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)
