On Faith and Reason

<p><strong>Q: Many see faith and reason as fundamentally opposed. How do you see their relationship?</strong></p> <p>They are not opposites — they never were. Reason, when pursued honestly and to its farthest edge, does not end in doubt. It ends in awe. The philosopher who reaches the limit of what can be demonstrated does not find nothing there. He finds a threshold.</p> <br/> <p><strong>Q: But religious belief often requires accepting things that cannot be demonstrated.</strong></p> <p>All serious commitments require accepting things that cannot be fully demonstrated. The scientist operates on faith in the uniformity of nature — that what held yesterday will hold tomorrow. This cannot be proven; it can only be assumed. Every rational enterprise rests on premises that are not themselves rationally derivable. Faith and reason are not in different categories — they are both in the business of commitment.</p> <br/> <p><strong>Q: What about the specific claims of religion — revelation, miracles?</strong></p> <p>Here I would say: reason can tell you much about what is probable, but it cannot set the outer limits of the possible. The person who rules out revelation on the grounds that it is improbable has misunderstood how probability works. Probability is a measure of expectation based on past experience. It is not a constraint on what can happen.</p> <br/> <p><strong>Q: Does faith require abandoning reason?</strong></p> <p>No. It requires going beyond reason — not against it. You do not reach the other shore by destroying the boat. You reach it by rowing as far as the boat will take you, and then, at the right moment, stepping out.</p>