Recently, I watched an academic dialogue titled “Does God Exist?” featuring Javed Akhtar and an Islamic scholar (Mufti) organized by the Wahyain Foundation. The discussion touched many familiar philosophical and theological arguments. But beneath the surface of the debate, a deeper and far more revealing pattern quietly operated — a structural shift in how God is defined, defended, and protected inside religious reasoning.
To understand this pattern, we must begin with a powerful observation made by historian and philosopher Yuval Noah Harari.
The Two Types of God
In an interview, Yuval Noah Harari was asked a simple but profound question: “Do you believe in God?” His response was neither a yes nor a no. Instead, he clarified that humanity speaks about two fundamentally different kinds of God.
The first is the Personal God — a God with clearly defined preferences, emotions, rules, punishments, rewards, and expectations. We are told what pleases Him, what angers Him, which actions He approves of, what He forbids, and what consequences follow disobedience. This God governs societies, structures morality, and becomes the foundation of law, discipline, and identity.
The second is the Unknown God — a metaphysical possibility beyond time, space, language, and comprehension. This God cannot be described, tested, verified, or psychologically approached. He is not emotionally definable, nor morally interpretable. He is simply an abstract possibility.
Here is where the central problem begins.
The Logical Switch
Throughout the Javed Akhtar vs Mufti debate, a subtle but consistent shift occurs. Whenever the Mufti is asked to prove God’s existence, the discussion moves immediately toward the Unknown God — a God beyond logic, beyond time, beyond human understanding. Such a God cannot be questioned empirically, which places Him safely outside the reach of evidence-based critique.
But when the discussion turns toward obedience, morality, heaven, hell, punishment, and reward, the same God instantly transforms into the Personal God — a detailed moral authority with explicit rules and expectations.
This silent switching allows two incompatible ideas of God to be used interchangeably, depending on which version is logically safer at the moment.
The “Test” Argument and Circular Reasoning
At one point in the debate, the Mufti explains the existence of good and evil by claiming that life is a test — and tests naturally contain both right and wrong choices. But the crucial question immediately arises: How do we know life is a test?
The answer ultimately returns to a familiar source — religious scripture.
This creates a closed logical loop. God is said to be beyond understanding, yet we confidently claim to know His intentions because a book written by humans says so. The book is believed because God is believed, and God is believed because the book says so. No independent verification exists at any point.
Free Will, Biology, and Moral Responsibility
When the problem of crime and suffering arises — such as rape or violence — the Mufti argues that God is not responsible; humans misuse their free will. But real neurological science challenges this assumption.
There are documented medical cases where individuals developed severe criminal urges due to brain tumors. When the tumor was removed, the behavior disappeared. When it returned, so did the behavior. These individuals did not choose the biological condition that hijacked their impulses, yet moral blame was fully assigned.
This forces an uncomfortable question: If human choice can be neurologically overridden, where does free will truly reside? And if free will is biologically unstable, how can absolute moral judgment be placed upon it?
Suffering, Compensation, and Unverifiable Promises
When the suffering of children in Gaza is mentioned, the Mufti states that their deaths are not meaningless — they will be compensated in the afterlife. But again, the unavoidable question emerges: How do we know?
Once more, the answer returns to scripture. Which again pulls the argument from the Unknown God to the highly specific Personal God — the same logical migration repeating itself.
Creation vs Creator and the Double Standard of Logic
At one moment, a participant suggests that creation itself could be self-caused — that the universe might not require a separate creator. This idea is immediately dismissed as irrational. Yet the belief in a timeless, spaceless, invisible being existing before time itself is accepted as rational.
Here, logic is not being applied consistently. Logic is demanded from opposing ideas, but suspended for personal beliefs.
Javed Akhtar Is Not Against God — He Is Against a Particular God
A critical misunderstanding dominates the debate. Javed Akhtar is not arguing against the Unknown God at all. He does not deny the metaphysical possibility of a transcendent cause beyond comprehension. His objections are directed toward the Personal God — the God used to regulate behavior, justify violence, enforce obedience, and create social control.
Every time Javed Akhtar criticizes crimes committed in the name of religion, moral policing, or communal violence, he is clearly addressing the Personal God. Yet almost instantly, the Mufti switches the discussion to the Unknown God — effectively removing the criticized God from the conversation without answering the criticism.
But when rules, punishments, heaven, hell, and divine authority need defending, the argument switches back.
This conceptual migration is not accidental. It is structurally necessary for the argument to survive.
What If Both Were Only Talking About the Unknown God?
Here lies the most revealing insight: If both sides agreed to discuss only the Unknown God, there would be almost nothing left to debate. An unknowable God cannot issue laws, justify violence, punish, reward, or be morally evaluated. He would simply remain a metaphysical possibility — not a governing authority.
On that plane, both sides would likely agree that something beyond human comprehension may exist. And the debate would quietly end.
The conflict exists only because the discussion repeatedly returns to the Personal God — the God that governs societies, controls behavior, and legitimizes power.
Conclusion: The Hidden Structure of Religious Defense
The real issue is not whether God exists. The real issue is which God is being defended — and why that definition changes depending on the question being asked.
When proof is demanded, God becomes unknowable. When obedience is demanded, God becomes specific. This silent switching forms the invisible backbone of most religious defenses.
Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.
No comments