Entering into the study of the correlation between faith and reason in their essence, let us first of all point out that Christianity values reason so highly that it can be called the "religion of reason": the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, is called in the Gospel (John, chapter 1, verse 1) "Logos", and "Logos" means both "word" and "reason". Thus, in the troparion for the feast of the Nativity of Christ, the Church sings: "Thy Nativity, O Christ our God, shine forth to the world the light of reason." There is nothing unreasonable in Christianity, and there can be nothing unreasonable, although its truths surpass our reason: they are super-rational, but not unreasonable. But Christianity forcefully raises another question, that of the limits of our reason. This question has become particularly acute since the time when rationalism developed in philosophy (beginning in the seventeenth century) with its claim to the "autonomy of reason," with its self-confident assertion that our reason is the supreme authority not only in the field of knowledge, but also in the field of faith. We are already talking about the fact that modern culture has developed along the lines of secularism, i.e., in isolation from the Church. This was precisely related to the above-mentioned claims of reason, and that is why it is important to understand the limits of reason.

3. The limitations of our mind

Already in the study of nature we often come across what can be called "irrational" or "extra-rational". Goethe wittily remarked that "nature is not completely divided into reason," i.e., that in the rationalization of natural phenomena there is always a "remainder" that does not lend itself to rationalization. There are many examples of this: suffice it to point out those trends in modern physics that speak of the well-known "indeterminism," i.e., of deviations from the principle of strict causality in so-called microphysics (in intraatomic motions). However, we will not dwell on this fact in view of the fact that these latest trends in microphysics are quite often objected to. Let us point out another, already absolutely indisputable fact, which testifies to the impossibility of rationalizing all phenomena in nature—I mean the beginning of individualization in nature. In addition to the fact that in living organisms each individual lives "for himself," possesses, as they say, an "instinct of self-preservation," struggles for his being, i.e., asserts his individuality, the beginning of individualization is even more clearly manifested in the sphere of chemistry, in the qualitative heterogeneity of chemical elements (hydrogen, oxygen, etc.). Matter is qualitatively heterogeneous, it is grouped into "chemical individualities" [185] that have completely different physical and chemical properties (hydrogen burns but does not sustain combustion, oxygen sustains combustion but does not burn, and so on). All this cannot be rationalized; Our mind simply accepts this as an initial fact, studies the various ratios of chemical elements (the famous "periodic table of elements"), but cannot rationally reveal and interpret the very "beginning of individualization" in nature.

But the limitations of our reason appear with particular clarity not in relation to pre-human nature, but in relation to man. There is a great deal of non-rational knowledge in man, i.e., knowledge that is not determined by our reason and does not depend on it, but at the same time is real knowledge that is of great importance in our life. This includes everything that our heart, our feelings, and intuition tell us. Pascal wonderfully expressed this in the words: "Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait pas" (loosely translated: "The heart gives us knowledge, the foundations of which our reason knows nothing"). In our life, this "knowledge of the heart" (sometimes erroneous, just as the conclusions of our reason are erroneous) occupies an absolutely exceptional place, and we are guided by it for the most part in the most important cases of our life. When we try to rely on our reason in such cases, it is then that it is clear to us how "short-sighted" our reason is, how great its limitations are. When it comes to that which is above our being, "on the other side," then reason is either simply silent or prompts us to irrational things (as the Psalmist says: "When a fool speaks, there is no God").

We must recognize the fact of the dichotomy of the cognitive power in man: next to the mind and its ideas stands the heart with its illuminations, in which the deepest truth can be revealed to us. But apart from the fact of the dichotomy of the cognitive power in man into mind and heart, reason itself, as we have pointed out, is limited even where it could be competent. Here it is appropriate to recall the brilliant discovery by Kant (the famous German philosopher of the second half of the seventeenth century) of the so-called "antinomies" of reason. The antinomies of reason are those contradictory judgments which confront us with equal irresistibility: each member of the antinomies excludes, however, the other which is connected with it. The very content of antinomies, as quoted by Kant (for example, "the world is finite" and "the world is infinite", "the world has a beginning" and "the world has no beginning") has more than once aroused many objections, but the existence of antinomies in our reason cannot be disputed.

4. The Participation of Faith in Knowledge

The limitations of the powers of reason do not prevent us from recognizing the reality of what is "superreasonable," what is not comprehended by our reason. In this case, the work of reason is supplemented by our faith, and this combination of reason and faith is possible because both reason and faith are manifestations of the life of one and the same human spirit. The difference between reason and faith is not at all in the content of what reason recognizes or what is revealed to our faith. Their content may coincide or diverge, but their inner unity follows from the fact that both reason and faith have inherent the luminous power that is given to us by Christ. In the words of Ap. John (chapter 1, verse 9), the Lord "enlightens every man that cometh into the world"; from this light, which is brought into the soul by Christ, proceeds both the light of reason and the light of faith. That is why their complete unity is possible only when we are in Christ. If our spirit does not live in Christ, then a wall between reason and faith easily arises.

But in relation to the knowledge of nature and man, does faith belong to any place? And if faith can communicate to us certain Revelations about the world and about man, then can reason approach such teachings with its own means? Yes of course! Statements of faith based on Revelation can be super-rational, i.e., they exceed the powers of our reason, but they cannot be unreasonable, i.e., they contain contradictions. The Christian faith allows and even requires the application of reason to the clarification of its assertions, but the condition of truth is our following Christ, following the Church. The individual mind is often weak; we must listen to the Church's reason, as it is revealed in the Ecumenical Councils, in Holy Tradition. In general, it is not faith that creates conflicts with reason, but reason, divorced from the Church, can come into conflict with the data of faith.

In the study of nature, the data of experience and the construction of reason may, for example, come into conflict with what the Christian faith gives us. Such discrepancies should not confuse us, they should not be hushed up, but we must remember that the hypotheses created by science are constantly in an inevitable change: some fall, others rise. The study of nature cannot but be free, but that is precisely why it does not stand in one place. These changes and fluctuations in scientific constructions may confuse our religious consciousness, but we must honestly and directly state the discrepancies (in our time) between certain statements of science and the teachings of our faith. But the truth is one; our faith in Christ is faith in the Truth (as the Lord Himself said: "I am the seven truth, the way, and the life").

It is necessary, however, to distinguish the teachings of faith from those teachings that do not have their source in faith. Christianity does not know any "obligatory" worldview for believers – we are free in that synthesis of science and philosophy that is called "worldview". It is true that in the Middle Ages and even in modern times, Western Christianity established a certain worldview obligatory for believers, but it was precisely this imposition of a certain worldview on believers that led to the tragic departure of many believers in the West from the Church, which had incalculable sad consequences for both the Church and culture. The sad experience of the Middle Ages in the West teaches us that the participation of faith in knowledge should be limited only to basic and fundamental questions. To make this clearer, let us touch on a question that is of cardinal importance for both faith and knowledge, the question of the admissibility of recognizing miracles.

5. The Question of the Possibility of Miracles