Comments on: ETS 2: Moreland v. Franke on Non-Foundationalism

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 07:47:00 +0000

I think that's basically what he is, a weak or “mild” foundationalist.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 07:45:00 +0000

I just found this post on google… so obviously I'm very late…
Franke is making a case for mild-foundationalism versus strong-foundationalism. As he stated in Beyond Foundationalism, everyone must be a foundationalist of some sort in the Descartes cogito ergo sum sort of way.
Can incomplete knowledge be accurate and exact? Yes of course. It can be accurate and exact within a very very narrow scope. Unfortunately, strong foundationalists never limit their narrow scope far enough. Remember Franke's argument for a localized situated truth. For example (and a reason why Franke's theology is not self-refuting) Franke's theology can be true within the cultural and social limitations of the 21th century evangelical church, but may not be true for the next century.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:35:00 +0000

As an onlooker from the UK, can anyone tell me how much influence Franke, Grenz et al have had on the evangelical scene stateside?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 17:36:00 +0000

Thanks DJ. I intentionally left out the self-refuting claims because I think they warrant an additional post. The only way a self-refuting claim would be acceptable for a non-foundationalist is if they're a relativist. Franke did not claim he wasn't concerned about being self-refuting, rather, he claimed his statements wern't self-refuting. To me, he sounds more like a coherentist (formally) than a relativist.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 17:02:00 +0000

What I'm not able to discern from this short synopsis (and a good one at that) is what statement has Franke made that is obviously self-refuting to non-emergents? And, even if someone does make a self-refuting statement, as a non-foundationalist, wouldn't that be okay? Would it be true that only a strict foundationalist requires all statements to be not self-refuting?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:07:00 +0000

Thanks for the synopsis. It wasworth linking to as I'm doing another series on embracing the wheat of emerging churches and not the chaff. Non-foundationalism doesn't fall into the wheat category in my opinion. In fact, I'm not sure why this is considered new stuff. He should become greek orthodox instead of telling the American Evangelical church at large to adopt Orthodox philosophy. God is good jpu

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:08:00 +0000

Franke does understand now that not everyone who claims to be a foundationalist is one in the Cartesian sense. He made that clear, and Moreland noted it and said we can move forward now away from such mischaracterizations. Still, Franke is critiquing strong foundationalism and ending up at non-foundationalism. I've yet to hear him offer any sort of critique of weak foundationalism (unless I missed it somehow).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 20 Nov 2005 04:00:00 +0000

Well, Franke seems to use the term (non-) foundationalism in reference to Cartesian certainty, not in reference to the idea that the structure of justification contains basic and non-basic beliefs. Thus, Franke uses foundationalism in a narrow sense and foundations in a broad sense. That he doesn't seem to understand how this creates confusion is very puzzling to me. To err is human and forgivable. To err again and again is quite bothersome.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 20 Nov 2005 02:44:00 +0000

Bill- yea, it was cool to be there. There was only a few mintues of dialogue before the Q & A, but through the Q & A they dialogued some more.
Timbo- I'd like some more explanation on that as well, however, I assume it's explained, at least t some degree, in the book Franke co-authored with Grenz- Beyond Foundationalism.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 05:44:00 +0000

I'd like Franke to elaborate on how non-foundationalism doesn't mean he doesn't believe in foundations as well. Does that mean Franke is now a non-foundationalist foundationalist? What the heck is that? Is it like anti-war protestors who support the war? Atheists who believe in God? A city without a Starbucks? James Bond having blond hair? (Anyone else wanna jump in?)