What do you think?
Rate this book
The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories, Revised Edition
Written for undergraduates, the educated layperson, and scholars in fields other than philosophy, The Myth of Religious Neutrality offers a radical reinterpretation of the general relations between religion, science, and philosophy. This new edition has been completely revised and updated by the author.
416 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1991
15 people are currently reading
235 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
October 28, 2019
4.5/10
The first part of the book, defining religion ('that which is held to be a self-existent first principle') and the necessity of religious belief in all theoretical thought (e.g. the axiom of a closed universe of matter and energy in materialist theories; various axioms, Platonic, constructivist, and otherwise underlying different views of the foundations of logic and math) is very good and worthy of reading. Something about his argument nevertheless 'feels' slippery or overly clever in rhetoric.
When Clouser moves on to his constructive Christian project he makes misstep after misstep, moving from self-performative incoherence on the nature of civilizational institutions to outright heresy on the nature of God (stressing transcendence to the elimination of immanence, making even relations or persons in the essence of the godhead unknowable) to claims that the nature of God as revealed is created (in a way more extreme even than the Eastern Palamists, denying the existence of forms or ideas in the mind of God, denying that logic or Good or really anything is inherent in God qua God instead of God qua revelation). He then reinstates what's essentially the Kantian noumenal wall to deny the possibility of any natural theology (or any rational antitheistic arguments, again putting God entirely beyond the reach of reason in a way that even Clark denied), finally tripping so badly as to reduce the value of the first half of the book retrospectively.
The first part of the book, defining religion ('that which is held to be a self-existent first principle') and the necessity of religious belief in all theoretical thought (e.g. the axiom of a closed universe of matter and energy in materialist theories; various axioms, Platonic, constructivist, and otherwise underlying different views of the foundations of logic and math) is very good and worthy of reading. Something about his argument nevertheless 'feels' slippery or overly clever in rhetoric.
When Clouser moves on to his constructive Christian project he makes misstep after misstep, moving from self-performative incoherence on the nature of civilizational institutions to outright heresy on the nature of God (stressing transcendence to the elimination of immanence, making even relations or persons in the essence of the godhead unknowable) to claims that the nature of God as revealed is created (in a way more extreme even than the Eastern Palamists, denying the existence of forms or ideas in the mind of God, denying that logic or Good or really anything is inherent in God qua God instead of God qua revelation). He then reinstates what's essentially the Kantian noumenal wall to deny the possibility of any natural theology (or any rational antitheistic arguments, again putting God entirely beyond the reach of reason in a way that even Clark denied), finally tripping so badly as to reduce the value of the first half of the book retrospectively.
July 13, 2022
Clouser defende a tese que toda teoria é regulada e guiada por alguma crença religiosa. A interpretação do conteúdo de uma teoria depende da crença religiosa pressuposta, de modo que nenhuma teoria é neutra. Para defender sua tese, Clouser discute sobre a relação entre religião e teoria científica, política, social, etc, a partir da teoria da realidade de Herman Dooyeweerd. Inclusive, no prefácio, Clouser informa que fez várias entrevistas com o próprio Dooyeweerd durante alguns meses.
Na primeira parte, Clouser define o que é religião e responde a algumas objeções a sua definição. E também apresenta alguns tipos de crenças religiosas, a saber, os tipos pagão, panteísta e bíblico.
Na segunda parte, Clouser debate o que é teoria, o que é abstração teórica, sugere alguns critérios para julgar teorias. Em seguida, discute sobre posições acerca da relação entre teorias e crenças sobre a divindade: irracionalismo religioso, racionalismo religioso, a posição bíblica, o escolasticismo religioso. E defende que a crença em Deus regula e guia a reflexão sobre a criação e a consideração das teorias científicas. Ele critica a leitura enciclopédica fundamentalista da Bíblia.
Na terceira parte, Clouser faz alguns estudos de caso de sua tese. Ele mostra o fundo religioso nas teorias da matemática, física, psicologia. E sugere que uma visão bíblica exige uma teoria não reducionista da realidade.
Na última parte, o autor apresenta uma teoria não reducionista fundada na filosofia de Dooyeweerd. Ele faz um esboço da teoria modal de Dooyeweerd, defende uma teoria não reducionista da sociedade composta por normas, funções, soberania das esferas, e postula uma teoria não reducionista do Estado.
Essa é uma obra bastante erudita e que exige um prévio conhecimento da filosofia reformacional. Certamente, um clássico do pensamento reformacional.
Na primeira parte, Clouser define o que é religião e responde a algumas objeções a sua definição. E também apresenta alguns tipos de crenças religiosas, a saber, os tipos pagão, panteísta e bíblico.
