Trusting Our Senses and Cognitive Faculties for Knowledge

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Our Vaisnava philosophy tells us that our senses and reasoning powers are limited and defective when it comes to gaining knowledge. Srila Prabhupada explains:

” … anyone born through the material energy must be subject to the four material deficiencies: bhrama (the tendency to commit mistakes), pramada (the tendency to be illusioned), vipralipsa (the tendency to cheat) and karanapatava (imperfect senses).”

In the verse and purport of Caitanya-caritamrita, Adi-lila 7.107 it is stated:

bhrama, pramada, vipralipsa, karanapatava
isvarera vakye nahi dosa ei saba

“The material defects of mistakes, illusions, cheating and sensory inefficiency do not exist in the words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

PURPORT

A mistake is the acceptance of an object to be different from what it is or the acceptance of false knowledge. For example, one may see a rope in the dark and think it to be a serpent, or one may see a glittering oyster shell and think it to be gold. These are mistakes. Similarly, an illusion is a misunderstanding that arises from inattention while hearing, and cheating is the transmission of such defective knowledge to others. Materialistic scientists and philosophers generally use such words as “maybe” and “perhaps” because they do not have actual knowledge of complete facts. Therefore their instructing others is an example of cheating. The final defect of the materialistic person is his inefficient senses. Although our eyes, for example, have the power to see, they can’t see that which is situated at a distance, nor can they see the eyelid, which is the object nearest to the eye. To our untrained eyes the sun appears to be just like a plate, and to the eyes of one who is suffering from jaundice everything appears to be yellow. Therefore we can’t rely on the knowledge acquired through such imperfect eyes. The ears are equally imperfect. We can’t hear a sound vibrated a long distance away unless we put a telephone to our ear. Similarly, if we analyze all our senses in this way, we will find them all to be imperfect. Therefore it is useless to acquire knowledge through the senses.”

We can see how one defect leads to the next:

Since 1) our senses are imperfect 2) we come under illusion, and when we act under illusion 3) we commit mistakes, and when we try to convince others that our mistakes are correct 4) we are cheating.

The vast majority of atheistic philosophers and scientists agree that our senses and cognitive faculties are subject to defects and are therefore not fully trustworthy, but many of them argue that we can still have a general trust in them in our pursuit of knowledge.

Atheistic thinkers employ several philosophical arguments in their attempt to justify that trusting our senses and cognitive faculties in their pursuit of knowledge is possible in the absence of a theistic framework. These arguments generally fall into different epistemological approaches, such as empiricism, rationalism, and pragmatism.

As Vaisnavas, devotees of Krishna, we agree that even though our senses and cognitive faculties are subject to defects they can be trusted to some degree and under certain circumstances, but we argue that for this to be the case one must first embrace a theistic worldview. Otherwise one’s trust can’t be grounded in reason.

In the following I’ll present some of the atheistic thinkers’ key arguments, each followed by my attempt to show how they fail due to the fact that no worldview can justify the reliability of human reasoning and sensory perception without first assuming a theistic framework.

1. Reliability of Senses through Empirical Success (Empiricism)

Empiricists argue that our senses are reliable because they have proven useful in navigating and understanding the world. The success of scientific experiments, technological advancements, and the ability to predict natural phenomena suggest that our sensory experiences are generally trustworthy.

• Scientific Method

The success of the scientific method, which relies heavily on observation and experimentation, provides strong evidence that our senses are reliable tools for acquiring knowledge.

• Consistency

Sensory data tends to be consistent across different people and times. For example, we all observe the sun rising and setting, and this consistency supports the claim that our senses are generally accurate.

Critique

The reliability of our senses can’t be justified purely by their success. Empiricism assumes the uniformity of nature – that future sensory experiences will resemble past ones – but it can’t justify why the universe should behave this way without presupposing a worldview in which a Supreme God upholds the laws of nature. Without a theistic framework, the empiricist has no rational basis for trusting that sensory experience is reliable or that the future will resemble the past.

