Debating God, missing the point

A conversation, according to Buddhist canons, must be dialogical and result in mutual benefit for parties involved. A public conversation carries an additional responsibility: it must address issues that concern the public. The Buddha never felt the need to debate the existence or non-existence of God to spread his message of right conduct and compassion. His teachings challenged prevailing beliefs and had revolutionising effects on Vedic social practices. They were moral and social in orientation, grounded in the idea that the worth of any human endeavour lies in its social usefulness. Seen in this light, how should we assess the recent debate between poet and lyricist Javed Akhtar and Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadwi on the question, “Does God exist?” 

Leaving aside whether Akhtar and Nadwi benefited personally or emerged wiser from the exchange, a more pertinent question arises: did the debate serve a social purpose? From a historical perspective, Akhtar highlighted the limitations of faith and religion vis-à-vis the advancement of human knowledge and the evolution of more rational, just, humane, and democratic social orders. On this basis, he rejected the notion of an omnipotent and omnipresent God. Nadwi, drawing on logic and reasoning, sought to establish the existence of an omniscient God as the creator and regulator of the universe. While Akhtar’s perspective was anchored in ethical and social concerns, Nadwi’s argument largely remained within the confines of metaphysical reasoning.

But does Akhtar need such a forum to articulate his ideas? As noted Islamic scholar Zafarul Islam Khan observed, this was a needless debate when “there are many issues crying out for discussions.” Kamal Faruqui, a member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, similarly suggested that Akhtar should decline invitations to such “useless debates”. 

The audience included believers, young students with impressionable minds, and well-known scholars such as former JNU professor Purushottam Agrawal, historian Mridula Mukherjee, and scientist Gauhar Raza. Agrawal and Raza believe the debate served a useful purpose in an age marked by polarisation and discord. In contrast, activist and public intellectual Yogendra Yadav, who declined to moderate the debate, termed it “pointless” and “irrelevant”.

Going a step ahead, I object to it being called an “academic debate” under the aegis of the Academic Dialogue Forum. This risks setting an unhealthy precedent, encouraging demands for discussions on the existence or non-existence of God within university departments and centres of religious studies—spaces already burdened with a poor reputation for insufficient critical engagement—diverting the focus away from serious study of religious traditions towards speculative debates about the origins of
the universe contained in different religions. 

More broadly, did Akhtar’s labours generate greater awareness of social evils rooted in religious worldviews or foster agency in society to challenge them? History suggests that a purely rationalist critique of religion has limited effectiveness in fighting social practices sanctioned by scriptures. Academic Suhas Palshikar has argued that the rationalist critiques of religion by Hamid Dalwai and Gopal Ganesh Agarkar failed to resonate widely, whereas Gandhi—a believer, with an “ability to intervene”—was far more effective in confronting the social evils of his times.

A contemptuous rejection of religion as irrational or blind faith risks a form of hubris that obscures social reality—more so in Indian society, where religious worldviews significantly shape social life. Writing for a national daily, Yadav has rightly argued that “such a debate does a disservice to the cause of secular India, as it conflates secularism with atheism.”

Political philosopher Rajeev Bhargava, who is credited with undertaking a long and arduous study of Indian secularism, has argued that one of the major threats to the practice of Indian secularism has come from those Indian secularists who have chosen to oppose sanatan sanskriti and margas (non-religions) and defend some Western variant of secularism (Reimagining Indian Secularism). Indeed, as Yadav points out, Indian secularism works well when a vast majority of believers accept it. To bring about socio-religious reforms in India, what is needed is a patient, sincere, and sensitive engagement with different religious traditions and not an outright rejection of religion.

(The writer is Adjunct Faculty, Department of Social Sciences, FLAME University)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.