By Ajit Krishna Dasa
Question:
Paraphrasing a question that a devotee recently asked me:
“Theists often argue: “The whole material manifestation needs a Creator, because it could not have come about by itself. Therefore, a God must exist. To this atheists often respond: “If there needs to be a God, does He not also need a creator? And if God does not need a creator, then why does the material world need a creator?” How do we answer that?”
Answer:
You will get different answers according to the apologetic method used by those who answer. There are several apologetic methods, but as devotees we can categorize them as either belonging to 1) the aroha pantha (the ascending path) or 2) the avaroha pantha (the descending path).
The Ascending Apologetic Method
When aroha pantha, or the ascending path is used as an apologetic method, the aim is to use sense perception and reasoning to argue for the existence of God, or certain details of a specific theistic worldview. The method considers sense perception and reasoning as independent and neutral pramanas (means of knowledge) which can be used equally by both theist and atheist.
Such an apologetic method will attempt to “ascend to God” by building its case from data collected through its pramanas until it reaches the conclusion that God exists. From there it will attempt to go further by presenting evidence for the preferred God of the theist – be it Jahve, Jehova, Allah, Krishna, etc.
The problem with this apologetic method is that it cannot be used without violating Vaisnava epistemology. That is because in Vaisnava epistemology sense perception and reasoning are considered wholly useless unless validated as pramanas by sabda, i.e. divine revelation from God. The ascending apologetic method thus becomes redundant, since it relies on God to prove Him.
Another problem is that atheists operate as if sense perception and reasoning are pramanas in the absence of God, so by agreeing to their epistemology we are not only implicitly agreeing that our own epistemology is wrong, but are also giving the atheist way too much much space to present his case.
As I will show below, and in the articles I present links to, atheists have no epistemology, because they deny sabda, divine revelation. Why should we allow them to build their case on a self-contradictory epistemology. Even one that goes against Vaisnavism?
Now, if the debate about the eternality of God and the universe is conducted between two theists who both acknowledge that divine revelation is the root pramana, and that sense perception and reasoning are only pramanas if they have been validated by divine revelation, then it makes sense to present and evaluate evidence based on sense perception and reason for and against the opposing views.
I personally have a liking for the arguments presented by William Lane Craig (who adheres to the ascending path). Here are two videos:
The Descending Apologetic Method
Using the avaroha method we will consider a completely different answer to the question at hand. We will here attempt to show how atheism as a whole makes no sense due to its inability to establish a working epistemology, and thus itself as a worldview. We will not discuss details with the atheist but instead show how atheism as a whole fails as a worldview.
Krishna consciousness is self-authenticating (svatah-pramana). It cannot be independently proven by any outside evidence. It is itself the ultimate foundation of all evidences and proofs – and of the pramanas they are built upon. So without presupposing the truth of Krishna, or of a general monotheistic God of somewhat the same character, we cannot understand anything – not even our own thinking and reasoning.
To presuppose Krishna consciousness and Vedic knowledge is not unnatural. It is not blind faith. We already have it in us:
“There is inclination in everyone, but by artificial means, they have been checked. Otherwise, normally, this inclination is there in everyone’s heart. Nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-bhakti sādhya kabhu naya. It is not an artificial imposition.” (Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.12 — Vrndavana, October 23, 1972)
And since we already have it in us it is impossible for us to not presuppose it without engaging in self-deception.
Comparing the Ascending and Descending Apologetic Methods
When comparing the aroha method with the avaroha method we can see that they strongly disagree with each other. Devotees following the aroha method preach philosophically (to convince themselves and others) by resorting to the above mentioned topsy-turvy epistemology, presenting evidence based only on sense perception and reasoning:
1) Sense perception and reasoning are wrongly presupposed as independent and neutral sources of valid knowledge that both theist and atheist have equal access to.
2) Sense data processed by the use of logic is used to argue in favor of the mere probability of God’s existence (or some other Vedic truth). There is no need to argue as if God is only a mere probability, since His existence can be established with certainty by the avaroha apologetic method.
Challenges with this approach:
A) Sense perception and logic are not sources of knowledge if they are used independent of sabda-pramana. In other words, sense perception and reasoning have no epistemic authority in the absence of God as their validator. Theists and atheists do, therefore, not have equal access to these tools. As devotees, then, we must ask ourselves: Why should we give sense perception and logic to the atheists when atheism cannot account for their validity in the first place?
B) Even though God is the cause of all causes, and even though His existence is self-evident, and can be proved with certainty by the avaroha apologetic method, He is reduced to a mere probability. The atheists are elevated to the position of judges, and God is in the dock. In reality the aroha apologetic method is offensive to God.
C) Using the aroha method we, and others, can at best come to believe in a probable God, since no absolute proof is possible by material evidence alone. Since sense perception and logic are not absolute our position and faith will be weakened when we are presented with counter-evidence, as we will be from time to time.
I am not saying that the aroha apologetic method cannot be used at all. In certain cases it might be helpful as an additional strategy. But it should never be used without understanding the avaroha method, i.e. the proper Vedic revelational epistemology with which we can present the strongest possible case that is also fully in line with our Vaisnava worldview:
1) The existence of God and Vedic statements are presupposed as eternal axiomatic truths. They are revealed by God and His pure devotees, and we (can) know them beyond doubt, since they are inherent in our soul. Self-realized souls are always consciously aware of these truths, while they are lying dormant in every conditioned soul who has consciously suppressed and forgotten them (so-called atheists are therefore atheists in name only. They are “atheists.”) As aspiring devotees we are supposed to have access to these eternal axiomatic revealed truths. At least to a certain degree.
2) Everything else (even the validity of sense perception and logic) is proven, and can only be proven, in the light of 1.
3) Deeper and deeper levels of realization of God and the Vedic truths can be attained by practicing sadhana-bhakti.
To further understand how atheism is self-contradictory, and thus how theism is necessarily true, please read these articles:
The God-Does-Not-Exist-Self-Contradiction
Hare Krishna!
-Ajit Krishna Dasa
Ajit Krishna Dasa 
Leave a comment