The overlapping of "isms"

Elgin describes the concept of foundationalism epistemology as the belief that "knowledge is incompatible with error and independent of luck" and goes on to say that to have knowledge, one must have objective justification. In my opinion, this sounds very similar to Lynch's theory of verificationism, in which everything that is considered "truth" must be verified. I realize both theories have their flaws, the main one  being it is extremely difficult to completely justify everything you believe and therefore one can not acquire a great deal of knowledge (or truth - I feel as though the concepts overlap). As we discussed in our last class, many of us admitted we would rather be ignorant than have certainty. I think the reason for this is because we, in my humble opinion, recognize complete certainty is unattainable and we decide to settle. I know, I know - "truth is a worthy goal of inquiry." I'm still not 100% convinced of that. Religion could not exist if everyone required complete justification in order to believe something. 

I'm still continuing to ponder the debate with which we ended Tuesday's class. Are humans inherently good or inherently selfish? And can we be both or must we be one or the other? My opinion fluctuates back and forth, but my inner cynic keeps deciding many examples point to us being inherently selfish. Has anyone reached any sort of conclusion regarding this?