If sensory knowledge is defective, why do we use it to refute atheistic theories?
Podcast:
Question, if sensory knowledge is defective, why do we use it to refute ethnistic theories? Answer, just because something is having some defects does not make it useless. That is not the way anyone functions within the Vedic literature themselves. When Hanuman has to search for Sita, he does not think Pratyaksha Pramana is useless.
He uses that. When Arjuna has to look for the best way to reach Jayadratha in the Mahabharata war, he does not think that Pratyaksha Pramana is useless. So, it is an extreme distortion of the Vedic teaching or of Vedic method of learning, Vedic epistemology to consider that because sensory knowledge has defects, that makes it useless.
It has its utility. It has even its necessity, in fact, not to speak of utility. And it has its domain.
It is primarily when it is extended beyond its domain to make absolute claims about anything and everything, including the nature of spiritual reality, that is where it becomes a problem. As long as within its area of jurisdiction, it is used with an awareness of its limitations, then it serves a very important functional purpose. Generally, whenever we are interacting with anyone, if our interaction is to be of any use, there has to be some understanding of shared Pramanas.
Which Pramanas do those people accept and which Pramanas do we accept? Only when there is a mutually acceptable, accepted foundation of Pramanas that can there be any kind of subsequent discussion. So, then Shabda will not be accepted by atheists. So, then if you have to have meaningful discussion, you have to discuss with them based on the method of acquiring knowledge that they accept.
And that is primarily Pratyaksha and Anumanas. That is why we use observation and we use inference from observation to challenge their conceptions and conclusions.