Logic is just about which conclusions follow from certain premises. The truth of the conclusions depends on the truth of the premises, and thus is a matter for something other than the science of logic to decide. Faith can be a loose term and I understand confusion arising when I use it this way. We could say *gnosis* instead - a kind of knowing that does not necessarily depend on or reduce to discursive, rational thought. Intuition is of this sort. But there are likewise true and false intuitions, as there are true and false conclusions and true and false premises. Indeed, there is true gnosis and false gnosis. Rational argument can aid in shaping one's gnosis, but gnosis is not reducible to reasoning, since it transcends it. My concern is dispelling with the illusion - that modernity exists to perpetuate - that faith, or gnosis let us say, is contrary to reason. No, it is not, and it can readily be aided by reason- but gnosus, ultimately *just is* something more than that admirable but merely natural faculty. For instance, that there is a First Cause, a Prime Mover, a Pure Act, a Necessary Being, can be known by reason. That this Necessary Being also took on human flesh and chose to sacrifice Himself to enable us finite creatures to one day unite with Him - that is gnosis, and while this gnosus can be evidenced by certain facts, it ultimately exceeds the domain to which reason applies. That such a gnosis could be true should at the very least not be discarded as impossible; one might be surprised to encounter the Order that witnesses to its truth.