On the Existence of God: Observations from the Javed Akhtar–Mufti Shamail Debate
Disclaimer:
Whatever you are going to read is my own understanding. I do not claim any special knowledge of this subject except that I am deeply interested in it and still a learner. Both interlocutors were highly respected personalities and the exchange was an academic debate, so there is no need for hurling hate or insidious comments on either of them. Debates are not meant to arrive at objective conclusions; they are meant for listeners to understand the arguments, reflect on them, and recognise the differing stances. Anyone looking for an answer to whether God exists or not from this debate is coming to the wrong place. That aside, you are free to criticise what I have written below.
This kind of debate emerging in India, in a frictional environment where killing for God seems more preferable than arguing about His existence, almost felt fictitious. Yet it did happen. Without going into the backdrop of the debate, it is better to engage with the debate itself.
The audience that takes interest in such discussions expected serious intellectual rigour from both interlocutors. What unfolded, however, felt largely asymmetric. One of the interlocutors appeared to lack familiarity with several basic terminologies and philosophical premises related to the very position he was advocating.
The opening remarks came from Mufti Shamail, and he set the tone by stressing that logical fallacies should be avoided. He argued that the problem of evil, when framed emotionally, becomes an argument from emotion. He stated that using science to deny God is erroneous since science deals with the physical, not the metaphysical. Revealed sources were also excluded from the scope of the debate. Mufti Sahab insisted on definitive logical arguments that are as self-evident as two plus two equals four.
The obvious expectation from Javed Akhtar’s opening remarks was that he would put forward arguments for why God does not exist. Instead, he revolved around why God should not exist, making his position closer to a moral protest or even a form of mesotheism rather than atheism.
As happens in almost every theist–atheist debate, the same themes surfaced: the problem of evil, the evils spread by religion and religious people, free will, faith being blind, God of the gaps, burden of proof, and so on. None of these directly address the existence or non-existence of God. Yet Javed Akhtar continued to circle these points without engaging the core metaphysical question.
He invoked Bertrand Russell on the burden of proof. For the problem of evil, he repeated rhetoric commonly associated with Richard Dawkins and to some extent Stephen Fry. He even borrowed from Ricky Gervais while giving his equations about how much percentage of atheist a normal religious person supposedly is.
The problem does not lie entirely with Javed Sahab. Most desi atheists borrow heavily from Richard Dawkins, who himself has been strongly criticised by atheist philosophers. Michael Ruse famously said that Dawkins brings atheism into disrepute. Writing about The God Delusion, Ruse remarked, “This made me ashamed to be an atheist, and I mean it.” Thomas Nagel also criticised Dawkins for stepping outside his scientific expertise into weak and amateur philosophy.
Javed Akhtar is a recipient of the prestigious Richard Dawkins Award. Yes, that same Richard Dawkins who advocates militant atheism and is one of the horsemen of the New Atheist movement. Javed Sahab, unfortunately, failed to do justice even to the intellectual expectations associated with that award.
Mufti Sahab, meanwhile, was adamant about addressing the problem of evil philosophically, though his response remained rooted in the Islamic worldview. His repeated invocation of divine attributes, particularly Al-Hakim (The All-Wise), is specific to the Islamic conception of God.
The debate was between a theist and an atheist and should be seen as such. Although the theist position was defended by a Mufti, it should not be reduced to an atheist–Muslim debate. It is humanly impossible to completely detach from one’s worldview. Had the theist been from any other religious tradition, subtle influences from that tradition would still have been present.
What can reasonably be taken from this debate is that the theistic position was argumentatively stronger than the atheistic one. Atheism, in this instance, was poorly defended. It appeared as though Javed Akhtar assumed this would be another informal television discussion where rhetorical flourishes suffice. That assumption clearly failed him. Whether one agrees with Mufti Shamail or not, it was evident that he was well prepared and knew how to structure and present his arguments.
Javed Akhtar exposed his own dogmatism and weak reasoning when he resorted to blaming religion, implicitly Islam, for the evils and corruption in West Asia and invoked ISIS. What seemed unknown to him is that the twentieth century, the bloodiest century in human history, was largely made possible by irreligious megalomaniacs. He advocates scientism, logic, and rationality, yet outrightly rejected empirical research suggesting that human beings possess an innate disposition towards belief in a higher power, such as the research conducted by Dr. Justin Barrett with the Oxford Centre for Anthropology and Mind.
Throughout the debate, the suffering of Gazans was repeatedly invoked, with blame shifted towards God. Here Javed Sahab pressed the problem of evil, highlighting the issue of Gaza, this was akin to the attempts made during the communist era to eradicate belief in God, which ultimately failed. The question still lingers: how do we make sense of suffering? Is it blind faith? Is it temporary escapism? Is it an innate disposition? Will the perpetrators of barbarism ever be held accountable? How is meaning given to suffering?
Mufti Sahab, however, responded by emphasizing that God is not only omnipotent and omniscient but also all-wise. Despite unimaginable suffering, Gazans continue to display unshakeable faith in God. There has been no collective denial of God on the basis of their suffering. This phenomenon is not exclusive to Gaza; it occurs wherever innocent people are subjected to oppression. Faith persists, not because it is enforced, but because it is held onto.
The debate was meant to be grounded in intellectual argumentation, yet it became disproportionate. Javed Akhtar struggled with basic metaphysical concepts such as contingency and infinite regress. Even after repeated clarifications, he failed to engage with these ideas and continued to evade them.
In the end, the debate neither compelled belief in God nor disbelief. It merely reaffirmed the distant but necessary idea of agreeing to disagree. More importantly, it demonstrated that such debates can take place without cacophony, theatrical drama, or personal degradation.
An Indian audience accustomed to sensationalised television debates, where gaslighting and provocation matter more than civic reasoning, witnessed something different. That itself was significant.
References:
Comments
Post a Comment