Do Debates on the Existence of God Really Matter?

Public faith confrontations spark attention, but raise deeper questions about purpose, coexistence and India’s plural ethos

By Mohammed Hidayathulla

A recent high-profile public debate between lyricist and writer Javed Akhtar and Islamic scholar Shamail Nadvi on the question “Does God exist?” has reignited a long-standing philosophical and social discussion in India’s public sphere. While the exchange drew significant attention and polarized reactions, scholars and observers argue that such debates are neither new nor conclusive—and may, in fact, distract from more urgent societal concerns.

“I do not seek God in temples or mosques alone; I seek His address in the human heart,” reads a couplet that frames the larger question raised by the debate: is the search for God best pursued through argument, or through ethical conduct and human compassion?

An Old Question, No Final Answer

The question of God’s existence has preoccupied humanity for centuries, cutting across civilizations, cultures and intellectual traditions. History records no final or universally accepted answer. Across societies, believers and non-believers have coexisted, often debating whether God is one or many, personal or abstract, with form or without.

Indian philosophy itself presents a wide spectrum of thought. The Upanishads speak of Brahman, an ultimate, formless reality, while the ancient Charvaka school rejected God, the soul and the afterlife altogether, advocating a materialist worldview centuries before modern atheism.

Similar debates have shaped Islamic and Western traditions. Islamic theologian Al-Ghazali emphasized the limits of human reason in matters of faith, while philosopher Ibn Rushd (Averroes) argued that reason and revelation could coexist. In the West, Thomas Aquinas proposed rational proofs for God’s existence, later questioned by David Hume and critically reassessed by Immanuel Kant, who concluded that God lies beyond the scope of pure reason and remains a matter of personal moral belief.

Public Debates and Social Impact

Despite this rich and unresolved intellectual history, contemporary public debates often present the question as though it can be decisively settled on a stage or television screen. Observers note that in India, such debates have frequently followed a confrontational trajectory.

From the 1980s onward, public religious debates—ranging from Christian–Muslim theological confrontations to later multi-religious polemics—often focused on disproving the beliefs of others rather than deepening self-understanding. “Faith gradually became about winning arguments instead of cultivating inner moral reform,” one commentator observed.

Media Updates: +91-93531 21474 [WhatsApp] | indianowme@gmail.com

Rather than fostering mutual respect, these spectacles have, critics argue, reinforced rigid religious identities and an “us versus them” mindset. The long-term effect has been growing distance between communities, even as ethical teachings within those same religions remain under-practiced.

A Crisis of Practice, Not Belief

Ironically, across religious communities today, large sections of followers struggle to fully embody the moral and spiritual values of their own traditions—values such as compassion, honesty, charity and justice. Yet public discourse appears increasingly preoccupied with questioning the faith of others rather than engaging in introspection.

In a country as plural and culturally intertwined as India, this trend raises concern. India’s social fabric has historically endured not through theological uniformity, but through coexistence. Ethical principles central to human dignity are shared across faiths and philosophies—from Aristotle and Confucius to Islamic moral thinkers and Mahatma Gandhi—who consistently emphasized character over creed.

Freedom of Debate, Responsibility of Intent

This is not an argument against free expression. The right to believe, disbelieve, question and critique remains fundamental to a democratic and secular society. However, analysts stress that the intent and framing of public debates matter deeply.

“When debates are designed to disprove others rather than understand them, they risk deepening divisions instead of encouraging dialogue,” the article notes. As Kant famously argued, no amount of argument can definitively prove or disprove God’s existence—a reality underscored by centuries of philosophical inquiry.

Media Updates: +91-93531 21474 [WhatsApp] | indianowme@gmail.com

Beyond Winning Arguments

In a secular democracy, respect must extend equally to believers of all faiths and to atheists. Secularism does not demand agreement, but it does require coexistence. The larger question facing society today may not be whose God is true, but how people of differing beliefs can live together with dignity.

“Religion does not teach us to harbor hatred; we are Indians, and our homeland is Hindustan,” goes another oft-quoted verse that resonates strongly in the current climate.

As polarization deepens globally, many argue that the need of the hour is not more public spectacles over belief, but meaningful conversations about shared values. In a fractured world, coming together—through empathy, ethical action and mutual respect—may be far more urgent than winning philosophical arguments that humanity has debated for millennia.

🔹 KEY QUOTES

“God has been debated for centuries, yet no argument has delivered a final answer—only deeper divisions.”
“Faith turns hollow when it becomes about winning arguments instead of nurturing compassion.”
“Secularism is not about agreement; it is about coexistence with dignity.”
“Perhaps the real question is not whether God exists, but whether humanity still does.”
“ದೇವರ ಅಸ್ತಿತ್ವದ ಕುರಿತು ಶತಮಾನಗಳಿಂದ ವಾದ ನಡೆದಿದೆ, ಆದರೆ ಅಂತಿಮ ಉತ್ತರ ಇಲ್ಲ—ವಿಭಜನೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಹೆಚ್ಚಾಗಿದೆ.”
“ತರ್ಕದಲ್ಲಿ ಗೆಲ್ಲುವ ಆಸೆ ನಂಬಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಮಾನವೀಯತೆಯಿಂದ ದೂರ ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ.”
“ಧರ್ಮನಿರಪೇಕ್ಷತೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಒಪ್ಪಿಗೆಯಲ್ಲ, ಗೌರವಯುತ ಸಹಅಸ್ತಿತ್ವ.”
“ದೇವರಿಗಿಂತಲೂ ಮುಖ್ಯವಾದ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ ಮಾನವೀಯತೆ ಉಳಿದಿದೆಯೇ ಎಂಬುದಾಗಿದೆ.”