In Capital, a debate on God spotlights importance of conversation, disagreements

Over almost two hours, Nadwi, the believer, relied on logic and reason to make the case for a Supreme Being. Akhtar, the atheist, used ethical frameworks and anecdotes to question the idea of faith.

“If the universe is contingent, then it must have a first cause,” argued Nadwi. That cause, he said, is God — and not believing in such a cause is falling into the fallacy of infinite regress. It is through reason alone, not science or empirical argument, that divinity can be proved or not, he submitted — because it is by its very nature metaphysical.

Akhtar focused on the horrors of the world, and the deaths that have taken place in the name of religion. “Why is it that everything stops at this idea… [of God]? Why must we stop all questions? And what kind of God allows children to be bombed to shreds as in Gaza… if he exists and allows that, he may as well not,” he said.

Both speakers had their supporters applauding a great line; both sets of people were visibly moved, sometimes to anger but never to a lack of civility, when issues like the killings in Gaza and crimes against women (and God’s role in both) came up.

And in the end, the atheists (and some agnostics) and the theists both thought their champion had carried the day.

“The point of this debate was to have it,” said Prof Purushottam Agrawal, former chairperson of the Centre for Indian Languages at JNU. “Given the context of polarisation we live in today, to have a good-faith, academic debate on the most polarising issue of all — God.”

Saturday’s event had been nearly four months in the making. On August 30, the West Bengal Urdu Academy cancelled a four-day festival abruptly after some Islamic groups in the state protested an invitation to Akhtar, who was to speak on the role of Urdu in Hindi cinema. The cancellation was widely criticised as an assault on free speech. Shortly after, Nadwi issued a challenge to the lyricist on social media, inviting him to debate the existence of God.

“It was decided that the debate would be about the existence of God per se, not of any one particular religion’s idea of divinity,” said Shabnam Hashmi, who helped organise the event as a part of The Academic Dialogue Forum. The Wahyain Foundation, with which Nadwi is associated, co-organised the event.

For Mufti Yasir Nadeem al Wajidi, an Indian born Islamic scholar and social media personality currently based in Chicago, the debate was part of a broader, more essential conversation.

“The debate about God is being had all over the world. This conversation was an important part of that,” he said.

But if God is essentially about belief and faith, what is the point of a debate about Him? “Logic is a tool to convince people… The question of God, and how to live a good and meaningful life according to His precepts is too important to not have a debate about,” Nadwi said.

Most of Nadwi’s videos on YouTube have views numbering in the tens of thousands. His debate with Akhtar racked up more than 1.5 million views within six hours of being live-streamed.

A PhD scholar from a reputed university in Delhi said the debate served an important purpose. “Such a conversation shows that free speech, and debate and disagreement, is still valued,” the scholar said.

Hashmi agreed: “India is still one of the few countries where we can have such a conversation on religion, and a fierce debate can be civil. You couldn’t have this event in Afghanistan or Pakistan. We have to cherish that space.”