that you can use to witness to unbelievers. (Atheism is wrong because it says there is no God- You can use the author's tactics against montheism.) However, if like me, you are disenchanted with contemporary Christianity and want to seriously explore/understand other worldviews, this is not for you. I give it two stars because the author was open about his bias.

This is a great book. It clearly outlines the major world-views as well as presenting the importance of world views in coloring the lens through which we see the world. It is very readable and insightful. Highly recommended.

I had to read this book for a Worldview class at Dallas Baptist University. The goal of my class was supposedly for me to establish my worldview and develop an understanding around my reasons for believing as I do. I would have enjoyed the book much more if Sire had attempted to truly take an unbiased look at other worldviews. The tone is almost always preachy and arrogant against all views except Theism. It's no surprise to anyone with half a brain which worldview he subscribes to (hint...it's the one he doesn't make weak, circular arguments about and attempt to drag through the mud). I don't know if I'm more disappointed in the book or in my school for making me read this with the supposed intention of understanding my belief system. I found this book to be a waste of time and no help at all to anyone who really wants to examine their worldview. If you are a Christian looking for someone to validate you in a half-baked manner, this is the book for you.

Picking up this book in the philosophy section of a bookstore, I was excited to see a book that would summarize several worldviews in order to begin my own trek into philosophy. I was encouraged by the author's introduction, promising "to suggest [each worldview's] strengths and weaknesses." Unfortunately, this book failed to live up to my expectations. Theism only gets a thumbs up, and no weakness are admitted in that "complete worldview". Each and every other one is portrayed as having no truth whatsoever; he concedes no truth to any of the others. I am currently in process of getting a refund for this book.

I initially didn't read this book for one of my classes at college. It was annoying to read, so I didn't complete it. Then I went to a different college where they assigned this book a second time. While some people may have taken it as a sign that this book should be read, I am not one of those people. I "read" this a while ago, so I can't give details as to why I did not like it, but please know that this semi-nerdy 20 year old hated it.

I was subjected to this book as part of a mandatory "Developing a Christian Mind" class at DBU. The professor was amazing, I loved her to death, but the class was overly biased in favor of Christian theism and this book matched its goals.

The author hardly gets things right, at all. He characterizes Buddhism as being cold and apathetic, since their doctrine recommends you "detach" and view "life as pain". This totally ignores the Buddhistic view that life is nondualistic, this pain and pleasure are two sides of the same coin. It also betrays a lack of understanding about what "detatch" means, a concept which is better translated as "relax".

As other reviews have pointed out, when the author reviews other philosophies he uses basically nothing but negative information and attacks. When he gets to Christianity, there is no examination of Christianity's serious problems, just gloss and confetti.

This book is terrible.

In my opinion, this book is rambling and poorly written. In general, the information is interesting, but the author seems to ramble in his writing, starting a thought and not seeming to finish it. He uses poorly constructed sentences, many of them not even true sentences with subjects and verbs but phrases. That makes the material difficult to read. He also seems to be trying to impress by using "big" words where simpler ones would work just as well and get his point across better. The only reason I bought this book is because it is required for a class. I agree with other reviewers who found this author close minded.

I was very intrigued by this book when reading a review on a very trustworthy Christian bookstore website (Discerning Reader). I must say that while the presentations of most of the worldviews discussed are fairly good to very good overviews, the Christian theism that Sire expresses is the God-dishonoring open theism that has nearly stripped American Christianity of its power and meaning. He repeatedly says that God intervenes in history, but that nothing is determined. That is horribly wrong on so many levels that I can't even bring myself to call what is represented as Christian theism as even being truly Christian. We are shown throughout Scripture that things from the way and people saved are pre-determined, the death/burial/resurrection was pre-determined etc. and yet Sire not only doesn't touch on these issues, he universally dismisses the entire possibility of them. I would strongly recommend that any Christian wanting to understand the basis for their faith to steer clear of this unfathomably heretical work.

If you're looking for an objective and unbiased catalog of world views, this is not it.

The author, who is a Christian, begins by outlining Christian theism. Of all the world views in the book, it is the only one he does not criticize, and he continues to talk about it throughout the book. He points out all the flaws he personally finds in every other belief system, then ends by telling the reader that Christianity is the best choice out of all of them. The logic he presents is so flawed that I'm surprised it holds up in anyone's view, including the author's.

