The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog Reviews

• way too vitriolic and lacking in fairness

  
  By A341BG8RMH8QW on 2002-01-15
  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.
  
  

• A Great Introduction to an Important Topic.

  
  By A3WXEF78N3XQF on 2003-09-23
  In "The Universe Next Door", James Sire articulates and discusses all of the major worldviews held by persons today. Since worldviews are important to every individual, this book is relevant and useful for almost everybody. Each worldview is explained quickly and concisely, which means that this book is by no means a comprehensive look at the issue. However, this is a strength rather than a weakness- the short chapters are easy to grasp and Sire relays complicated ideas in an easy-to-understand manner.

  Sire definitely approaches the issue from a Christian perspective. Some may see this as a major flaw, but I think it is appropriate for Sire to openly announce his biases rather than try to hide them. In any case, I feel Sire is correct in that theism is the only consistent and complete worldview. His discussion of Christian theism is absolutely great. Sire does point out that there are many "inner" issues or problems within Christianity- but still contends that Christianity provides the outer framework of a consistent worldview.

  "The Universe Next Door" is a recommended read for everyone.
  
  

• Praise from a "Pagan"

  
  By on 1999-08-20
  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.
  
  

• Profound. Simply profound.

  
  By on 1998-09-22
  We all think. But how and why do we think the ways we do? The way we look at ourselves as beings, and how we come to acquire information about the world around us may be something few people ever think about. However upon examination of the worldview we possess, and those possessed by others, we come to a new and more objective appreciation of what it is to truly be human and aware. Sire examines the worldviews of Theism, Deism, Naturalism (and it's necessary extention - Nihilism), Existentialism, Eastern Monism, and PostModernism as well as others. Again, the analysis reveals something simply profound (dare I say life-changing) to those who seek a truly objective and realistic worldview. As a Christian, I was strengthened greatly. Not merely nominally in the conclusion Sire draws, but rather, in the new understanding of the ways and reasons others' think the way they do. Taken together with works such as Hugh Ross' "Creator and the Cosmos" or "The Fingerprint of God" which show modern cosmology to be truly in harmony with the Bible, this work by Sire presents compelling evidence for the Christian Theistic worldview and faith. One outstanding point in the work is Sire's logical analysis of Naturalism's "random chance" which is used to explain a great many things. As a tool for describing our lack of information about a system, it is proper to assign probabilities and a chance 'figure' to it. However, in the naturalistic worldview where there is no belief in a 'spirit' or that the universe may be re-ordered by God or man in that respect, determinism reigns, and there is no such thing as 'random' chance at all - only man's ignorance of deterministic cause. Profound.
  
  

• Not quite impartial

  
  By on 2000-06-18
  Sire seems to be a pretty bright guy, but his review of the various "worldviews" is quite obviously an attempt to convince you that "theism" (his term for a traditional Christian philosophy) is the only reasonable philosophy to practice. While his critiques of other philosophies are reasonably well-done and truthful, rather than explaining the breadth of a particular philosophy, his goal appears to be only to show its shortcomings. Then he tells you why "theism" is best. Over and over again. And, while he can't wait to tell you the various shortcomings of various philosophies, he treats "theism" as if has no contradictions and is the only possible philosophy that could be accepted by a rational person.

  If you're looking to be convinced that the basic Christian view of the cosmos is superior to every other view, this is the book for you. If you're looking for an impartial summary of various world philosophies (which is how the book appeared to advertise itself), look elsewhere.

  Note that this book is published by a division of the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, something I didn't notice until after I had already bought it.
  
  

• Insightful, but just a surface treatment
  By A1OVF0KSZZRTEV on 2002-12-18
  I highly recommend this book to any Christian who is looking for a high-level comparison between the major worldviews. The author admit that it is a treatment of the topic from a Christian point-of-view, but then, any treatment of the topic will be from *some* worldview, so I can't fault him for being honest, at least. There were some points at which I felt like issues were flown over rather quickly, but since it's just meant to be an introduction (and there are plenty of references in the back for further study), I think Sire achieves his purpose.
  
