I don't know what a foundationalist is. I think the difference comes down to what you demand from your knowledge of reality. Every time I use the GPS on my ph

I don't know what a foundationalist is. I think the difference comes down to what you demand from your knowledge of reality. Every time I use the GPS on my phone to see where I am, I am relying on the axioms underpinning GR to hold true within the precision required to correct the atomic clocks on the satellites for time dilation. The principles of GR may not model reality completely -- and it would be really unusual and surprising if they did -- but they're good enough for me because they're testable. I don't understand your "hint" it sounds like an attempt at snarky humour from a position of petitio principii but I really can't unravel the intention inside the gag. Here, I'm poking fun at you because (assuming you're not just adopting a religious POV as a rhetorical exercise) you have to die to find out if you're right, while all I have to do is open my eyes and compare my location to what my GPS tells me. To the extent these locations differ, I can ask questions and eventually understand why. I see no need to consider the supernatural until I have perfected my understanding of the natural... which ain't gonna happen anytime soon. If that makes me a 'foundationalist,' then so be it.