Since the author is so clearly biased, I do not trust the accuracy of the information he has given. I would definitely opt for another, more objectively presented book instead.

If you're Christian, this book will reinforce your beliefs by explaining to you how Christian theism is a truly complete and fully rational world view. A full faith buy-in is required regarding by-the-book Christianity for this to work, Sire explains. He then goes on to explain to you what is missing and/or wrong about other major modern world views.

Likewise, if you're not Christian, this book will also make you feel quite good about your world view. How's that? It's because Sire, who is held in high regard as a Christian philosopher, will attempt to explain to you why your more modern world view (as compared to a traditional theistic Christian belief in god) inevitably leads you to Nihilism and an inability to deal with modern life. But how could that be? Because, Sire claims, without a belief in an outside god your life is ultimately directionless, morality and ethics do not exist in your godless universe, which Sire refers to as a "closed system." Without belief in a god who dwells outside of the rules of physics, life as a human is not special or meaningful in itself, humankind cannot be heading toward any particular goal, and finally the best of all -- you cannot be sure you truly know anything, i.e. you have no epistemological basis for believing in any facts whatsoever. Sire would say that the fact that you believe you are reading a real review of a book that exists, proves that you do not truly believe there is no higher power. Now, as a reader you man think, "but I am not a nihilist and I don't believe in a theistic Christian world view." Sire will go on to inform you that the only reason for this is that you are not leading an examined life, not being truthful with yourself. This is just in the beginning few chapters of the book, it goes on from there.

It's a shame that Sire can't write in a less biased manner, he is obviously a brilliant and well read philosopher who had potential for reaching out beyond a Christian audience. The absurdity of Sire's breakdown of non-Christian world views is unfortunate and demonstrates a general lack of respect for them as there can be little doubt that Sire is fully capable of understanding them and discussing them in a reasonable manner. That all said, Sire cannot possibly expect anyone who is not fully Christian to view his work with any great deal of respect if they actually purchased this book with the hope of learning something.

Honestly, I did learn from this book, however, the majority of what I learned was how a hardcore Christian philosopher explains away competing beliefs and world views using bias and spectacular leaps of logic. Sire's purpose for this book, to some degree or another, is obviously to convince people to accept a theistic Christian world view, but despite his contention that most people who do not believe in the Christian god are nihilistic or not truly examining their lives, you actually come away with the feeling that Sire is working very hard to convince himself of theism but isn't quite sure of himself...for otherwise why would he not give the other competing world views a fair shake?

If you want to learn about philosophy, this is not the book for you (unless you want a biased Christian version of philosophy). If you are Christian and want someone to pat you on the back and reinforce your views, press the "add to cart" button now.

Final thought -- someone should write a similar but better and unbiased book for a general audience, as there is obviously interest in the subject. If you know of such a book, please post its title in a comment.

* edited - changed the word "scientist" to "philosopher"

