But to paraphrase Pilate, what is faith? Must it be incompatible with (complete) knowledge? Why? Who says so? People today often assume that "faith" means believing in something that you don't know, or believing in something without evidence, or something like that, but that is only one possible understanding of "faith" and there have been many others. Indeed some people have thought that faith and knowledge are actually exactly the same thing. We've talked about this many times in the past. See here and here, for example. I see, but I wouldn't call that a philosophical viewpoint. I also think one could estimate the probability of such revelations, at least to some degree. If you had good reason for thinking that nothing divine or supernatural exists then you would have good reason for thinking such revelations extremely unlikely. And if you had good reason for thinking that certain similar revelations had occurred then you would have good reason for thinking such revelations at least possible. Well then, no. But don't confuse philosophical conviction with religious conviction. Philosophy and religion aren't the same thing! Everyone always misquotes and misunderstands that. Tertullian actually said certum est, quia impossibile, and in fact he did not mean a fideist rejection of evidence, but was offering a kind of evidence: the apparent implausibility of the doctrine in question is evidence of its truth, because it's not the sort of thing people would make up. So this is actually a rationalist argument for its truth, not a rejection of reason and evidence. Unfortunately poor old Tertullian has been tarred with the anti-intellectual brush and, it seems, will be for ever more. I didn't say it follows. I simply meant that if a brilliant person believes something, that is good reason to suppose that that belief is not, in itself, irrational or absurd. I don't see what's objectionable or paradoxical about that.