2. Evolutionary Argument (Naturalism)

According to evolutionary theory, our cognitive faculties, including our senses, have been shaped by natural selection. This shaping implies that they must be generally reliable, as organisms with unreliable faculties would not have survived and reproduced effectively.

• Survival Advantage

Evolution favors faculties that enable organisms to successfully interact with their environment. Therefore, our senses and cognitive faculties are likely to be reliable because they contribute to survival and reproduction.

• Adaptive Fit

Since our faculties are adapted to our environment, they should produce mostly accurate representations of the world around us.

Critique

Evolution does not guarantee the truth or reliability of our cognitive faculties, only their survival value. A belief can be false yet still beneficial for survival. For example, believing in a predator where none exists might be advantageous. Thus, naturalism offers no grounds to trust our faculties’ truth-seeking ability; it can only suggest they aid survival. Only a theistic worldview provides a reason to believe that our cognitive faculties are reliable – because they are created by a rational God.

3. Common-Sense Realism

This argument appeals to the intuitive belief that we should trust our senses because we have no good reason to doubt them in most ordinary circumstances. Common-sense realism asserts that the world is generally as we perceive it, and skepticism of our senses is unwarranted unless there is specific evidence to the contrary.

• Pragmatic Success

In everyday life, our senses help us achieve our goals, such as driving a car, cooking, or engaging in social interactions. This practical success suggests that, in most cases, our senses give us an accurate picture of reality.

• Pre-theoretical Trust

Before engaging in complex philosophical theorizing, we already trust our senses, and abandoning this trust without a compelling reason is seen as irrational.

Critique

Common-sense realism assumes the reliability of the senses without justification. Why should we trust our senses at all if we can’t account for their origin or function within a consistent worldview? Common-sense realism only works within a worldview that presupposes a Creator who designed humans with reliable faculties. Without this theistic grounding, common-sense realism can’t escape the charge of circular reasoning, as it presupposes what it seeks to prove.

4. Coherence Theory of Truth

This argument suggests that the trustworthiness of our senses and cognitive faculties can be justified through the coherence of our experiences and beliefs. If our sensory perceptions and cognitive judgments fit together in a consistent and coherent way, this provides justification for trusting them.

• Mutual Reinforcement

Sensory data and rational inferences often reinforce one another. For example, our visual perception of an object can be confirmed by touching it, and our understanding of logical principles is supported by consistent observations.

• Internal Coherence

Our beliefs about the world, which are based on sensory input and cognitive processing, often form a coherent web. This coherence provides a reason to trust our faculties since inconsistencies would quickly reveal themselves.

Critique

Mere coherence within a belief system does not guarantee truth. A set of beliefs can be internally consistent but still false. For example, a fictional story can be coherent but untrue. Without an external standard of truth, such as Krishna, the Supreme God of the Vedas, coherence alone can’t justify the truthfulness of our perceptions and reasoning. Only in a worldview grounded in revelation from a Supreme God can coherence and truth be properly aligned.

5. Phenomenal Conservatism

This view argues that if it seems to a person that something is the case, they are justified in believing it, unless there is a specific reason to doubt it. In other words, our sensory experiences and cognitive intuitions are trustworthy by default, and we only need to question them if there is evidence of error.

• Prima Facie Justification

Our experiences and intuitions provide immediate, prima facie justification for belief. Unless we encounter counter-evidence (like an optical illusion), we are justified in trusting our faculties.

• Burden of Proof

According to this view, the burden of proof lies with those who would argue against trusting our senses and cognitive faculties, not with those who trust them.

Critique

This view assumes the reliability of human faculties without addressing the underlying question of why our senses and intuitions are reliable in the first place. Without grounding in a theistic worldview, phenomenal conservatism is baseless, as it merely assumes the truth of what it is trying to prove. Only by presupposing the existence of a faithful and rational Supreme God, such as Krishna, can we trust that our sensory perceptions and cognitive faculties are generally reliable.

