I put up a lengthy post about anti-foundationalism and the alternatives presented by Audi (modest, fallibilist foundationalism) and McGrew (strong non-Cartesian foundationalism). In that post I argued that spiritual formation requires an epistemological position somewhere in the middle of the Audi and McGrew proposals.
Based on these alternatives, I want to recommend that for the process of spiritual formation we adopt a position similar to Audi's modest foundationalism. In order to adequately transform ourselves and our lives to be more like Christ, we must recognize that those beliefs we develop chiefly from reflection and perception may turn out to be incorrect based on observation or other inductive processes. It could be that (a) I have believed something wrong about my own life in light of faith, and (b) have lived out according to this incorrect view. In light of new teachings or new influences I can change my beliefs to draw my life nearer to the standard of God's pleasing and perfect will.
This position also accomodates the falsifiability principle w/r/t the Christian faith: if evidence emerges that disproves the Christian faith, then I am obligated to believe according to the evidence (taking a strong Cliffordian position here). Until that foundation is falsified, though, I am justified in holding the tenets of Christian faith at the foundations of my being. I'm arguing here for a multi-level system of justification: I am justified by virtue of empirical evidence (e.g. McGrew's inclusion of empirical beliefs) in believing Christianity and its demands on my life are true, but my formation and position with respect to true Christianity is fallible based on my ability to grasp and change wrong belief or orientation (i.e., the process of spiritual formation).
This conclusion should indicate that I hold anti-foundationalism to be incompatible with the process of spiritual formation. For an explanation, I commend (?) to you my earlier post (#2 in this series). However, I sense a few potential problems with my thinking here.
- First, I'm operating on a specific understanding of anti-foundationalism, as offered by Charles Sanders Peirce and as professed within the American philosophical tradition: is there a sense of anti-foundationalism that differs from this presentation? If so, what is it?
- Second, I'm not clear that my indented proposal above actually works. Is it the case that we can have multiple levels of epistemic justification and that different "systems" function on the multiple levels? More specifically, can we be strong foundationalists with respect to our basic beliefs but be Audian (?) about a higher tier of beliefs?
- Third, if I take a strong stance a la Clifford (that I am duty-bound to believe according to the evidence), what is the system of justification required? And on a related note, can an anti-foundationalist be as duty-bound as a foundationalist is?
- Finally, I'm wondering what precisely one thinks anti-foundationalism contributes to either (a) spiritual formation, or (b) the understanding of Christian faith as a whole.
Continuing this conversation is important, but the issue about anti-foundationalism should be explored a little more before I proceed. Thoughts?
The main things I’ve read on Anti-Foundationalism from a Christian perspective are from Stanley Grenz and John Franke – Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context (Westminster John Knox, 2000), and Franke’s new book, The Character of Theology: A Postconservative Evangelical Approach (Baker Academic, 2005). Have you interacted with these, and if so, what did you think?
Becky,
“Christianity and the Postmodern Turn: Six Views” edited by Myron Penner, would be of interest to you, as well. I do think, from my one look of that book, the issue of foundationalism is addressed and debated a bit, among evangelicals -including John Franke. Here’s the link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1587431084/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/002-0046199-7576067?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Bob/Ted: Thanks for the direction. I have not interacted with Grenz or Franke, so I’ll be looking to doing that!
Becky,
FYI, if you are interested, I interacted with the book Ted recommended and the Grenz/Franke book in a series called, “Toward a Proper Christian Response to Postmodernity.”
The links to the blog series can be found here.
Since Constantine and the Council of Nicea, Christianity became a religion determined by orthodoxy rather than orthopraxy. But that makes me wonder whether the concern about correct “beliefs” is a necessary question concerning Christian spiritual formation. Do practices entail specific beliefs about the meaning of the practices? Or just entail more mundane things like, “I believe that I am eating this food.”
I would hope that “anti-foundationalism” could contribute to spiritual (or at least ethico-political) formation, and that seems to be part of Rorty’s point in “Philosophy and Social Hope.”
Becky – where was the crash helmut warning?
I finaly found a kidless quiet moment with some stong coffee to read all three posts. And I’ll reread them a few more times before Wed (I do have Penner and will crack it too).
Anyhow, I have no grand insight at this time. I think you are digging into a very important topic. The question that does come to mind is the relationship between our work and the Lord’s work in spiritual formation. Yes, I can consciously chose practices that detract or contribute to becoming formed like Christ. But ultimately my heart is changed by the work of the Holy Spirit. So there are definately two actors in this process.
So I like point two above. I think I would hold to a stong foundationalist with regards to my understanding of God and his nature. But perhaps the anti-foundationalism (or actually just the modest foundationalism of Audi) can contribute to a certain epistemic humility. If the necessary humility and acknowledgment that “I may be wrong about my life and my understanding of God” can be found in a modest foundationalism, what does anti-foundationalism bring to the table? (Ted? Bob? Nedric?) Anyhow, I have not experienced the joys of taking metaphysics and epistemology yet, so I need to brush up a little.
Nedric – Orthodoxy was importand long before Nicea – see how many times Paul uses the word false. Check out Irenaeus “Against Heresy.” Moreover, once the biggie of the nature of Christ’s divinity was decided, the bishops spent quite a bit of time organizing the practices involved with running the church. Since I won’t be reading Rorty’s “Philosophy and Social Hope” anytime soon, please elaborate on your second paragraph.
If “all beliefs are subject to critical scrutiny” (anti foundationalism, Penner p 111) then how can I be formed into that which is constantly changing?Sounds like shifting sand to me. I prefer to build on a rock….
Nancy,
What I have gleaned from “anti-foundationalism” (and I am no expert), is that we must build our faith on Jesus Christ (like you hint at above — “I prefer to build on a rock). What Christian anti-foundationalism warns of is this: We should be wary of building our faith on the foundation of rationalism. While we can accept that we all generally think in a foundationalist fashion (basing what we believe on “basic” beliefs), we must reject the Cartesian Foundationalism of modernity that says that we can arrive at indubitable beliefs by way of Reason. Reason is not a god to whom we should be bending our knees. To get beyond the Cartesian Foundationalism of “Reason,” a Christian community openly embraces that we indeed have a “foundation” for all we believe and all we do — our experience with the incarnational, living God in our midst.