Faith and reason are irreconcilable.

(1) Faith and Reason are Irreconcilable Faculties of Acceptance Faith, properly defined and understood is the acceptance of something for which there is no evidence. To have faith, then, is to believe and accept in the absence of evidence. To know, is to believe and accept on the basis of evidence derived through a process of reason. Only where evidence exists can knowledge be formed. Evidence exists where empirical observations (information which can be obtained by observation or experiment) support a logically cogent conclusions. That which can be empirically observed is necessarily limited to the physical world, and thus necessarily limits that which can be empirically proven (facts, what is known or the truth) to the materially physical. In essence, the only truth (empirically observable knowledge) we can derive for ourselves (by means of reason) pertains to the physical world, because that is the scope of our observational reach. (2) The Empirical Limits of Reason and Functional Difference of Faith Both faith and reason are means to belief, but what differentiates beliefs are the foundations upon which they are cast. Belief taken on faith in the absence of evidence is distinct from belief taken on evidence, derived through reason. What is beyond the scope of our evidentiary reach is the metaphysical. Knowledge (known facts or information) has the unique characteristic of being falsifiable. Metaphysical postulations (beliefs taken on faith) do not. Morals, spirituality, God, all things which cannot be empirically observed, transcend the physical, and thus if we are to accept that they exist, we must do so on the basis of faith, because there can exist no empirical evidence for their existence. Thus exists the divergence between the physical and the non-physical, i. e. the metaphysical. (3) Believing and Knowing To “believe” is simply to accept something as true. To “know” is to be aware (or believe and accept) through observation of evidence through the process of reason. We cannot ‘know’ that which we cannot empirically observe, which highlights the difference between ‘believing’ and ‘knowing’. While we can believe anything on any basis, regardless of wether it is factual or not, we cannot know that which cannot be proven. To be “proven” requires the characteristic of empirical demonstrability, whereas to be “believed” only requires individual acceptance of validity with or without proof. To clarify, to have faith is to believe without proof, whereas to know is to believe with proof. Recall, though, that the metaphysical is beyond the physical world, which means that all statements pertaining to the metaphysical (that which is not or beyond the physical) are beyond empirical proof. To have faith is to believe in the absence of evidence. In consequence, we cannot “know” what must be taken on faith by the same means that we know what has evidence. (4) Only through the application of reason to empirical evidence can fact or truth be derived To reason, is to systematically form judgements by a process of logic whereby conclusions of fact (or truth) result. Statements of fact (in philosophy, referred to as positive statements) are descriptive declarations of what empirically is. To explain further, a statement of fact (or positive statement) is something which is observable and provable by empirical means, something which is known, and something which cannot be disproven. (5) The Normative Limitations of the Application of Reason to the Metaphysical In contrast to fact normative claims are statements which are not empirically provable and thus cannot be statements of fact, meaning that they cannot be objectively known. While normative arguments may be persuasive, and certainly have tremendous potential to influence what a person believes, they are not, nor can they be, statements of fact. Normative claims cannot be proven or tested, nor are they falsifiable. Normative claims are and cannot be supported by observation, nor can they be proven or disproven because if they were supported by observation, and could be proven or disproven, then they would be empirical statements. (Hence the conceptual mutual exclusivity of the normative and the empirical. ) In an argument, normative statements or claims are -in functional terms- reasons devoid of evidence. Thus, normative claims cannot be true or false. At best, they are postulations (things suggested or assumed as true); but they are not and cannot be facts (statements of truth). We can postulate (normatively, of course) that about the metaphysical, but we cannot make statements of fact about the metaphysical because there exists no evidence to apply reason to. But, for something’s existence to be objectively true, it must be empirically provable. We can refine arguments though logical processes based on normative assumptions to further clarify normative arguments. We, perhaps can even derive new normative arguments from normative assumptions, but in no way can those normative claims have any capacity to state truth. Normative claims, however, are the limit that man can, of his own volition, make in regard to the metaphysical. Thus, while man may apply reason to assumptions taken on faith, objective truth (statements of fact) can not be derived from that which is not empirically grounded. Moreover, because normative arguments transcend empirics, they are insufficient to derive objective metaphysical truth. Metaphysical truth, then, is unattainable for man’s lack of foundational access. (6) The Epistemological Limitations of the Application of Faith to Annals of the Physical Reason is the process by which facts may be known through the application of reason to the empirical world. Knowledge requires reason’s application to the empirical world, whereas mere belief by the faculty of faith does not require reason’s application, or empirical observation -only acceptance. Acceptance does not necessitate proof, whereas for knowledge to be knowledge, it must be proven. Hence, the epistemological limitation of faith is realized in that faith functionally jumps the process of reason for lack of evidence, where information is accepted without proof. Faith and Reason, In summery Faith and reason are both faculties by which belief may be justified. The divergence, and inherent irreconcilability between faith and reason is highlighted (1) by the means by which they ordain belief, (2) the characteristics of those means and (3) the multiple divergent spheres in which they operate. Faith does not require evidence, or apply reason to that evidence to form conclusions (the beliefs which are accepted as a result of faith). While plausibly any conclusion about anything from anyone may be formed on the basis of faith, those beliefs which can only be taken on faith occupy the realm of conception which is beyond the physical world, and thus is necessarily metaphysical. In contrast, fact which can be known as true is provably so, by means of the application of reason to the empirical, or that which can be physically observed. Secondly, the only statements which can be made about the metaphysical (that which is beyond human observation which must be accepted on the basis of faith) are necessarily normative, they can neither be proven or disproven, but only can be postulated upon. The physical world, however, can be empirically observed, and thus reason can be applied to those observations, to form conclusions which are true. Accurate observations about the physical world are repeatable and falsifiable, and are objectively the case. Normative postulations are necessarily subjective and not falsifiable, because they do not enjoy empirical foundation. Thirdly, and finally, because operational spheres of faith and reason are mutually exclusive ([Reason: physical, objective, empirical] v. [Faith: metaphysical, subjective, normative]), they are conceptually irreconcilable.