This book is offered as a textbook to give college students the opportunity to explore various worldviews. Sire admits some bias toward his Christian Fundamentalist views, but claims he will attempt to repress them in the interest of fairness. Sire emphasizes that the book isn't meant as a decree of his personal worldview. Reading past the first chapter proves otherwise.
Sire is the living, breathing antithesis of the term "impartial". The book's alleged premise is a smokescreen. Its true objective being to convert young readers to his warped, narrow version of Christianity. Though initially skeptical of the author's ability to be objective, in light of his religious convictions, I determined to keep an open mind and trust that Sire, as a professed Christian, possessed intellectual integrity. Honesty is one of the main tenets of the religion, after all. Reading beyond the introduction brought me back to reality. The first chapter,(Christian) Theism, is given preferential treatment, understandably. If I were writing a book on various belief systems, I wouldn't honestly be able to avoid presenting my own in a positive light. Sire stated in the introduction, however, each worldview would include a description of its strengths and weaknesses. Interestingly, no "weaknesses" in theism are mentioned. His bias gradually progresses from tepid criticism to total vilification of the "absurd" world views that conflict with his own. His arguments are not only invalid, but snide and arrogant, weakening his stance, word by patronizing word. He uses psychological manipulation to instill spiritual panic in the reader from the start. Sire writes "those who do not have faith in the...Lord...must feel - alienation, loneliness, even despair" and "...the loss of a center to life [God] is like the chasm in the heart of a child whose father has died." He clearly insinuates the tragic fate of the reader witless enough to reject Christian Theism. His words "...we live either the examined or the unexamined life...the examined life is better" epitomize his hypocrisy. It is soon apparent he hasn't researched the worldviews he presents. He doesn't want readers to thoughtfully examine issues of consciousness, rather follow his lead...to the letter. His certitude in the authenticity of his worldview falters as he denies its vulnerabilities, its contradictions. Sire refers to disagreements in the early Church as "family squabbles." Historians take a slightly stronger view. What Sire flippantly refers to as "family squabbles" were used to justify the torture and execution of countless people, Christian and otherwise. To list all examples of exaggeration, distortion, and haphazard research, would require a book in itself. Therefore follows a scattering of the book's myriad sins.
Deism, given a generous evaluation compared to other views, writes Sire, is a "reduction" in theism, implying inferiority. "A deeper study of the deists would...lead to the conclusion that they were simply inconsistent and didn't realize it." Apparently men like Locke, Jefferson, Lincoln, Voltaire, and Tennyson did not have the mental capacity to realize the inconsistency of their worldview. Sire then attempts to explain naturalism, claiming it to be a step toward nihilism. Subsequent worldviews are declared progressive shifts away from God, toward nihilism. As Deism originated in Theism, then Theism itself, as a matter of course, must then be the origin of nihilism. Sire, however, fails to make this connection.
Sire refers to Christian ethics as "traditional morality", the source of all modern values. In truth, most of the stories contained in the Bible are revisions of stories written thousands of years before. The Ten Commandments were taken from the Law Code of King Hammurabi. "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself", was a teaching of Confucius - five hundred years before Jesus preached the Golden Rule. The chapter on nihilism contains the most laughable fallacy. Sire suggests parallels between Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and nihilism. Adams was an atheist, not a nihilist. Sire refers to the characters' search for the "Ultimate Question of Life", answered by a supercomputer as "42." A new quest to find the ultimate question answered by "42", results in "What is 6x9?" Thus, Sire goes on to declare that "the most rational discipline in the universe [mathematics] has been reduced to absurdity." With a modicum of research he would have discovered that 6 x 9 at base 13, rather than the conventional base 10, indeed equals 42. Sire states that "to read....Douglas Adams is to begin to feel....the pangs of human emptiness, of life that is without value...purpose ...meaning..." Quite the opposite, Adams' British satirical look at modernity has a large, diverse, and emotionally stable fan base.
Particularly offensive is his suggestion that the supposed nihilistic worldviews of Nietzsche and Ernest Hemingway brought about their insanity and deaths. Modern scholars attribute Nietzsche's mental illness to syphilis, cancer or brain degeneration. Hemingway, a severe alcoholic suffering from bipolar disease, had a family history of suicide. It would have been surprising if he had not taken his life. Neither man was a nihilist, as a real research would have shown. The description of Eastern Pantheistic Monism is full of inconsistencies. He refers to Zen Buddhism as a monistic religion. It is non-theistic. Buddha taught that the path to enlightenment was found in the self, rather than external gods. The New Age movement is treated as though it is one collective acid trip. He presupposes that all students of New Ageism subscribe to uniform beliefs. An exploration of New Ageism cannot at once be so narrowly condensed and taken seriously. The connection he makes between the New Age movement and drug use is intentionally misleading, intended to prevent the reader from doing their own research. His treatment of Postmodernism is similar. A single chapter on Postmodern thought cannot scratch the surface of this enormously multifaceted philosophical body. Once again, Sire illustrates the pseudo research that formed the basis for this book.
Sire's book is little more than the immature ranting of a small minded evangelist, so incapable of genuinely defending his beliefs, he resorts to trite, invalid arguments with irrational leaps from statement to conclusion. His position would have been credible and better reached its intended audience, had he portrayed the contrasting worldviews honestly and fairly. Presenting his subject objectively, without disguising it as a dispassionate survey would have merited a more positive review. I would have no grounds for this strong objection to this book and its author had it been upfront about its theme - a dissertation on Christian fundamentalism's superiority as a world view and its uncompromising truth. Sire has no less right than anyone to express his views freely, whatever they may be. It would be undefensable to state otherwise. However, Sire's work is no more than a deceitful sermon incognito admonishing and attempting to discredit any opposition, regardless of how remote, to Christian Fundamentalism. Ironically, I will close with Sire's own words. It is indeed "not what you say you believe, but how you act you believe" that is your true worldview.

