Emile Durkheim's work on religion occupies a central place in religious studies classrooms today. At the undergraduate level, Durkheim is widely taught in large Introduction to Religion courses and in upper division seminars in "theory and method." His work is also taught in graduate Religious Studies departments of all stripes, from those grounded in the social sciences to those rooted in phenomenology and history of religions. This diverse classroom use within religious studies is reproduced in neighboring disciplines, where Durkheim's work on religion is regularly introduced in courses in sociology, anthropology, history, and philosophy, as well as in such interdisciplinary programs as Jewish studies and women's studies. This volume is designed as a resource for teachers and students of Durkheim on religion, providing practical advice about productive ways to approach central texts and difficult pedagogical issues. It represents diverse points of views and a range of disciplines. The essays in Part One address large issues arising from the whole of Durkheim's work on religion, such as what material to assign in what sorts of courses, and on how to present the material to students of varying background and motivation. Part Two turns to context, with essays assessing the available English translations of the Elementary Forms of Religious Life, and exploring how to teach the historical, critical, and biographical framework of Durkheim's work on religion. Part Three takes up questions of how to incorporate Durkheim's work in courses concerned with ethics, gender studies, and social theory.

Without Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) there would probably be no modern discipline of 'the philosophy of religion'. Kant's considerable influence has ensured that philosophers, in addressing religious questions, have focused on such issues as arguments for and against the existence of God; the question of immortality; the compatibility of human evil and transcendent goodness; and the relationship between morality and the divine. Many books already explore the nature of his influence. But this one goes further. It argues that Kant's theoretical philosophy, also called 'the critical philosophy', contains resources that have much wider implications than just for Christianity, or for those philosophical issues that relate only to monotheism and its beliefs. For Terry F Godlove, Kant's insights run deeper, and properly applied can help rejuvenate our understanding of the general study of religious thought and its challenges. The author thus bypasses what is usually considered to be 'Kantian philosophy of religion', focusing instead on more fundamental issues: on Kant's account of experience, for example, and on his arguments that human perception of incomplete and finite concepts can nevertheless yield genuine knowledge and insight. Kant and Religion is a subtle and penetrating attempt, by a leading contemporary philosopher of religion, to redefine and reshape the contours of his own discipline through sustained reflection on Kant's so-called 'humanizing project'.

Often different religious traditions offer very different pictures of the world. In fact, religions are so fascinating partly because they present alternative pictures of the nature of time, space, persons, food, community, life, death, and so on. How are we to make sense of this radical diversity of belief? The most common response is to say that religions are alternative conceptual frameworks or schemes, whose categories organize experience in sometimes diverse ways. On this view of the framework model of religious belief we cannot map religious frameworks onto a single, comprehensive grid because they themselves function as the maps. In this sense, the Buddhist and Baptist are sometimes said to live in different worlds.

Religion, Interpretation, and Diversity of Belief traces the history of the framework model from Kant to Durkheim, and then argues for its replacement. Rather than seeing religions as all-encompassing grids, we must recognize that they themseleves are constrained in at least two unavoidable ways: first, by the formal rules that make human experience possible at all, and second, by the fact that as language users we must presuppose that we hold the vast bulk of our beliefs in common. Given these constraints, we can then see religious differences, however dramatic, as relatively limited and largely theoretical.

The framework model is deeply entrenched in those disciplines central to the study of religion, especially so in philosophy, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and theology. The negative thrust of this is to suggest this allegiance needs to be reconsidered. Positively, the book sketches a picture of linguistic interpretation on which our differences,religious or otherwise, stand out against the background of what we have in common.