This book offers a reinterpretation of the general relations between religion, science, and philosophy, arguing that scientific theories depend on religious commitments.

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.

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.

The famous scientist and philosopher Blaise Pascal memorably said that the heart has its reasons the mind will never know. But too often it's forgotten that Pascal, in referring to the heart's reasons, was not talking about hunches or cozy feelings. Instead he had in mind our intuitive knowledge of the first principles of number, time, space, and motion. And he believed God can be known in the same way, so that belief in God has the same justification as scientific and mathematical principles. Was he right? In Knowing with the Heart, Roy Clouser develops a broad, compelling case for Pascal's position. Against the current climate of religious relativism, Clouser concludes that Christians are entitled to say they know God is real. Written in clear and nontechnical language, Knowing with the Heart is intended for believers concerned with the credentials of their faith--and those who don't believe in God but are willing to investigate and reconsider.

O'Halloran provides a comparative evaluation of contemporary law as it relates to religion in six developed nations.

Feminist Philosophy of Religion: Critical Readings brings together key new writings in this growing field.

Provides a comparative analysis of church-state issues in the United States, the Netherlands, Australia, England, and Germany, and argues that the U.S. is unique in the way it resolves religious freedom and religious establishment questions.

Familiar accounts of religious freedom in the United States often tell a story of visionary founders who broke from centuries-old patterns of Christendom to establish a political arrangement committed to secular and religiously neutral government. These novel commitments were supposedly embodied in the religion clauses of the First Amendment. But this story is largely a fairytale, Steven Smith says in this incisive examination of a much-mythologized subject. The American achievement was not a rejection of Christian commitments but a retrieval of classic Christian ideals of freedom of the church and of conscience. Smith maintains that the First Amendment was intended merely to preserve the political status quo in matters of religion. America's distinctive contribution was, rather, a commitment to open contestation between secularist and providentialist understandings of the nation which evolved over the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, far from vindicating constitutional principles, as conventional wisdom suggests, the Supreme Court imposed secular neutrality, which effectively repudiated this commitment to open contestation. Instead of upholding what was distinctively American and constitutional, these decisions subverted it. The negative consequences are visible today in the incoherence of religion clause jurisprudence and the intense culture wars in American politics.