Na segunda parte, Clouser debate o que é teoria, o que é abstração teórica, sugere alguns critérios para julgar teorias. Em seguida, discute sobre posições acerca da relação entre teorias e crenças sobre a divindade: irracionalismo religioso, racionalismo religioso, a posição bíblica, o escolasticismo religioso. E defende que a crença em Deus regula e guia a reflexão sobre a criação e a consideração das teorias científicas. Ele critica a leitura enciclopédica fundamentalista da Bíblia.
Na terceira parte, Clouser faz alguns estudos de caso de sua tese. Ele mostra o fundo religioso nas teorias da matemática, física, psicologia. E sugere que uma visão bíblica exige uma teoria não reducionista da realidade.
Na última parte, o autor apresenta uma teoria não reducionista fundada na filosofia de Dooyeweerd. Ele faz um esboço da teoria modal de Dooyeweerd, defende uma teoria não reducionista da sociedade composta por normas, funções, soberania das esferas, e postula uma teoria não reducionista do Estado.
Essa é uma obra bastante erudita e que exige um prévio conhecimento da filosofia reformacional. Certamente, um clássico do pensamento reformacional.
July 21, 2012
The first two-thirds of the book are spent deconstructing modern scientific philosophical backgrounds. It is an excellent beginning to understanding the faults of the new atheism. The problem is that he then goes on to construct a new philosophical worldview that starts with Christ. Clouser claims to have built this on the philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd (The Transcendental Idea).
Dooyeweerd did construct a philosophy based upon God, but Clouser doesn't accurately represent him. That was disappointing. There is no easy access into Dooyeweerd's work and I had hoped that this book would provide a general introduction. It doesn't.
I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone who wants a clearer understanding of the "philosophy of the cosmonomic idea," but it is a good penetration of New Atheism's faults.
Dooyeweerd did construct a philosophy based upon God, but Clouser doesn't accurately represent him. That was disappointing. There is no easy access into Dooyeweerd's work and I had hoped that this book would provide a general introduction. It doesn't.
I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone who wants a clearer understanding of the "philosophy of the cosmonomic idea," but it is a good penetration of New Atheism's faults.
March 25, 2022
Simply the best!
May 27, 2018
Many years ago I read a book by Thomas Sowell titled "Conflict of Visions" that explained the reason people end up liberals or conservatives is due to the presuppositions they hold about life. This book is similar in that the author contends no theory can fail to be regulated by some religious belief and that everyone has a belief in the divine where divine is defined as having unconditionally non-dependent reality, no matter how further the divine is described.
The first section surveys various "isms, i.e. religious/philosophical positions, gives a test for evaluating perspectives, and in challenging sections explaining the problem of scholasticism and accommodations to pagan and pantheistic beliefs. Perhaps for me, chapter 6 posed a particular challenge because the author shows the mistake of fundamentalism which I thought I was a position I held.
The middle third of the book was a casebook of scientists and an evaluation of their underlying religious perspectives. This section was the best part of the book. It certainly showed how no consensus is shared by scientific types.
The last part of the book ended up feeling like a bait n switch because he ends up discussing theories of reality, justice, law, and the state. This was not where I had expected the book was heading. It was very interesting, but I was hoping for a fleshed out religious perspective of a biblical scientist.
This final section is the most detailed exposition of the Danish philosopher Dooyeweerd. However, just looking at some of Dooyeweerd's works, I think many readers would be disappointed if they expected this book to adequately represent his work. Still, it's a fun read for the philosophy-minded and therefore I recommend it.
The first section surveys various "isms, i.e. religious/philosophical positions, gives a test for evaluating perspectives, and in challenging sections explaining the problem of scholasticism and accommodations to pagan and pantheistic beliefs. Perhaps for me, chapter 6 posed a particular challenge because the author shows the mistake of fundamentalism which I thought I was a position I held.
The middle third of the book was a casebook of scientists and an evaluation of their underlying religious perspectives. This section was the best part of the book. It certainly showed how no consensus is shared by scientific types.
The last part of the book ended up feeling like a bait n switch because he ends up discussing theories of reality, justice, law, and the state. This was not where I had expected the book was heading. It was very interesting, but I was hoping for a fleshed out religious perspective of a biblical scientist.
This final section is the most detailed exposition of the Danish philosopher Dooyeweerd. However, just looking at some of Dooyeweerd's works, I think many readers would be disappointed if they expected this book to adequately represent his work. Still, it's a fun read for the philosophy-minded and therefore I recommend it.
February 21, 2017
Explicates the inherently-religious nature of doxastic practices (which I bet you didn't even know you had!). Truly a Universal Acid/Matrix-Moment inducing book.
May 7, 2011
Absolute must-read for all theists interested in science/philosophy/theorizing!
