Answering critics: Is Presuppositionalism for Vaisnavas?

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

A critic of my article “What Is Presuppositionalism and Why Does It Matter for Vaisnavas? wrote:

“Isn’t this just the argument from reason? It seems like that’s what you’re making. Presuppositionalism, on the other hand, is incoherent. From what I remember, presuppositionalism assumes God exists without proof.

The argument from reason goes like this: Reason and cognitive faculties exist, and God is the best explanation for their existence, so God exists. Presuppositionalism, however, claims: If reason exists, then God exists—but it skips over proving that reason exists in the first place. Essentially, the argument from reason says, ‘Reason exists, so God exists,’ while presuppositionalism says, ‘God exists, so reason can exist—therefore God exists.’ This makes presuppositionalism completely circular and a really bad argument. It’s widely ridiculed in the philosophy of religion, and you probably don’t want to associate with it.”

Me:

Hare Krishna, dear Vaisnava!

I appreciate your engagement, but your critique seems to misunderstand both the nature of presuppositionalism and its alignment with Vaisnava epistemology. Let me address your points step by step, while also pointing out a deeper issue: your approach leans on the aroha-pantha (ascending process), which is fundamentally at odds with the avaroha-pantha (descending process) emphasized in our tradition.

Misunderstanding Presuppositionalism

You’ve described presuppositionalism as if it’s just blind assumption – “God exists, therefore reason exists.” But that’s not how it works. Presuppositionalism doesn’t ignore reason; rather, it argues that reason itself requires God’s existence to be coherent.

The basic idea is this: if God is not the source of truth and order, reason, logic, and intelligibility fall apart. Without God, we’re left with no firm ground to justify why our cognitive faculties should be reliable or why the universe should operate consistently enough for reasoning to even work. Presuppositionalism doesn’t bypass reason; it challenges atheists, skeptics, and others to explain how they can even use reason without borrowing from a theistic framework.

The Issue of Circularity

You’ve criticized presuppositionalism for being “completely circular.” That’s a common objection, but it misses a key distinction: necessary circularity versus vicious circularity.

Every worldview relies on some ultimate starting point – a foundational presupposition that it can’t prove without first assuming. For instance, naturalists assume their cognitive faculties are reliable to argue for naturalism. That’s circular, but they’d call it necessary because it’s foundational to their worldview.

Presuppositionalism openly admits its starting point: the existence of God as revealed in, for example, scripture and the jiva’s innate knowledge. The difference is this: presuppositionalism doesn’t just assume its foundation – it shows that all other starting points lead to contradictions. Without God, reason itself can’t be justified. So yes, presuppositionalism is circular, but it’s not the kind of circularity that undermines its validity. It’s the kind that every worldview depends on at some level.

Argument from Reason vs. Presuppositionalism

You’ve conflated presuppositionalism with the argument from reason, but they’re two different approaches. The argument from reason says, “We observe that reason exists; therefore, God is the best explanation.” That’s an evidential approach, and it assumes that human reasoning is reliable enough to evaluate evidence independently.

Presuppositionalism, however, starts from the opposite direction: God is the necessary precondition for reason to exist at all. Without God, there’s no basis for logic, intelligibility, or even the act of reasoning itself. Presuppositionalism doesn’t treat God as a hypothesis to be tested; it argues that rejecting God makes reasoning impossible in the first place.

This distinction is important because the evidential approach depends on what we call the aroha-pantha – trying to climb to the truth through fallible human intellect alone. Presuppositionalism aligns with the avaroha-pantha – accepting truth as it is revealed from God.

The Role of Sabda-Pramana

Your reliance on the argument from reason assumes that human reasoning and sense perception (anumana and pratyaksa) are valid tools for discovering truth on their own. But in Vaisnava epistemology, these tools are not independently valid. Their reliability must first be established by sabda-pramana – knowledge revealed in scripture. Without sabda validating them, reasoning and perception lack epistemic authority.

“Logic and mental speculation are inconclusive and unreliable sources of knowledge. They may be compared to the forest fire on top of a hill which has just been extinguished by showers of rain, and thus yields no light, but only a great quantity of smoke. Intelligent persons do not therefore consider logic and sensory perception to be independent and infallible sources of knowledge, but rather they are dependent assistants to the principal source of knowledge: the Vedic revelation.” (Prameya Ratnavali, Prameya Nine, Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana)

This directly addresses the problem with your approach. You’re using human reasoning (anumana) to evaluate God’s existence without first justifying why reason itself is reliable. Without sabda, you have no way to validate your cognitive faculties or the assumptions they rest on. In effect, your argument is self-refuting because it depends on unproven tools to critique presuppositionalism, which does provide a coherent foundation for those tools.

The Limits of the Aroha-Pantha

By leaning on the argument from reason – or any other evidentialist argument – you’re operating within the framework of the aroha-pantha – trying to ascend to knowledge through speculative reasoning. This is a classic pitfall that Vaisnava philosophy warns against. Our tradition is clear that ultimate knowledge comes only through the avaroha-pantha: the descending process of receiving truth from God’s divine revelation.

Śrīla Prabhupāda repeatedly emphasized that speculative reasoning is limited by human imperfections. Without sabda to guide us, our attempts to understand the absolute truth will inevitably fall short. Presuppositionalism respects this principle by grounding reason and knowledge in God’s divine revelation, not in human speculation. It starts with God as the source of all truth and works from there. This aligns perfectly with the Vaisnava emphasis on sabda-pramana as the ultimate means of knowledge.

Is Presuppositionalism “Widely Ridiculed”?

You claim presuppositionalism is a “widely ridiculed,” but that’s a rhetorical jab, not a substantive critique. Sure, it’s controversial – so are most powerful philosophical methods. Presuppositionalism has been a significant force in Christian apologetics and has challenged many atheistic worldviews. The real question isn’t whether it’s popular or ridiculed, but whether it’s effective and consistent.

More importantly, as Vaisnavas, our priority isn’t what secular philosophers think. It’s whether a method aligns with sastra and our tradition. Presuppositionalism’s insistence on divine revelation as the foundation for knowledge is deeply compatible with our understanding of sabda-pramana. The argument from reason, by contrast, risks elevating human intellect above scripture – a mistake that Vaisnava philosophy consistently warns against.

Conclusion

Your critique reflects an overreliance on the aroha-pantha, which is inconsistent with Vaisnava epistemology. Presuppositionalism, by grounding knowledge in God’s divine revelation and subordinating reason to scripture, aligns with the avaroha-pantha and Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. Far from being a “really bad argument,” presuppositionalism offers a powerful critique of atheism and naturalism, exposing their inability to account for reason, logic, or intelligibility.

As Vaisnavas, we’re not trying to argue for God as a hypothesis to be tested by human reasoning. We’re affirming that without God, reason itself becomes meaningless. This is entirely consistent with our philosophy, and dismissing it out of hand betrays a misunderstanding of both presuppositionalism and Vaisnava thought.