[170] Now from this follows (and I repeat this): no scientific^a or historical truth^b can affirm or negate the truth of faith^c. And the truth of faith can neither affirm nor negate scientific or historical truth. This is the presupposition of the existence of faith ^dat all. In the moment in which one of these statements is wrong, then we have to give up faith, or we have to give up the scientific or historical truth. I am not inclined to give up the one or the other; l believe---and this is ITSELF a matter of my faith---that Providence has put man into this situation of different dimensions of knowledge, and that he has to STAND this, and not to escape it by one of the wrong alternatives which I just described. But now the question arises whether philosophical truth^e has the same relation to the truth of faith^f, or whether the relation is more complex. I don't hesitate to say that it is more complex. Even something else follows from this greater complexity of the relation of philosophical and religious truth, namely if philosophical truth^g has a very complex relationship to the truth of faith, then this also makes the relation to scientific^h and historical truthⁱ more complex because there is philosophical truth in both of them; philosophy is the all-embracing element in all cognitive endeavor, and therefore if the problem "philosophy of religion^j" is asked, then here ALSO the difficulty (or complexity, let us better say) is greater. Now this great complexity of the question of the relation between philosophy and religion is the reason for the innumerable discussions about the relation of faith and philosophy which are going on since the days of Xenophanes^k up to the day in which we are living---without interruption; and they are