  
• Comparing ways of thinking rather than comparing beliefs
  By AR7QLQGE75SJT on 1998-05-14
  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!!
  
  

• Negative Reviews As An Ego Defense
  By AEMT1ZCNYDQYZ on 2001-10-28
  Sire's "The Universe Next Door" is a great overview of the major worldviews prevalent today. No, it's not an exhaustive treatise...note the word "basic" in the subtitle. Yes, it is an apologetic (defense) of Christian theism, but an honest and fair one. Those railing about how their particular flavor of postmodernism, existentialism, etc., is left out or truncated are probably most bothered by Sire's ability to point out the inadequacies of those world views. Orthodox Christianity is the only worldview with adequate answers to the basic questions of ontology, epistemology,and ethics. Anything else is just an Indiana Jones approach to life - "I don't know. I'm making this up as I go!"

  Kudo's to Sire for such a thoughtful catalog. I am using it as a textbook for my Senior High Sunday School Class. I'm having to pick and choose a little as I go, but this book will be a wonderful resource to college bound kids who need to have had the arguments of the intelligensia dissected before they get to the ivory tower.
  
  

• Great Book! Everyone should read!
  By A2PEXJULMKZQZH on 2002-05-01
  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.
  
  
• An Enduring Work
  By on 2004-01-13
  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.
  
  

• Biased introduction to worldviews
  By A1H3P7WBMRM6AU on 2002-02-17
  "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.
  
  

• On the Road to Find Out
  By A3QAQUUPFIARWB on 2006-04-05
  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.
  
  
• Sire's best book...still unipressed
  By A1X638AO68HB6P on 2000-09-01
  I have read a few of Sire's books and skimmed most of them and I can say that this is the best one that I've seen. Unfourtunatly that's not saying much. The reader will get a taste of several world views in a "set 'em up, knock 'em down format." As a christian myself I am a little conserned that other Christians, after reading this book, will feel as if they more or less know what the other world views are 'all about'. This assumtion should not be made. Those who hold to the views which Sire deals with will undoubtably feel as if they were not represented very strongly. The main objection that I have to this book is that Sire contrasts the Christian theism that domanted the western world up to the 17th century with the world views that have arisen since then. This guy is stuck in the past. In order to follow Sire one must not conceed anything to the opposition (and the opposition is everyone since the 17th c.!) He gives lip service to the great christian thinkers who have found truth in existentialism or postmodernism but then glibly dispatches of them in two or three pages. This book serves a purpose but leaves much to be desired.
  
  
• How can "a reader from Minnesota" be so simplistic?
  By on 1999-10-19
  I read the book several months ago and was impressed by Sire's treatment of such complex issues. What bothers me very much is how self-styled "critics" can expect to be taken seriously when they make such 3rd grade comments as "There is no compelling argument coming from this book." The book is an introduction to worldviews; it shouldn't even be expected to have an "argument."
  
  
• Relational versus Compartmentalise Worldviews
  By AIQC6GT4Z18QD on 2004-08-19
  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.
  
  
• Fumbles the ball on what could have been a touchdown!
  By on 1998-12-03
  This book is written as an introductory text to worldviews and to show the strength of the Christian theistic worldview is comparison to others. The strengths of this book are also its weaknesses. The strength is that it is written in understandable language and covers the general characteristics of several basic worldviews. The weakness is that the author does not explore the diversity which resides in each. Furthermore, the author does not explore how each "non- Christian" worldview has positively influenced Christianity. This lack of exploration highlights the author's implication that there is something which is the Christian worldview instead of diversity of Christian worldviews. The Christian worldview expressed here is at least indirectly in conflict with the dominant Wesleyan/Holiness theologies. It is also disappointing to find that only one postmodern alternative is addressed in the recently added final chapter when there are a multiplicity of postmodernisms. Overall, the idea for the book is excellent but, in ignoring important details -- diversity within each worldview, and the overlapping between Christian theisms and other worldviews -- the author fumbles the ball on the way to what could have been a touchdown.
  
