I'm unconvinced that propositions are independent, abstract objects. And while some philosophers may think of them this way, its hardly a consensus.

Just because Joe Blow Pagan doesn't think, utter, or live according to the statement, “Jesus died for my sins” doesn't make the reality of Christ death non-existent. Reality is not contingent on anything but God. It's almost as if you make no distinction between “truth” and “reality”. They are obviously different. I just don't know how they are different in your view.

But that's for another time. peace.

It appears we are missing one another in our definitions of “proposition.” Although in common usage a “proposition” is, as you note, an expression or sentence, this is not how the term is used by philosophers. While the word “sentence” refers to something expressed in language, the designation of “proposition” as referring to abstract objects means that it is extra-linguistic. The examples of yellowness and triangularity were meant to illustrate how abstract objects work (by being exemplified in objects), and if propositions are abstract objects, then they would likely work the same way. They serve to unify the group of sentences or utterances in the various languages in the world (e.g., “The cat is dead” and “El gato es muerto”). In themselves, sentences are nothing more than symbols and sounds with no meaning. What gives them their meaning? What supplies the content? Answer: propositions, or so the argument goes. The two sentences express (or exemplify) one proposition, and the truth of the sentences depends on the truth of the proposition. The proposition is true whether or not it is expressed linguistically–the cat is dead whether or not someone expresses it. On your view wherein truth is subjective, the sentence “the cat is dead” would not be true until expressed by a subject, which is a problem in my opinion. While this is not by itself relative, it leads to relativism in that sentences such as “Jesus died for my sins” would not be true for a person (given the use of “my”) until they say so, which, again, is a problem imo.

As for (post-)foundationalism, to say that there are indeed foundations in post-foundationalism is to say that you are a post-foundationalist foundationalist, which is confusing.

I'm glad that we agree that we don't need to be certain to know something.

It appears we are missing one another in our definitions of “proposition.” Although in common usage a “proposition” is, as you note, an expression or sentence, this is not how the term is used by philosophers. While the word “sentence” refers to something expressed in language, the designation of “proposition” as referring to abstract objects means that it is extra-linguistic. The examples of yellowness and triangularity were meant to illustrate how abstract objects work (by being exemplified in objects), and if propositions are abstract objects, then they would likely work the same way. They serve to unify the group of sentences or utterances in the various languages in the world (e.g., “The cat is dead” and “El gato es muerto”). In themselves, sentences are nothing more than symbols and sounds with no meaning. What gives them their meaning? What supplies the content? Answer: propositions, or so the argument goes. The two sentences express (or exemplify) one proposition, and the truth of the sentences depends on the truth of the proposition. The proposition is true whether or not it is expressed linguistically–the cat is dead whether or not someone expresses it. On your view wherein truth is subjective, the sentence “the cat is dead” would not be true until expressed by a subject, which is a problem in my opinion. While this is not by itself relative, it leads to relativism in that sentences such as “Jesus died for my sins” would not be true for a person (given the use of “my”) until they say so, which, again, is a problem imo.

As for (post-)foundationalism, to say that there are indeed foundations in post-foundationalism is to say that you are a post-foundationalist foundationalist, which is confusing.

I'm glad that we agree that we don't need to be certain to know something.

There is a difference between truth being “relative” and “subjective”. I'll assume you and I agree on two things: 1) truth isn't relative and 2) truth is that which conforms to reality. But the very definition of truth implies subjectivity with the phrase “that which conforms”. Something different from reality is necessary to have truth. This is where a proposition comes into play. A proposition is a statement or expression of what is true or false. But to have a proposition, there must be a subject to express it.

Propositions are indeed things, but they are things contigent/dependent on a subject. Propositions are not like Plato's forms that somehow exist and float in reality.

The subjectivity of truth doesn't mean truth is relative. Nor does it change reality (obviously). So I'm not sure why there is a problem acknowledging the subjectivity of truth.

So with this shift in emphasis, I would concede your point noting the extreme views you present. As I've mentioned, so few evangelicals (in my view) hold to your characterization of a “postmodern society” that I find it difficult to see how this helps our mutual growth.

As for your other question, I'm kind of getting at that with Timbo. So tune in there. But to make a comment about humility. Humility is absolutely essential as you know. If you have humility, you can be dead wrong, but still display the love and grace of Christ. But what I think some of us are asking is, “are we evangelicals humble enough not simply to afford great respect to others, but to take honest, hard looks at our own views”. As a pastor, I enjoy going to pastors conferences and engaging in dialogue. Unfortunately, its rather common to find from traditional/conservative theologians unwilling to committed to the process of reformation. So it seems to me that humility demands that we be willing to say, “maybe I've got it wrong here”. I just don't see much of that within evangelical theology. What I see is, “they've got it wrong and how can we add to our statement of faith to make sure everyone knows that.” I mean, the statement of faith the T4G people put together was ridiculous. So I'm with you, Amy. But I think evangelicals hold a little more tightly to the “orthodoxy” in “Humble Orthodoxy”.