March 28, 2019
Unapproachable, arrogant, and overbearingly legalistic. Boring, difficult, and wrong. Clouser takes common terms and muddles them with overly complex definitions utterly unlike the common meaning of the words and uses these words to create a worldview unique to himself. Clouser has managed to take Reformed theology too far; an impressive mistake, given that Reformed belief is already pretty extreme.
Per se.
Per se.
August 22, 2016
Roy Clouser's highly celebrated Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories does too much in 380 pages.
My chief problems with Clouser are the following:
1. Not one critic of Dooyeweerd's thought (e.g. Nash, Brümmer, Frame, Morey, Sproul) are mentioned nor dealt with. This is rather injurious to Clouser's project, since many Reformed Christians (the typical audience for works on Dooyeweerd) have accused Dooyeweerd of fideism and a weak view of Scripture.
2. Related to the last point, though he cites well-known Dutch- and Afrikaans-speaking Dooyeweerd scholars such as D.F.M. Strauss and M.D. Stafleu, there is no interaction with previous English treatments on Dooyeweerd's thought, such as those by A.L. Conradie, E.L. Hebden Taylor, Freeman's Recent Studies in Philosophy and Theology and Philosophical Study of Religion, or Young's Toward a Reformed Philosophy: The Development of a Protestant Philosophy in Dutch Calvinistic Thought Since the Time of Abraham Kuyper.
3. Throughout the book, Clouser constantly argues against positions he never spells out in the first place. It is hard to take him seriously when he says that "the most widespread of all the definitions" "is a belief in a Supreme Being" (12) when he doesn't even back this claim up with a Pew Center study or something akin to it.
If you are looking for an introduction to Dooyeweerd, read Pierre-Charles Marcel's two-volume Christian Philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd, or try to find a copy of Kalsbeek's Contours of a Christian Philosophy: An Introduction to Herman Dooyeweerd's Thought.
My chief problems with Clouser are the following:
1. Not one critic of Dooyeweerd's thought (e.g. Nash, Brümmer, Frame, Morey, Sproul) are mentioned nor dealt with. This is rather injurious to Clouser's project, since many Reformed Christians (the typical audience for works on Dooyeweerd) have accused Dooyeweerd of fideism and a weak view of Scripture.
2. Related to the last point, though he cites well-known Dutch- and Afrikaans-speaking Dooyeweerd scholars such as D.F.M. Strauss and M.D. Stafleu, there is no interaction with previous English treatments on Dooyeweerd's thought, such as those by A.L. Conradie, E.L. Hebden Taylor, Freeman's Recent Studies in Philosophy and Theology and Philosophical Study of Religion, or Young's Toward a Reformed Philosophy: The Development of a Protestant Philosophy in Dutch Calvinistic Thought Since the Time of Abraham Kuyper.
3. Throughout the book, Clouser constantly argues against positions he never spells out in the first place. It is hard to take him seriously when he says that "the most widespread of all the definitions" "is a belief in a Supreme Being" (12) when he doesn't even back this claim up with a Pew Center study or something akin to it.
If you are looking for an introduction to Dooyeweerd, read Pierre-Charles Marcel's two-volume Christian Philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd, or try to find a copy of Kalsbeek's Contours of a Christian Philosophy: An Introduction to Herman Dooyeweerd's Thought.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Want to read
August 8, 2012Nancy Pearcey recommendation: "Clouser...shows that every theory (whether in physics, mathematics, or psychology) must make fundamental assumptions about what is ultimately real. Whatever a theory treats as ultimate, self-existant reality is essentially what plays the role of the divine. In this sense, every philosophy is religious: It takes some part of creation and absolutizes it into an ultimate principle that defines the parameters of what counts as genuine knowledge. This is the source of all forms of reductionism." (Total Truth, pg. 452)
March 1, 2021
O autor nos apresenta a tese de que toda crença ou teoria tem raiz religiosa. Em seus desdobramentos, nos informa que a crença, não envolve necessariamente adoração ou um código ético que estabelece a conduta de um indivíduo, mas a crença em uma realidade ultima, independente de qualquer outro elemento da realidade, o que o autor define como a "divindade per si".
March 8, 2011
A great introduction to Dooyeweerdian/Reformation thought and the Christian call to reject reductionism is philosophy.
August 11, 2011
Helpful for introducing me to Dooyeweerd's philosophy, which organizes reality into irreducible aspects/spheres, all created by God.
February 16, 2013
Excellent. I didn't understand 100% but it seemed like a book that introduced new ways of thinking.
Read
January 5, 2022Only read chapters 1-4a, 5-8 (13 total)
Read
December 17, 2017Perhaps this was a fairly new idea when published, but seems to labour point..
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews