Customer Reviews

The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Roy Clouser's Myth is indeed a clear exposition of the philosophical orientation of Herman Dooyeweerd. But potential readers will not only find an interesting connection with his Dutch calvinist background. The book is an original argument in its own terms. It is not simply a re-statement of an established position "applied" to a new (North American) context. Clouser is copncerned about common views of theory and theorising. He is also concerned with the theories which explain religious experience. To say that theoretical and scientific thinking implies religious world-views can get us into debate where all we end up with is dogma confronting dogma. Clouser painstakingly looks at the character of religious experience and theoretical thought. He shows by logical argument, and then by careful application in various scientific areas (mathematics, psychology, sociology among others) that theories are inherentlreligious. Those claiming to come clean with their religious presuppositions are not doing anything more than those who claim to be religiously neutral. Except they are facing up to the inner reality of their theorising as a religious activity. And this can make a whole world of difference to how scientific research and theoretical debate unfolds. Clouser makes a convincing case for reconsidering the entire scientific enterprise on these terms.

Although philosophers who happen to be Christians have been around for quite some time, their work has been largely accommodated to secular thought. The 20th C. Dutch philosopher H. Dooyeweerd originated a system of thought that proves to be the most well-rounded paradigm ever based on biblical principles. Although most of Dooyeweerd's writings are either inaccessible to the amateur philosopher or stuck in Dutch*, Clouser does an exceptional job of presenting Dooyeweerd's philosophy in a clear and understandable manner.

*A translation project was begun in 1994--published by The Edwin Mellen Press (Lewiston, NY)--and will continue, Deo volente, until all of Dooyeweerd's writings have been translated into English.

Clouser's argument is that there are only three possible basic assumptions of what is "Ultimate"; and all theoretical thinking must ground itself in one or another of these metaphysical frameworks. If you start with his section on "case studies" of famous scientists and philosophers, he demonstrates his point so clearly that you'll be hooked into reading the whole book.

While most critiques of the excellent book seem most concerned about the seeming circularity of the argument: defining religion as something everyone must have and then discovering evidence that they do, it remains that even should we call it something besides religion, narratives or metanarratives can be linguistically tied to value and anyone who has any values at all must then have a belief in the narratives that teach those values. True you might enjoy a story but not adopt the values taught in it, but if we follow such trends in argument as that of Hilary Putnam in "The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy" so called facts are increasingly being recognized as tied to values and values are tied to narratives. So call it religion or call it something else, something grounds belief that accounts for human perspectives and uncovering the hidden role it plays and where it comes from is certainly a worthwhile effort.

This book was used in one of my classes, but one could just read it on their own. In fact, I have read it again since my class.

If you believe that man can be "neutral" in thought or action, this will challenge your thinking. I would consider this a must read for anyone like myself who is Christian now, but wasn't brought up as one.

If the book were writen in a clearer fashion, this book would appeal to a much wider audience. I enjoyed the information just had difficulties getting around the philosophical jargon that the author uses. Although the book is designed to teach students that are not in the field of philosophy, you will still need some basic understanding of the subject to comprehend the material.

"awful gibberish, January 18, 2001
Reviewer: bumpus o'rumpus from baton rouge, la
by my record, roy clouser has written the most god-awful book ever printed in the united states. at times i had trouble getting through the book w/o vomiting on the pages penned by this lunatic. i feel for all the poor kids who were forced to buy this crap for any class."

As they say "the truth will set you free but first it may make you miserable!" I hope you've gotten over it.

I used this book home schooling my children and consider it the best foundation you could find for Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Science, and foundation of a Christian worldview.

The infuriating thesis of Dr. Clouser's book - quite literally - leaves us running around in circles.

Clouser claims that a theory is religious if it involves belief in divinity. Divinity, accoring to the author, is that which exists as an independent reality. Since all theories presuppose the existence of an independent reality, Clouser argues, they all involve belief in divinity. Hence, all theories are religious, and no theory is religiously neutral.

This is the deadly flaw in Clouser's argument: is entirely based upon the logical fallacy of petitio pricipii. In the beginning of the book, Clouser critiques various definitions of religious belief by citing counter examples. One of the definitions he critiques is: "religious belief is belief in a Supreme Being." He counters this by saying that "Buddhism and Taoism are religions with no Supreme Being." The problem? Most Buddhists and Taoists don't even consider Buddhism and Taoism to be religions. They are simply philosophies and ways of life. Clouser (falsely) identifies these as religions BEFORE he even defines what religion is! This is circular reasoning of the very worst kind.

If one wants to defend Christianity, one can do much better than this Calvinist nonsense. Shame on Clouser for basing his entire book on a glaring logical fallacy.