  
• Basic Worlview Catalog
  By A1P0ZB4YAA312R on 2003-11-26
  "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."
  
  
• Open theism, not Christian theism
  By A2JFAUQNO1W8BO on 2004-07-15
  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.
  
  
• Good Idea, Poor Execution
  By A2A0U27BHHWOES on 2007-01-02
  The stated goal of this book is to survey the various ways that humans make meaning out of the universe. Its method is to screen different worldviews through some basic questions: how did the universe get here? How do we know what's real? What's true? What's moral? Given the contention among current worldviews, and the truculence of true believers, a dispassionate survey would be a real service, especially in a textbook read by young people trying to sort out what they believe.
  
  Unfortunately, that is not the book we get. The biggest problem is that Sires is both a Theist (someone who believes in a loving, benevolent, personal God who takes an active interest in what we do) and a biblical literalist (someone who believes that the Bible is the word of the Christian God and is literally true). He sabotages his credibility by pretending to be objective right up to the last few pages of the book, where he reveals his worldview preference, which will surprise no one. If he'd stated his biases up front, I may not have agreed with him, but I would have had more respect for his intellectual honesty.
  
  The second problem is that his notions about what constitute a worldview are erratic and confusing. Theism, Deism and Naturalism are worldviews. Hinduism and Buddhism are worldviews. Nihilism is a philosophical stance, not a worldview. Existentialism and Postmodernism lie somewhere between worldviews and philosophical stances. New Age beliefs tend to be outgrowths or syntheses of other worldviews. Sires lumps them all together in importance, which leads to some lumpy proportions in the book. By what possible logic does a book on what humans in the world believe devote four pages to Buddhism, and only Zen at that, while spending 21 on Nihilism and 30 on Postmodernism?
  
  The third problem is that he dismisses every other worldview besides Christian Theism by stating that it posits a "closed universe", which means one not charged with meaning from outside itself (for "meaning", read Sire's Christian God). This closed universe is an insurmountable contradiction to Sires because there is no external authority to arbitrate what's true and what's not. So why haven't all these non-Theists ignited into balls of blue flame from the friction of their internal contradictions? Perhaps because when you live in the real world as opposed to the world of philosophical constructs such as nihilism, there are several ways to arrive at definitions of what's just and what's true. Tradition for one, or the lessons of history that endure the test of time, or the collective wisdom of bottoms-up consensus, or human laws that honor the will of the majority while respecting the rights of the individual.
  
  None of these methods are perfect, but they are valid, at least as valid as Sire's Bible. And which truths are we supposed to take from the Bible? The one that says place your child on a pyre and ignite it? Lend your virgin daughters for the enjoyment of the townspeople banging at your door? Butcher anyone who doesn't roast animals to Yaweh or observe the Sabbath? If the whole thing isn't meant to be taken as literal truth, who decides what the true bits are? More often that not, it's some less than perfect human, such as the American Catholic bishops or Ted Haggard. In which case our Christian Theists are in the same epistemological boat as the non God-besotted: making arbitrary meaning in the here and now. If I'm a person trying to make meaning out of existence, given the choice between an anthology of almost hallucinatory violence pasted together over hundreds of years by thousands of anonymous scribes with bones to pick and axes to grind on the one hand, or the collective traditions of eastern spiritualism and western scientific rationalism on the other, I might make different choices than Sire does.
  