6. Transcendental Argument (Kantian Approach)

Immanuel Kant’s transcendental argument suggests that we must trust our senses and cognitive faculties because they are necessary conditions for experience itself. That is, the very possibility of having coherent experiences and making sense of the world presupposes the reliability of our cognitive faculties.

• Preconditions of Experience

According to Kant, certain cognitive structures, like time and space, are necessary for any experience. Since we can’t have any experience without these cognitive faculties, we are justified in trusting them as reliable.

Critique

Kant’s argument fails because it does not identify why these structures exist or why we should trust them to give us truth. As devotees of Krishna we argue that the only reason we can trust our cognitive faculties is because they were designed by Krishna, a supremely rational God. Without acknowledging a Supreme God as the precondition for intelligibility, the Kantian approach can’t account for why the preconditions of experience correspond to objective truth.

7. Pragmatism

Pragmatists argue that the reliability of our senses and cognitive faculties should be judged based on their practical success. If our faculties help us achieve goals, solve problems, and make successful predictions, then they are reliable.

• Truth as Workability

Pragmatists hold that truth is what works in practice. If our senses and cognitive faculties allow us to successfully interact with the world, then they can be considered trustworthy.

• Practical Consequences

The fact that we can use our faculties to create functional technology, cure diseases, and engage in productive social interactions suggests that they are reliable tools for knowing the world.

Critique

Pragmatism can’t account for objective truth or reliability. Just because something works does not mean it is true. False beliefs can still lead to successful outcomes in certain situations (e.g., placebo effects). Only theism can provide a framework in which the notion of “truth” has a firm, objective grounding. Pragmatism reduces truth to utility, but utility does not equate to truth in a meaningful sense unless anchored in a Supreme God’s revealed truth.

8. Externalist Theories of Knowledge

Externalist theories of knowledge, such as reliabilism, argue that our senses and cognitive faculties are justified if they are reliable, even if we can’t always internally verify their reliability. The fact that our faculties produce true beliefs most of the time (even if we can’t always explain how) is sufficient to justify trusting them.

• Reliability as a Justification

As long as our faculties generally lead to accurate beliefs, we are justified in relying on them without needing to provide an internal proof of their reliability.

Critique

Externalism begs the question by assuming the reliability of our faculties without a proper foundation. Reliabilism relies on the observation that our faculties tend to be reliable, but it can’t explain why they are reliable. Without a theistic worldview that posits a Creator who designed our faculties to discover truth, reliabilism has no basis for trusting that our faculties reliably lead us to truth rather than mere survival or practical success.

9. Defeasibility Approach

This argument holds that our sensory and cognitive faculties are justified unless there is specific, defeating evidence showing that they are unreliable. In the absence of such evidence, we are entitled to trust our faculties.

• Absence of Defeaters

Unless we encounter situations where our faculties clearly fail (e.g., illusions, cognitive biases), we can assume they are functioning properly. In most cases, the lack of counter-evidence supports the trustworthiness of our faculties.

Critique

This approach merely defers the deeper issue. While it is practical to trust our faculties unless proven otherwise, the defeasibility approach can’t explain why our faculties are reliable in the first place. A theistic worldview, where human faculties are understood as being created by a rational Supreme God, can provide the necessary foundation for believing our faculties are reliable. Without this foundation, we are left with an unjustified assumption that our faculties are trustworthy.

Conclusion

Non-theistic worldviews, including empiricism, pragmatism, and naturalism, can’t adequately justify the reliability of our senses and cognitive faculties. These worldviews assume the reliability of human cognition without providing a consistent foundation for that assumption. In fact, according to our Krishna conscious philosophy we can take their trust in sensory perception and reasoning as evidence that they are borrowing from theism.

In contrast to the atheistic thinkers, we, as devotees of Krishna, contend that only a worldview grounded in a Supreme God, Krishna, can account for why our senses and reasoning are trustworthy, since Krishna created us as His part and parcels we share His qualities – though not in the same quantity – and so we are created by Him with faculties designed to know and understand Him and His material and spiritual creations.