What are coherentism, contextualism, and foundationalism?

Answer

Coherentism (or contextualism) and foundationalism represent opposing approaches to determining whether a particular belief is justified. In the realm of general philosophy, this evaluation is known as justification, a concept distinct from the biblical notion of justification in relation to salvation. Philosophical justification pertains to assessing whether an individual holds a reasonable level of confidence in a belief. Foundationalism adopts a more objective yet abstract stance, while Coherentism is more practical but is plagued by logical weaknesses.

Discussions in philosophy concerning knowledge, or epistemology, can be broadly categorized into three distinct ideas: a statement can be deemed true or false; an individual may either accept or reject that statement; and the justification for that opinion may be either sound or unsound. These three concepts are respectively known as “truth,” “belief,” and “justification.” They are truly independent: a person can hold a belief based on irrational grounds even if it happens to be true, or, according to some perspectives, reasonably hold a belief that ultimately proves to be false.

Coherentism and foundationalism are differing perspectives on justification. Instead of directly addressing the truth or falsehood of a belief, these perspectives aim to define the criteria that render a belief justified: when is it reasonable to consider a belief as true?

This distinction is particularly significant due to the existence of a “coherence theory of truth,” which should not be confused with coherentism or contextualism concerning justification. When contrasting foundationalism and coherentism, it is crucial to recognize that these discussions do not revolve around what is factually true but rather represent diverse viewpoints on what validates a belief or makes it reasonable for an individual to uphold.

Foundationalism can be likened to a tree, pyramid, or brick wall. For a belief to be justified, it must be supported by another belief that is itself justified, and this chain continues until reaching the ultimate foundation for those beliefs.

As the foundation is reached. According to foundationalism, all justified beliefs are ultimately grounded in certain other beliefs that cannot be derived from or verified by other beliefs. These axioms are foundational and necessary. They “must be believed” in order to have any knowledge at all. For a belief to be properly justified, foundationalism demands that it be traced to one or more of these fundamental maxims.

Coherentism (contextualism) can be visualized as a massively complex web or a cloud or a tangle of cords. To be justified, a belief must be supported by other beliefs. The more contact the belief has with other ideas—the more it coheres with the surrounding structure—the more justified it is. Like looking at a cobweb from the center out, there might not be a perceivable end point. Connections may branch off in many directions without having any self-anchored end point. According to coherentism, justified beliefs are those that have “good enough” support from other beliefs, and they do not require the chain of support to be verified until it stops—if it ever does. For a belief to be properly justified, coherentism demands it be connected to a subjectively sufficient number of supporting beliefs.

Foundationalism is supported primarily by the force of logic. The existence of foundational truths is demonstrated in the theories of basic mathematics, such as “a number is equal to itself.” That statement can’t be deduced from other ideas, but neither can it be denied without obliterating logic and mathematics themselves. Foundationalism allows the strongest possible ties between truth and belief by creating a direct link between the two. It also avoids the problem of an argument eventually being used to support itself. However, foundationalism is also abstract. While it might be logically possible to trace all facts and ideas to basic maxims, it is not practical to do so, and such tracing is virtually never done in the real world.

Coherentism’s main advantageThe concept of practicality is essential. Tracing a belief back to fundamental axioms is challenging for most individuals, even if they have an inclination to explore such a revelation. It is also a fact that, in certain instances, the chain of justification can become unclear: not all stages in the process are straightforward and easy to identify. This implies that the majority of individuals in reality approach justification through a pragmatic form of coherentism, even if they hold the belief that there should be an objective endpoint for their reasoning. The risk is that coherentism can easily transition into relativism. It may even progress to solipsism, as the definition of a “sufficiently good” connection is highly subjective.

In the end, both foundationalism and coherentism can align with a biblical perspective. This is because neither presents a declaration of what “is true” or what one “should believe,” but rather the method by which one ascertains if there is a justified correlation between a belief and truth (see 1 John 4:1;2 Corinthians 13:5;Acts 17:11). While foundationalism appears more sturdy, human fallibility must be considered, allowing for the application of coherentism in certain scenarios.