I really have no idea what it means to 'reconcile' faith and reason. Why do they need 'reconciling'? Anselm described his project as 'faith seeking understanding' (fides quaerens intellectum), and uses such famous catch-phrases as 'credo ut intelligans' ('I believe in order that I may understand') which express his commitment to the compatibility of reason and beief, (or 'faith'). Is there a tradition in which if something is believed on 'faith' (the Old Testament word translated into English as 'faith' is much closer to 'belief') it cannot be believed in any other way? In the so-called New Testament, a classic definition of faith is in Hebrews 11:1 'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.' [KJV] 'Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.' {RSV] There follows an illustrative list of various heroes of the faith: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, etc. Luther thought that Christians were justified 'by faith alone,' but this is by no means all he said. I mention these things because nowhere can I find the doctrine that if one believes something on faith (in an exalted theological sense) it is logically impossible that there could be evidence for it. This is surely a distortion of the ordinary notion of faith: I have faith in (trust her in something) and my trust is either justifed or not, in light of the way things turn out. That the believer believes 'things not seen' are evidence is neither to say to say that he could never have any other sort of evidence for what they're evidence of nor that they could not at some later time be 'seen.' I do think that a Kierkegaardian leap of faith is quite different from what medieval theologians were talking about. Reconciling a leap of faith with reason strikes me as incoherent. Robert Paul Reed College ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html