In Reasons and Faiths,1 Ninian Smart proposes a set of principles by which to evaluate competing religious doctrinal schemes.2 His primary interest is in comparatively appraising religious systems containing both the numinous and the mystical strands of doctrine. A strand of doctrine is an ideological theme perpetuated in a doctrinal scheme by means of propositions.3 Regarding the numinous and the mystical strands specifically, their logical characters conflict sufficiently for the propositions which perpetuate one to seem often incompatible with those which perpetuate the other. As Smart describes the situation, "there is at least considerable tension between the two strands of language when they come together" (p. 132). Since most of the world's major religions include both strands within their doctrinal schemes, Smart seeks to determine which of these is better justified in the sense of best affording a dissolution of the tension between the two strands while maintaining an active perpetuation of both. Utilizing the principles he proposes, Smart concludes that doctrinal schemes which emphasize the numinous strand over the mystical strand (hereafter called theistic schemes) are preferable to those which emphasize the mystical strand over the numinous strand (hereafter called monistic schemes). The purpose of this paper is to show that Smart's principles are inadequate to show that theistic schemes are preferable to monistic schemes.