Sire sets out to provide “an exposition and critique” of various worldview options. He begins with seven questions he puts to each worldview. He then builds general categories of worldviews based on the answers to those questions. The remaining chapters examine the answers of a particular worldview along with an evaluation of the worldview, often citing various authors to represent the thinking of that worldview. He focuses on major features and general tendencies.
The book attempts to address the difficulties of understanding the bewildering variety of beliefs and belief systems by distilling the various particulars into a catalog of general categories. He reduces the chaos of the minutiae and imposes order, cutting through the morass to see things as part of a larger whole that can be addressed more holistically.
He largely succeeds, but at what cost and to what end?
1) The Value of Categories
Sire admits there are as many worldviews as people and each of his subdivisions could be further subdivided. General categories are challenging to maintain while still dealing honestly with the unique individuals. He regularly admits that many of the people he groups within the same worldview do not agree with each other or with his analysis of their position. His categories only tell you what someone might believe at a very high level of abstraction. There’s a real threat these generalizations will run roughshod over the details of someone’s beliefs.
How do generalizations that downplay or ignore particulars help us as apologists? Reducing the various belief systems to a handful of worldviews is likely not as helpful an analytic or apologetic tool as Sire hopes because the apologist still must deal with the particularities of the individual she speaks with.
What is the value of these high-level generalizations if no particular person fits into any one? While knowing that the average family has 2.4 children is an interesting and perhaps useful bit of data in some contexts, I know will never meet a family with 2.4 children. Similarly, I may know Sire’s categories but never meet an individual who actually fits in one – or fits in too many! His categories are not rigid; they are fluid. Nietzsche is claimed by nihilists, existentialists, and postmodernists, and is quoted by Sire in his chapters on the first and last of these. If not all pantheists or postmodernists or existentialists believe the same things, what is the value of grouping them all together? While such analysis might provide some help as conceptual framework for the apologist, I am less sanguine about its use in an apologetic conversation.
2) Questions
Sire’s critique unavoidably comes from within his own worldview, and this inevitably skews his objectivity. The seven questions he begins with are not transcendent questions derived from outside of any worldview. From within his worldview, he proposes questions for which he has good answers, that make his worldview look best. An unbeliever, when confronted with his questions, might justifiably perceive them as tendentious and self-serving. He cannot stand outside his worldview to formulate these questions – no one can.
Would those of other worldviews accept these as proper questions? Would they have their own set of questions that favors their worldview since they are also asking from within their worldview? How can an apologist make the case that these are the questions that everyone should use? Are there questions an apologist and his naturalist (or pantheist or Muslim) interlocutor can agree on?
3) The Christian Worldview?
Not all Christians would agree with his answers to the worldview questions. There are disagreements within Christianity as within every worldview. His examination of Christianity seems to imply some level of uniformity. But not all Christians fit within his definition of Christian theism (e.g., Open Theists do not agree on omniscience). Likewise, some Christian theists find postmodernism congenial to the faith, not a separate, inhospitable worldview.
Is there a single Christian worldview? Is there such a thing as a “mere Christian” worldview? How much difference is allowable between Christians with regard to worldview before it becomes a separate worldview?
4) Choosing a Worldview
Once we have divided all the various belief systems into worldview categories, what are the criteria by which we judge between any two worldviews? How do we determine which is best? What does “best” mean?
In the final chapter, Sire discusses how to decide between the alternatives. He sets forth four characteristics that a prospective worldview should possess: coherence (it should be consistent), comprehensiveness (it should comprehend all the data of reality), explanatory power (it should explain what it claims to explain), and subjective satisfaction. He applies his criteria to the worldviews he investigated and finds them all to have serious flaws, except for Christian theism. (I leave aside the question of whether he actually investigated Christian theism.)
Will this analysis help move someone from one worldview to another? Where do these four criteria come from? What if others don’t agree with these criteria for evaluation? Who says this is the best way to decide between them? Of course, his questions were devised by him from within his worldview. Others will have other criteria devised within their worldview. How do we choose between sets of criteria?
Can we move forward? Is there an independent measure by which to evaluate them? Are there non-arbitrary, non-question-begging criteria by which to measure or evaluate worldviews? Are we all left within our worldview speaking to everyone else in their worldviews, each of us insisting that ours is the most coherent, most complete, most satisfactory?
5) Wish Fulfillment
Finally, I’m concerned his fourth criteria (subjective satisfaction) and question (What happens to a person at death?) lend credence to those who complain that Christianity is just wishful thinking. Feuerbach claimed, “Christianity is a fantasy world inhabited by people who have failed to realize that when they think they are talking about God, they are simply disclosing their own innermost hopes and fears.”
Using Sire’s criteria and questions, it might appear we are saying, “Wouldn’t it be more satisfying if there is life after death and meaning in the universe and a benevolent deity to care for us?” Many unbelievers would respond, “Yes, that would be comforting, but that doesn’t in any way prove the truth of your beliefs.” If we try to move others to our worldview because it is more satisfying or provides happier answers, we seem to be proving Feuerbach’s point.
Conclusion
I see value in Sire’s book for those who are trying to make sense of the bewildering variety of beliefs and philosophies in the world today. Having a conceptual schema is helpful. But I don’t see it as a move forward in the apologetic enterprise. We still must meet the individual where they are, with their own unique beliefs and ideas, and be prepared to answer their questions wherever they might lead.