  To give the Theist his due, the explanation of Existentialism is good, with a useful distinction between theistic and atheistic existentialism and a very insightful dissection of Camus' The Plague. His description of Hinduism is cogent, if somewhat academic. And he presents the language games of postmodernism with some dispassion. On the negative side, he dismisses Deism as the outpost of a few scientists, conveniently overlooking its long and honorable history as a way to explain how Sire's loving, benevolent God could allow so much evil and suffering in the world. And he doesn't give the naturalist world view enough credit for pushing back religious superstition and ignorance and for advancing epistemological reasoning (just as he doesn't take them to task enough for allowing truth to get divorced from morality, leading to totalitarian horrors that rival the depredations of the monotheists). The New Age chapter was significantly updated for this edition, but so jammed with footnotes as to be almost unreadable. If there's another edition, this material should be worked into the main text.
  
  The idea of this book is a good one, and, judging from the fact that The Universe Next Door has gone into a fourth printing, there's a thirst for this kind of worldview comparison. I'd like to see this same book written by someone less biased.
  
  
• Compelling critical summary of modern schools of philosophy
  By A31FVHX63IH51Q on 1998-02-25
  Advertised as a "catalog of worldviews", this truly exceptional book follows the evolution of philosophical thought from the theism of the 1700 to 20th century existentialism and New Age schools, including Eastern thought.

  The author has done an exceptionally good job in presenting complex material in a readable way. This book may change the way you look at the life in a fundamental way; it did for me.
  
  

• Sire's High Horse
  By A3EVFUEV2H5XNM on 2000-09-13
  Sire's latest edition of this book is still as lousy as the first. He sees reality in "Black and White" which is not in and of itself bad, but for some Christians he's got the two mixed up. He has done is readers a disservice by simplifying the issues to the point of satire in places. Many of his arguments are laughable at best. A well researched book from a Christian perspective about other worldviews is certainly needed and would fulfill a purpose but this is not that book!
  
  
• A great introduction to a foundational topic
  By A1FP5PIA2TSJQE on 2002-04-03
  This is another excellent book by Sire. ("Scripture Twisting" was a classic!) It begins with the premise that all people have a worldview, whether they've articulated it or not. He then proceeds to examine the major worldviews, and the implications of each. Sire is not ashamed of his own Christian Monotheism, but gives an accurate picture of the other views. Especially helpful is his coverage of how various views have affected art, culture, politics, and society in general. This book is relatively easy to read, but covers some heavy stuff. Highly recommended.
  
  
• Great Discussion of Worldviews from Western perspective
  By A249XSNS8KJ7N3 on 2003-10-09
  Yes, this author practically states up front which worldview he subscribes to, but for one who merely wishes to learn about other worldviews and not necessarily dabble in them, this is a great book. It has analytical discussions of all the major worldviews and why people subscribe to them or not. This book makes a good "textbook" for framing the discussion of worldviews from a western (esp. Christian) perspective. I ended up citing this book when I wanted to express my own worldview because the book is so well-written and has some great content.
  I highly recomment this book if you want to learn about worldviews.
  
  
• Steer Clear
  By A2BJVGC3K6RLAC on 2004-05-27
  The Universe Next Door is a good example of the pseudo scholarship on which too many clergy, laypersons and college students are being nurtured these days, and on which they construct misinformed estimates of positions other than their own.

  If you want a clear example of what I am describing, examine Sire's discussion of Karl Barth in which he identifies him as an existentialist who began with man and not with God (p. 128). Obviously, Sire is either unfamilar with, or has read but does not understand, Barth's Church Dogmatics, I.1, chapter 1,4:3 ("The Word of God Revealed"). Nor has Sire read Barth's The Humanity of God. His discussion of postmodernity is also minimally informed. He doesn't really understand the subject. Sire is well enough informed to mislead.

  This book will mire the reader in error that masquerades as informed scholarship.

  Shame on IVP for publishing and recommending a book that was not first carefully critiqued by competent scholars.
  
