This article explores a central theme in the philosophy of religion today: the relationship between reason and faith, from the controversy generated by Norman Malcolm´s defense of the ontological argument of St. Anselm. The main question it aims to answer is how to interpret Malcolm´s simultaneous defence of two apparently contradictory theses: on the hand, that rational demonstrations are irrelevant to produce faith and, on the other, that the ontological argument for the existence of God can be considered valid. The solution this papers offers is that while religious faith is not obtained by arguments, rational arguments have a place within faith: helping to understand that which is believed. Thus, this paper aims to show that Malcolm's position is not contradictory because it implies the difference between belief that God exists, which would be the object of rational arguments, and belief in God, which is the kind of belief proper of religion and needs to be understood in terms of trust and devotion.
