Javed Akhtar Asks for Proof. The Mufti Offers Poetry — Evidence, Emotion, and a Category Error in the Debate on God’s (Allah's) Existence.
~Sumon Mukhopadhyay.
-------------------------------------------
=========================
Introduction: This December 2025, a widely discussed public debate titled “Does God Exist?” brought together renowned poet-lyricist and rationalist Javed Akhtar and young Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Ahmad Abdullah Nadwi at New Delhi’s Constitution Club. Moderated by journalist Saurabh Dwivedi, the nearly two-hour discussion drew a packed audience and quickly went viral, sparking intense reactions across India and beyond.
While Javed Akhtar is a household name for his outspoken atheism and insistence on evidence-based reasoning, Mufti Nadwi—a rising figure in contemporary Islamic scholarship—is the founder of Markaz Al-Wahyain, an online platform aimed at making Islamic learning accessible to a modern audience. The exchange significantly amplified his public visibility.
The debate ventured into deep philosophical terrain: the contingency of the universe, the problem of evil and human suffering (with references to global conflicts), objective morality, free will, and the boundary between science and metaphysics. Both speakers presented their views forcefully, resulting in a respectful yet intense clash of worldviews.
Among the many moments that drew attention, one analogy offered by Mufti Nadwi stood out for its surface-level appeal. On closer examination, however, it reveals a critical logical flaw—one that ultimately strengthens the rationalist position. This piece focuses on that single exchange because it captures a common defence of faith and why it fails under scrutiny.
When Javed Akhtar pressed for empirical or scientific evidence for God’s existence, the Mufti replied with the following analogy (translated from Hindi/Urdu):
“Not everything that exists needs to be shown in a laboratory. Intelligence, love, conscience, and a sense of justice—these too have no test-tube proof, yet no one denies them.”
At first glance, the argument sounds reasonable—almost poetic. Why demand laboratory proof for God when we readily accept intangible realities like emotions and moral instincts without directly placing them under a microscope?
What follows is a step-by-step examination of why this reasoning fails—using the same analytical discipline we apply to evaluating claims in science, economics, or markets. Whether assessing stocks or beliefs, evidence and logic remain the most reliable guides.
Rebuttal to Mufti Shamil Nadvi: The Mufti’s reply sounds poetic, but philosophically it collapses under scrutiny. His argument rests on a false equivalence—confusing unobservable mechanisms with unverifiable entities
Yes, not everything that exists needs to be placed in a test tube.
But everything that exists must leave evidence.
That’s the part conveniently skipped.
===============================
Category Error: Natural Phenomena ≠ Supernatural Claims:
We don’t “believe” in love the way we believe in God. We observe it.
That’s why no one “denies” them.
Why God Is Not Comparable?
God (Allah) is claimed to be:
That is an extraordinary positive claim about reality.
Yet:
Invoking God explains nothing that science doesn’t already explain better.
Burden of Proof Matters:
The Mufti shifts the burden of proof dishonestly.
If someone claims:
🔹An invisible dragon lives in their garage.🔹Fairies move the clouds.
🔹A teapot orbits the Sun (Russell’s Teapot).
We reject these—not because they’re disproven—but because there is no evidence where evidence should exist.
That same standard applies to God.
"God of the Gaps” Is Not an Argument:
Every time God is invoked, it’s to fill ignorance:
“We don’t know yet” → “God did it”
But history is brutal to this logic:
🔹Thunder → electricity.🔹Disease → germs.
🔹Life → evolution.
🔹Mind → neuroscience.
God keeps shrinking as knowledge expands.
Javed Akhtar Is Right:
Belief should follow evidence—not emotion, authority, or tradition.
Love is accepted because:
🔹It is observable.God is rejected because:
🔹He produces no testable evidence.
🔹Adds no explanatory power.
🔹Violates Occam’s Razor.
Conclusion: A Better Analogy for the Mufti’s Logic:
The false equivalence at the heart of the Mufti’s argument lies in treating well-evidenced, natural, emergent properties—such as love, intelligence, and conscience—as comparable to a radically speculative, supernatural entity like an omnipotent God. The former requires no leap of faith: evidence converges from neuroscience, psychology, evolutionary biology, and everyday human experience. The latter demands belief without comparable empirical support.
If the Mufti’s logic were applied consistently, we would be forced to accept any untestable claim merely because some real things are not directly measurable in a laboratory. For example:
“You can’t put parental affection in a test tube, so why demand evidence for invisible elves who help parents love their children?”
“Consciousness isn’t observable in a beaker, so why not accept a cosmic soul-creator who implants it in fetuses?”
We rightly reject such claims because they introduce unnecessary complications. Love, intelligence, and conscience are already well explained through natural processes. Adding supernatural agents explains nothing better and only raises further questions.
Bottom Line:
Comparing God to love or intelligence is like comparing a thunderstorm to Thor (Thor, the Norse god of thunder, was an imaginary explanation created before people understood meteorology).
One is a real, observable natural phenomenon explained by science.
The other is a mythological narrative.
And stories do not become true simply because they are old, emotionally comforting, or passionately repeated by learned scholars in religious attire.
Javed Akhtar’s insistence on evidence is not arrogance—it is intellectual honesty. Extraordinary claims about a hidden cosmic creator require extraordinary evidence. Until such evidence appears, skepticism remains the rational default
.jpeg)
Comments