  

• Note to self: Avoid Huston, TX
  By A15L95LZEFDI9S on 2004-07-16
  Well, it looks like the Huston Idiot Society Newsletter put out a plea for all its narrow-minded rednecks to dis this book. Nice strategy "y'all". Note that almost all the other reviewers who gave the book low ratings (all but one I think) fall into two categories. 1. People that complained of bias and 2. People that are in love with Karl Barth (yuck!). The key to understanding this is...POSTMODERNISM POSTMODERNISM POSTMODERNISM. The first category of detractors don't appreciate it enough. Do they really think that unbiased philosophy is possible? (One actually said Sire should have hid his faith!) Look, everything is written from a perspective, from a point of view, so why not admit it and then go about saying what you have to say? That's what Sire does and he should not be faulted for doing so. The second category of detractors makes *too much* of postmodernism. The Calvinists (shudder) these days are head-over-heals in love with postmodernism because it validates there skeptical epistemology. Barth's famous tract _Nein!_ denied that humans can know anything substantive about God with human reason (hmm, did he use human reason to figure that out? Ohhh, that's right, he's got God's special grace for Calvinists only, I forgot (I wonder if Aristotle was a Calvinist then, because in book lambda of the Metaphysics he says God is one and infinite but triune, oh well)). It also allows them to watch movies and call it homework. The Universe Next Door is a great book, don't be fooled by nay-saying rednecks or Calvinists (hmm, which is worse?).
  
  
• Disappointing
  By A2FQ0F7ETEX0RJ on 2005-11-12
  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 Expected Better
  By A3Q1FVG9D6VFPK on 2007-03-04
  As part of my Worldviews class at Regent University, I had to read this book. I had great expectations about this text, but found myself sorely disappointed. NotATameLion said it well. Sire's complete and obvious biased against all worldviews but the Christian results in him making multiple snide and arrogant comments about anyone who isn't Christian and non-Christian worldviews. It would be far better if he could have kept his biased to a minimum and examined all the other worldviews fairly and equally. His regular sniping at other worldviews weakens his position that Christianity is best and made me wonder why he had to resort to nasty remarks if his position was true. It also gives the text an immature feel that further weakens his conclusions.
  
  Reading beyond the author's bad attitudes and comments, the discussions on the different "worldviews" is often confusing and had to follow. Several worldviews are not really worldviews at all, but a combination of a ton of different worldviews lumped together. Sire's seeming lack of respect for other opinions probably accounts for his lumping various worldviews together so that none are accurately portrayed.
  
  I really can't recommend this text to anyone and in my evaluation for this course, I shared my disappointment with this text.
  
  
• Saying it's bad is complementary
  By A2AR6VXISZC94D on 2003-11-23
  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.
  
  
• Great intro to worldview thought
  By A1XMMGFYY4Q59P on 2005-10-05
  Some reviewers expect a book like this to be all things to all people. This is not a scholarly reference; it is instead an introduction to and catalog of many of the common worldviews in the West today, written from a Christian perspective. It gives the basic ideas of each and shows how they are related -- one flows from another. As such, he does indeed give short shift to many thoughts and ideas -- even theism. But if you are upset about his treatment, go read some books that specialize in that worldview. It's a wine tasting, not a full meal; so don't complain that your stomach is not filled.
  
  Instead, the book gives a coherent, easy to ready, midlevel survey. It is an ideal way to introduce a teen or young adult into the world of philosophy, history of western thought, religion, etc. It can capture the interest and heart of a young person and spur them to dive deeper. Before long they will be reading my own heros, Alvin Plantinga and Robert M. Adams.
  
  Philosophy, history, theology, and sociology are all very big and very satisfying study areas. You can't expect a neophyte to understand it all at once. This book allows young people to tap into the wonder and thirst for more. It's especially appropriate for Christians, but many non-Christians can read it and benefit.
  
  
• From a calvinist. Excellent overview of world views and proclamation of truth (oops. not politically correct)
  By AP17548BM6BRQ on 2005-11-24
  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.
  
  

• Naming the Elephant: Worldview As a Concept
• Mere Christianity
• Engaging God's World: A Christian Vision of Faith, Learning, and Living
• How Now Shall We Live?
• Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of Human Beliefs (3rd Edition)