This section deals in faith, and the various ways of looking at faith, and the way in which faith can be had to the fullest extent. First, secular sources define faith as a blind trust in something. Catholics however believe that faith is an intellectual assent to God and His loving revelation meaning that our faith is based on reason. Finally, it discusses the Golden mean which is the truest form of faith because it has both belief and a reason for that belief which is unlike radicalism which is belief without reason, and nihilism which is a reasoned non-belief.

I think it is important to remember that true faith has a need of reason, or something that gives a reason for that faith. Without the reason behind the faith, a person runs a great risk of falling into the radical views. Those views can lead to either living no life at all, one with no morality (theses are in the case of nihilism), or one with a conscience uninformed. That can only lead to sin.

Something concerning faith in reason is that reason can have substitutes. I think hope can substitute for reason, such as in the case of Dick Hoyt who had hope for his son not being a vegetable. This hope gave Dick faith, and that faith carried him toward reason that could then supplant the hope. In the long run some reason is needed for faith, but to move toward that reason, sometimes hope or the like is needed.

On the subject of faith being a risk, and being certain, I think it important to remember that the two things come at different time. The risk from faith is the initial unsurety that the faith could be misplaced. It is also the risk of loss of life, limb or property. The risk of unsurety eventually goes away when reason has firmly taken root in the faith. As this time, the faith is certain to hold true.

Is faith some thing that should be constantly reviewed like the maps that M. Scott Peck suggests we rewrite often?