Faith and reason are irreconcilable.

I want to begin by thanking my opponent for his argument. (1, 2) The Limits and Differences of Faith and Reason To begin, I didn’t take note to provide sources for my definitions of faith and reason, because the definitions of faith and reason are not up for dispute. However, in the interest of clarity, I will provide the source of my definition. The Oxford Dictionary (citation in comments) defines faith as the following: “strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.” (1) My opponent is correct to assert that “faith denotes trust” but incorrect in the assumption that empirical evidence can exist to prove or disprove the metaphysical. Because empirical evidence can exist only for the physical world, and God (understood a metaphysical being) is beyond the physical world, it is faulty to assert that empirical proof even could exist for the existence or non-existence of God. Contrary to my opponent’s belief, scripture is not empirical evidence, because scripture must be accepted (for what it claims to be) on the basis of faith, just as the existence of God must be accepted on the basis of faith. Moreover, the existence of the universe is proof neither for or against the existence of God. The same holds for the existence of morality. His argument, like all arguments for the existence of God, assumes the existence of God to prove the existence of God, making his reasoning inescapably circular. While one can apply reason to what is accepted on faith, such claims are normative, rather than positive. They are not descriptions of what empirically is, but rather are postulations on the unknown. As such, that which is believed on faith is not sufficient to articulate what can be known, because all that can be known is that for which there is empirical evidence. (3) Believing and Knowing The Bible is not empirical evidence because empirical evidence can be objectively verified, and the sole basis of authority of the Bible is itself. While one may accept that the Bible is what it claims to be on the basis of faith. Because I have already pointed out the circular nature of the argument that the universe is proof of God’s existence, in the interest of preserving character space, I will not repeat what has been covered above. Additionally, my opponent asserts that “Christianity is not a religion of blind faith.” While well intended, faith, by its nature is necessarily blind (where blind is understood to mean ‘based on conviction’ rather than ‘proof’ as denoted by the Oxford Dictionary provided above). I would also submit that this is not a trial of Christianity, and as such further references to specified religions (or their spiritual texts) are tangential to this debate. One cannot assert that faith and reason are reconcilable because a book -whose authority is necessarily based on faith alone- says that is the case. To do so would be to structure a fallacious appeal to authority (because that authority cannot be substantiated on an empirical basis) within a circular argument. (4) Only Through The Application Of Reason To Empirical Evidence Can Fact Be Derived My opponent asserts that “philosophical evidence is as much evidence as empirical evidence is.” He bases this on the assertion that “to reason does not only require empirical evidence.” While my opponent is correct that one may apply reason to normative (non-positive) claims, he misunderstands what may result from that endeavor. All that can be known is derived through the processes of reason to empirical evidence. As such, the limits of what is knowable begins and ends with the physical world. That which is metaphysical (beyond the physical) is unknowable. Again, this is the difference between what can be known, and what must be taken on the basis of faith. What is unknown (that which cannot be known), if accepted or believed, must be done so on the basis of faith. I will address my opponent’s mentioning of the Big Bang Theory in pt. 5. (5) The Normative Limits of the Application of Faith to the Metaphysical I agree with my opponent’s assertion that the Big Bang Theory is not empirically provable, because the Big Bang Theory is a theory, not a scientific law. Scientific laws are simply statements that phenomena occur. Theories, by contrast, are themselves postulations, or suppositions intended to explain something, based on general principles independent of that which is to be explained. Theories themselves, however, cannot be proven. Theories are called theories because they are not empirically provable, for if they were empirically provable, they would be laws. Such is the reason that the scientific community recognizes the distinction. However, discussion of the Big Bang theory is tangential to this debate because it does not speak to the irreconcilability of faith and reason. The Holocaust, by contrast, is a matter of indisputable historical record for which there is prolific video recordings, primary source evidence, and etc. To say that there is no evidence for the Holocaust is absurd. (6) The Epistemological Limitations of the Application of Faith to the Physical My opponent is correct to assert that “information can be accepted without proof” because that is what makes “faith” which is necessarily blind. One can certainly trust anything they want, but only through the application of reason to empirical evidence can facts be known. Such is the distinction between believing and knowing, which I have explicated above. To clarify, however, a belief may be believed with or without evidence. By contrast, that which can be known is necessarily grounded in evidence. (That is not to preclude the possibility of the application of reason to beliefs taken on faith, only that any conclusions therein would be normative rather than positive.) However, one should not misunderstand the application of reason to that which must be taken on faith to suggest that faith and reason are reconcilable, because of the functional differences in outcome between the application of reason to empirical evidence versus the application of faith to that for which empirical evidence cannot exist. Conclusion: Reason does not lead to faith. The application of reason to empirical facts leads to knowledge (positive claims, or statements of what can be known). The application of reason to that for which no empirical evidence exists leads to conclusions for which there is no evidence (normative claims, or statements which can be neither proven or disproven). As such, reason is the means by which to derive facts (positive statements) from empirical evidence, or derive normative statements from normative statements. While 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). In contrast, fact which can be known as true is provably the case, by means of the application of reason to empirical evidence, or that which can be physically observed. 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, meaning that they can neither be proven or disproven, but only can be postulated upon. Normative postulations are necessarily subjective and not falsifiable, because they do not bear an empirical foundation, meaning that they cannot be or result in fact. In essence because of the existent divergence between the operational spheres of faith and reason, they are mutually exclusive ([Reason: physical, objective, empirical] v. [Faith: metaphysical, subjective, normative]), making them conceptually irreconcilable.