In response to some of the interesting comments and dialogue recently over the nature of and basis for truth claims, I’m going to make an effort to explain my current thinking about these issues. I should say at the outset that I’m still working through many of these thoughts, so my posts about them are in the nature of conversations about my thought process rather than dogmatic claims.
When we speak of things like “foundationalism” and “truth webs,” we’re employing metaphors to describe the nature of human knowledge. No metaphor, of course, is perfect. Given the limited utility of metaphors, we need to be particularly careful about how closely we identify our thinking with any given metaphor. As Christians, the metaphors we use to understand the nature of knowledge and truth should never divide us. These metaphors are simply tools that help us understand a reality we can’t fully grasp, and they should always be held loosely.
That said, here’s how I understand the metaphors of the foundation and the web, and some reasons why I think the foundation metaphor is problematic and the web metahpor preferable.
Foundationalism pictures knowledge as a multi-story building. Every physical building rests entirely on some foundation. Without the foundation, the entire building would collapse. The foundation is the most basic, most essential level of the building. We can lop a few stories off the top of the building and still have a functioning structure, but if the foundation crumbles the entire building is destroyed.
In foundationalism, the foundation of knowledge is human reason. In “soft” foundationalism or common sense realism, the foundation of knowledge is matters that are “self evident” to human perception, including human reason. If a truth claim fails the test of human reason, it is not a legitimate claim.
In the web metaphor, knowledge does not rest on any single foundation. Rather, knowledge is like a spider web that is anchored to a doorframe at various points. The spider web can retain some structural integrity even if a given anchor point fails.
In a web based view, human perception and reason can serve as anchor points for knowledge claims. However, they aren’t the sole anchor points. Things like personal experience, faith, and divine revelation can also constitute anchor points.
One immediate contrast between the foundation and web metaphors is that the foundation metaphor is entirely human-centric. This reflects its origin in Descartes’ rationalistic program. Under the foundation metaphor, any truth claim is subject to criticism under the standards of human reason and perception.
Because human reason and perception are limited, however, this means many truth claims can never pass the foundation metaphor’s test. Moreover, because human experience is highly variable, the “self-evident” criteria is difficult, and often impossible, to apply. Ultimately, foundationalism reduces viable truth claims to those few propositions that can be demonstrated empirically, if not to solipsism. The result is an intellectual climate in which skepticism reigns and the dominant worldviews are scientism and nihlism. The view that we are nothing but intelligent animals, driven by and answerable to nothing but our genes, is the fruit of foundationalism.
In contrast, the web metaphor does not necessarily make man the final measuring stick of truth. Truth claims that are beyond the reach of human perception and reason can help anchor the web. In the Christian worldview, for example, the seemingly conflicting doctrines of divine sovereignty and man’s free will, the mystery of the Trinity, and the experience of the Holy Spirit speaking to and through the Church can help anchor our web, even though they can’t fully be established or explained empirically and rationally.
Of course, there are arguments based on logic and empirical facts that also can help anchor our web. We can make logical arguments, for example, about the integrity of the Biblical text and the historicity of the Resurrection. But we are not limited to a foundation of human reason and logic.
To me, then, the choice of metaphors boils down to whether man is the locus of Reality. If human perception and reason are the only adequate foundation for truth claims, then Reality ultimately is found in man. If Reality instead is ultimately found in the Christian God, who transcends immeasurably the limits of man’s perception and understanding, then human perception and reason cannot be the sole foundation of all truth claims.
Many who are uncomfortable with the web metaphor fear that it leads to relativism. This is a legitimate concern, but in another post, I’ll explain why I don’t think relativism necessarily results from the web metaphor. Also, I have some further thoughts about how the Christian doctrines of the fall of man and original sin relate to both the foundation and web metaphors, but I’ll save those for a later post as well.