The author openly admits he is a Theist, discusses Theism. So far, he's doing fine. Then, he lays out several goals for what he feels a good worldview should be. Still doing fine....Until he subjects every world view mentioned to scrutiny EXCEPT Theism.

His goal is not to catalog other worldviews, but to attempt to disprove them. He does this by presenting the work of 2 philosophers within each religion/world-view whose beliefs about the religion's details are juxtaposed. He then says 'you can't have it both ways, so this worldview must be false'. Because of course there are no contradictions between the works of different Christian Theists, right??

Even the wording has a subtle tone of 'otherness' when speaking about non-Theistic world views: using words like "they", whereas he used "we" when discussing Theism. Other worldviews are presented as beliefs, while Theistic beliefs about the world are worded as if they are fact.

PS: Other things he does that pissed me off:

1) Says the New Age movement is fueled entirely by illegal drug use.

2) Claims all scientists are Naturalist, and Naturalists believe in Relativism. Therefore, those who believe in Relativism cannot believe in objective facts. Hence, all science is false.

Dr. Sire begins his book by making the claim that his book is not a work of philosophy. I can only assume that he makes this statement as a preemptive response to philosophical objections to the book. The core argument that Sire rests his conclusions on are emotional ones, not logical ones. Sire gives a poor introduction to many worldviews, and dismisses a majority of them on the basis that they result in Nihilism if one is intellectually honest with themselves.

Before deconstructing these philosophies, Sire lays out eight questions which a worldview must answer. Little reason is given for these questions in this book, but he apparently gives ample justification for these questions in his book "Naming the Elephant," which I have not yet had the pleasure of reading. Sire then discusses Christian Theism, and concludes that it provides happy answers to each of the questions. He does not go into the internal problems with this worldview--as he does with each of the others that he discusses. It might be rightly argued that there *are* answers to the internal problems in Christianity as a worldview, but that there is not ample space in the book to discuss them (E.G. "How are omniscience and free will reconciled?" or "How are God's Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence compatible with the existence of evil?"). However, the exact same argument can be made for the other worldviews discussed!

Sire discusses Deism, Naturalism, Nihilism, Existentialism, Eastern Pantheistic Monism, New Age Philosophy, Postmodernism, and Islam, and concludes that each (minus Islam, perhaps) is internally inconsistent and leads logically to rejection of all truth and morality. To do so, Sire must (at least in some cases) present very narrow versions and blatant misrepresentations of these worldviews! For instance, Sire makes the claim (many times) that naturalists categorically dismiss the existence of anything beyond the physical world. While this may be an accurate depiction of classical naturalism, I do not know of many modern examples of naturalists who would make so radical a claim (perhaps saying instead that it is very difficult if not impossible for us to observe the existence of such things and we must be careful when we draw conclusions about the physical from our thoughts about the non-physical). The misrepresentations go further when he tries to align Douglass Adams with Nihilism. Of course, generalizations must be made, but the misrepresentations and simplifications that he makes are on par with saying "Catholicism is basically a worldview that believes if archbishops vote a man into the office of the pope, that man is morally infallible while sitting on his pope-chair and wearing his pope-hat." It is a simplification and ignores a very complex and rich philosophy within that worldview (if it is accurate to the worldview at all!). Further, there are many worldviews aside from Christian Theism which do not fall into Sire's Nihilistic trap. Sire might argue that their proponents have not fully thought their worldview through... but I would argue that Sire has likely not thought their worldview through entirely, either.

