An academic discussion on the question of whether God exists brought together poet and lyricist Javed Akhtar and Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadwi at the Constitution Club in New Delhi on Saturday, drawing a large audience and triggering intense reactions both inside the hall and across social media platforms. The exchange, which lasted nearly two hours, quickly became a talking point, with observers sharply divided along lines of faith, reason, ethics and personal belief.
Moderated by Saurabh Dwivedi, editor of The Lallantop, the debate titled “Does God Exist?” was notable for its rarity, as it featured a public and direct engagement between a celebrated atheist intellectual and a religious scholar with a significant online following. Throughout the discussion, both participants advanced their arguments using logic, philosophical reasoning, moral questions and personal reflections, often challenging each other’s core assumptions.
Javed Akhtar, known for his forthright views, framed his argument around human suffering and what he described as the moral inconsistencies inherent in the belief in an all-powerful and benevolent God. Referring to the ongoing war in Gaza and the massive loss of civilian lives, including children, he questioned how an omnipotent and omnipresent deity could exist while allowing such destruction to continue unchecked. He argued that witnessing such suffering made it difficult for him to accept claims of divine mercy and justice.
In a characteristically sharp remark, Akhtar said that if a God truly sees everything, then He must also see children being killed in conflicts, and yet believers are still asked to have faith. He added, partly in irony, that compared to such divine inaction, even political leaders appear more responsive, joking that “at least they show some concern.”
Throughout the debate, Akhtar repeatedly returned to the theme of violence justified in the name of religion. He questioned why religious belief often places limits on inquiry and criticism, asking why questioning must stop at the idea of God. In his view, a deity who allows innocent children to be killed loses moral relevance, making belief in such a being meaningless.
Mufti Shamail Nadwi responded by emphasising human free will and moral responsibility. He argued that while God may have created the possibility of good and evil, it is human beings who choose how to act. According to him, crimes such as violence and sexual assault are the result of human decisions, not divine approval or intent. God, he said, cannot be blamed for the misuse of freedom granted to humanity.
At the beginning of the discussion, Nadwi outlined what he saw as the fundamental difficulty in debating God’s existence. He said neither science nor religious scripture could function as a shared reference point in such a debate. Science, he argued, is limited to explaining the physical universe, whereas God, by definition, exists beyond the material realm. Similarly, religious texts cannot persuade those who do not accept revelation as a valid source of knowledge.
He also rejected the idea that scientific progress diminishes the need for belief in God. Scientific discoveries, Nadwi said, may explain the mechanisms of nature and the universe, but they do not address the deeper question of why existence itself came into being. At one point, he told Akhtar that uncertainty should not be used to assert God’s non-existence, urging intellectual humility in the face of the unknown.
Akhtar countered by saying that recognising the limits of human knowledge was precisely his position. He argued that no serious thinker, whether a scientist or philosopher, claims complete understanding of reality. In his view, accepting uncertainty is more honest than embracing absolute answers, especially when those answers demand unquestioning belief.
A major point of contention during the exchange was the difference between belief and faith. Akhtar argued that belief should be grounded in evidence, reason and observable testimony, whereas faith requires acceptance without proof. He warned that systems built on faith discourage questioning and critical thought, which he sees as essential to intellectual and moral progress.
The conversation also delved into questions of morality and justice. Akhtar maintained that morality is a human creation designed to enable social coexistence, rather than something inherent in nature or bestowed by a divine authority. He compared moral rules to traffic laws, arguing that while they are necessary for society to function, they do not exist independently in the natural world, which he described as indifferent and unjust.
Mufti Shamail Nadwi challenged this comparison, arguing that morality cannot be reduced to social consensus alone. He posed a counter-question, asking whether oppression becomes morally acceptable simply because a majority endorses it. In doing so, he sought to underline his belief that moral values require a higher, objective foundation beyond human agreement.
The debate, while unresolved, highlighted the enduring tension between faith and reason, leaving audiences to reflect on deeply held beliefs about existence, responsibility and the nature of morality.
