Is There a God?
A debate on the existence of God between Javed Akhtar and Mufti Shameel Razvi was recently circulating on social media. In this debate, Akhtar clearly denied the existence of God, while Razvi argued in favor of it. This article is to present a third perspective on God and religion – one that is fundamentally different from the two extreme positions of total rejection or total acceptance. For the past 35 years, the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti (MANS) has consistently worked from this perspective.
The debate began with the question of how God is defined. As Dr. Narendra Dabholkar argued, whether a person believes in God or not largely depends on this definition. According to him, if we examine any religion, the concept of God can be understood through four main aspects.
The first aspect views God as a supporter, guide and counselor. In moments of hardship, people across religions often remember God in this form. The belief that God will support them provides emotional strength during difficult phases of life. This concept closely resembles the role of a counselor in modern psychology. Whether this belief is right or wrong is open to debate, but it can be understood from a broader humanitarian perspective and approached with empathy.
The second aspect defines God as the creator of the universe and, further as its controller or ruler. Science has now provided an explanation for the origin of all living beings– including humans– through the theory of evolution, effectively addressing the question of creation. The idea of God as a controller, however, raises serious concerns. If God controls everything on Earth, it implies that human beings have no agency over their own lives, as all events are predetermined by an external power. Accepting this view eliminates the concept of human responsibility and choice. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine different controllers for different religions. When we observe the immense destruction and suffering in the world, the notion of such all-powerful controllers invites serious questioning.
The third aspect of the concept of God relates to the exploitation carried out in God’s name. According to this view, God is pleased or angered through specific rituals and practices. This creates an image of God as an invisible ruler, which allows self-proclaimed godmen, so-called incarnations, and intermediaries to exploit the poor, vulnerable, and helpless. Opposing such exploitation is a moral responsibility. Saints and social reformers throughout Indian history have strongly condemned these intermediaries, and this opposition forms the core of the third perspective.
The fourth aspect of concept of God as a moral agency. Throughout Indian history many saints like Tukaram and Kabir have advocated for this aspect of concept of god
In essence, this third front stands for a positive critique of the concepts of God and strong opposition to exploitation on the name of god which is combined with solidarity toward humanitarian and moral aspect of concept of God.
This approach is not borrowed from foreign thought; it is deeply embedded in the teachings of local saints and social reformers. It is not a matter of convenience or compromise, but the honest ideological position of the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti. The organization’s efforts regarding environmentally responsible festivals illustrate this clearly. For example, opposing harmful Ganesh idols is not opposition to the Ganesh festival itself. Rather, it is an appeal to celebrate festivals in a way that does not damage the environment. Even in an era where fundamentalist interpretations of religion are deliberately promoted, this balanced approach continues to receive public support. The fact that thousands of people in Kolhapur – where the Ganesh idol donation campaign faced resistance thirty years ago – now voluntarily participate is a testament to the strength of this underlying principle.
We must understand that discussing the question of God’s existence without reference to religion, though important, remains merely an intellectual debate. The key reason for this is that all behavior associated with God is bound by religious rules, and the authority to interpret those rules is granted only to a select few. Not only that, but atheists – those who do not believe in the idea of God – often take extremely rigid positions when it comes to opposing religious dominance. We must also recognize that striking examples of this can be seen in Indian history in the figures of Savarkar and Jinnah.
Another related point is that most social reformers in India chose the path of critiquing religion rather than rejecting it outright. Mahatma Phule’s concept of a formless God and the Public Truth Religion (Satyashodhak Samaj), as well as Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar’s adoption of Buddhism, are prominent examples of this approach. Mahatma Gandhi too shifted his position from “God is Truth” to “Truth is God,” and this change deserves careful note.
The famous saying, “Most religious people in the world are atheists – when it comes to other people’s gods,” is something that should provoke reflection in everyone who passionately engages in the debate between theists and atheists.
The Indian Constitution does not discriminate among citizens on the basis of whether they believe in God or follow a religion. In reality, however, we see every day that the actions of the state are moving in the opposite direction. Calls for establishing a theocratic state are made loudly. People are attacked for celebrating festivals of other religions. Those who oppose exploitation carried out in the name of religion are labeled as anti-religious and anti-national and are subjected to trolling. If they are not intimidated even by that, they are murdered – this is the period we are living in.
Debating the existence of God certainly has its place, but keeping it disconnected from everyday religious behavior seems to serve only our intellectual vanity. Regardless of which God or religion we follow, if we do not critically examine it, we run the risk of being deceived in the name of God and religion. Therefore, there is no alternative to constructive, time-relevant religious critique.
This article went live on January twenty-sixth, two thousand twenty six, at thirty-eight minutes past two in the afternoon.The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