To Sire's credit, he does strongly encourage further reading--with a caveat. He addresses the richness and diversity of various philosophies in his final chapter succinctly. He simply states that there are other ideas, but they can all be reduced to the answers given for the eight worldview questions. This is, quite simply, incorrect. The answers to the eight questions he attributes to each worldview are backed up by examples drawn from people that Sire assumes follow a given worldview (E.G. Carl Sagan for Naturalism, Deepak Chopra for New Age, etc). He necessarily chooses a subset of the worldview, and in doing so ignores that many people who could reasonably be aligned with "naturalism" would strongly disagree with some of the answers he attributes to the worldview (including Carl Sagan with Naturalism's answers, as a matter of fact!). He further claims that there are a finite number of answers to each of the questions, but gives no justification for this claim (and a creative mind can imagine examples that produce an infinite number of answers). In the end, Sire's only strong recommendation for further reading is caught up in the holy texts (and the commentaries on them) of Christianity and Islam. He indicates that Theism offers the only way out of Nihilism, and that one must try to find the right version of Theism. To waste too much time looking into other inherently flawed worldviews is subtly discouraged.

Further (and this is important), Sire is notably derisive toward other worldviews. Sire makes no claim of being objective (he even states openly that he is *not* being objective), but a more measured objectivity might do something for his argument to persuade one to his worldview. Sire puts down all eastern philosophy by saying "Eastern `thought' is like that." The quoted "thought" implies (and subtly leads the reader to believe) that an entire philosophy of that part of the world is entirely unreasonable. He further makes the claim that this worldview is the primary cause of what he calls "the cheapness of life" in the East, ignoring economic and societal effects that have less to do with how one views the world and more to do with the barren conditions in which many societies live. For other examples of such bias, I encourage you to look at other reviews of this edition and earlier ones. For these glaring simplifications, misrepresentations, and examples of callousness, I believe that the book does not warrant a third star.

Sire makes the claim that science oversteps its bounds, and argues in his chapter on Existentialism that all scientific conclusions *should* be made on the basis of their alignment with a literal Biblical account of events (and, by extension, ignore what the data actually say). This is, perhaps, the most damning aspect of his argument. Sire insists that we can only have real knowledge by accepting Biblical Literalism (or, perhaps, literalism of *some* religious book), and that we must reject any data, reason, or knowledge that contradicts this on the basis that we are flawed. In short, in order to be sure of any knowledge, you just have to reject certain facts that are a product of this knowledge! As a scientist, I must say that Sire presumes to know quite a lot about science, particularly about quantum and particle physics. To me, this makes his jabs at Deepak Chopra more than a bit ironic. I highly suspect someone who makes philosophical claims based on quantum mechanics or particle physics that is not directly backed up with mathematics and citation of the primary literature.

The emotional argument that Sire makes is that it is highly uncomfortable to live in a world in which there is no transcendent and absolute standard for knowledge or morality; as such, we should select a worldview which insists upon such standards. Simply stated, "If we follow this version of this worldview, we are left with no ultimate objective standard for truth or morality. That makes me very sad, and it should make you sad, too. Therefore, no one should follow this worldview." He does not state this openly that I can recall, but it underlies his premise. It is an unstated assumption. But, really, why *should* our comfort have anything to do with reality? If a worldview states that there are no absolute, eternal, and external standards for truth and morality, it does not reduce our moral compulsions or our consensus on what appears to be true. Living in a universe of approximations and subjectivity is certainly startling, but this should not have bearing on what is, as Sire states, "really real."

On an aesthetic note, the book is poetic. Sire, if nothing else, is a rhetorician, as his PhD in English will attest to. This makes for a playful read. I do wish that he had been a bit more consistent in his answering of the eight worldview questions in each chapter (He answers the questions in order for Christian Theism and Islam, but out of order for most or all of the others), but I believe he did this in order to maintain a logical flow to his work.

This book gives a very good insight into the Christian worldview, and Sire mentions from the beginning that he is speaking without apology from a Christian perspective. For that honesty, he earns a second star. If one wishes to understand Christian justifications for the Christian worldview, this book will certainly give them that. However, Sire does not follow through with the implications of his emotional appeal (E.G. aforementioned conflicts between Biblical Literalism and Science). If a non-Christian wishes to try to understand things from a Christian perspective, this book will be invaluable. However, you will do yourself a disservice by reading only this book and looking no further. There are many more ideas than the narrow view Sire assigns to each worldview in this book. Even Christian readers would do well to look further--for if you understand (even without accepting!) the philosophy, worldviews, and ideas of others you will be more equipped to converse with them in a meaningful way. You will be better able to span the gaps of understanding to help them see *your* worldview.

Proverbs 19:8 "He who gets wisdom loves his own soul; he who cherishes understanding prospers." (NIV)
Matthew 10:16 "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves." (NIV)