7 Reasons Atheists Can’t Use Science to Deny God
Nidhi | Dec 26, 2025, 16:04 IST
Javeed Akhtar and Mufti Shamail Nadwi
Image credit : Ai
Can science be used to deny God’s existence? This article explores why many philosophers and scholars argue that science is the wrong tool to judge metaphysical questions. Drawing from the widely discussed dialogue between Javed Akhtar and Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadwi, it examines the limits of scientific reasoning, the difference between belief and faith, the problem of suffering, free will, and moral responsibility. Instead of attacking atheism or religion, the article explains why science explains how the universe works, not why it exists, and why demanding scientific proof of God may itself be a flawed argument.
The public dialogue on Does God Exist? between Javed Akhtar and Mufti Shamail Nadwi, moderated by Saurabh Dwivedi, became one of the most intellectually charged conversations in recent public memory. Held at the Constitution Club in New Delhi, the discussion quickly moved beyond the hall, sparking intense online debate around faith, reason, morality, and the limits of science.
Akhtar did not merely question God. He questioned the ethics of belief itself. Nadwi did not merely defend faith. He questioned whether science and logic were ever meant to judge God in the first place. Together, their exchange exposes a deeper misunderstanding that often underlies atheist arguments: the attempt to use science as a tool to deny God.
“Science is confined to the physical world, while God, by definition, is beyond it,” said Mufti Shamail Nadwi while opening the discussion.
This statement established the foundation of his argument. Science is a method built to study nature. It observes matter, energy, space, and time. Its conclusions depend on measurement and repeatability.
God, as understood in classical theology across religions, is not a physical object inside the universe. God is described as the source of the universe itself. Expecting science to prove or disprove God assumes God must behave like a natural object.
When atheists use science to deny God, they are not applying science neutrally. They are redefining God into something science can reject.
“Neither science nor scripture can serve as a common yardstick in the God debate,” Mufti Shamail Nadwi argued.
Science explains physical processes. Scripture appeals to revelation. God’s existence belongs to metaphysics, the domain that deals with existence itself.
Javed Akhtar represents a rational tradition that values evidence and reason. Yet even science does not claim authority over metaphysical questions. It does not explain why existence exists, only how it behaves once it does.
Treating God as a scientific hypothesis misunderstands the nature of the question being asked.
“Discoveries in physics or biology explain how the universe works, not why it exists,” said Mufti Shamail Nadwi.
This distinction is central to the entire debate. Science can describe gravity, evolution, and cosmic expansion. It cannot explain why there is something instead of nothing, or why the laws of nature exist at all.
Javed Akhtar did not deny this gap, but he resisted filling it with God. Yet rejecting God because science explains mechanisms is not a scientific conclusion. It is a philosophical position.
Explaining how reality functions does not eliminate the question of why reality exists.
A key part of Javed Akhtar’s argument was his distinction between belief and faith.
“Faith means there is no witness, no proof, no rationale, no logic — and yet you believe,” Akhtar said.
He added that accepting something without logic or evidence amounts to intellectual dishonesty.
For Akhtar, belief should be shaped by reason, evidence, and testimony. Faith, as he sees it, demands surrender without proof. This, he argued, is where religion becomes dangerous, because it asks people to switch off reason.
This critique is powerful, but it also clarifies something important. Akhtar is not using science to disprove God. He is using ethical and intellectual standards to question faith. That distinction matters. Moral and philosophical discomfort is not scientific denial.
“Every major breakthrough happened because people questioned existing ideas, not because they surrendered,” Javed Akhtar argued.
He rejected the claim that religion encourages questioning. In his view, faith ultimately asks for obedience.
“You are told to believe this and not ask questions. I am not ready to surrender,” he said.
This argument speaks to the psychology of belief rather than the existence of God itself. Akhtar’s discomfort is with unquestioned authority, not with metaphysics. His argument explains why he rejects faith, not why God cannot exist.
Questioning is essential to progress. But questioning alone does not become scientific evidence against God.
Akhtar returned repeatedly to human suffering, especially the deaths of children in war zones.
“If He is seeing and does not interfere, then why should I pray?” he asked.
He went further, saying that prayer in the face of extreme injustice feels morally empty.
This is the emotional core of Akhtar’s position. His rejection of God is driven by moral discomfort rather than scientific reasoning.
Responding to this, Mufti Shamail Nadwi said:
“Good can only be understood in contrast to evil. Without wrongdoing, justice would lose meaning.”
Akhtar challenged this sharply. He questioned whether respect for women requires the existence of sexual violence, or whether children’s innocence needs to be defined through their deaths.
This exchange highlights a moral clash, not a scientific one. Science can document suffering. It cannot decide whether suffering disproves God. The problem here is ethical, not empirical.
Describing life as a test, Mufti Shamail Nadwi argued that both good and evil exist to allow moral growth.
Evil, in this view, is not divine cruelty but a condition that makes moral choice meaningful.
Akhtar responded by asking who created evil if it is part of this design.
“In this world, the majority looks evil,” he said, suggesting that moral imbalance often appears built into reality itself.
When the discussion turned to certainty, Akhtar clarified his position clearly.
“We should have the humility to say that we don’t know,” he said, warning against what he called “worshipping our ignorance.”
This admission is crucial. Akhtar does not claim to know that God does not exist. He resists absolute answers, religious or otherwise. That humility undercuts the very idea that science can decisively deny God.
Akhtar did not merely question God. He questioned the ethics of belief itself. Nadwi did not merely defend faith. He questioned whether science and logic were ever meant to judge God in the first place. Together, their exchange exposes a deeper misunderstanding that often underlies atheist arguments: the attempt to use science as a tool to deny God.
1. Science Is Confined to the Physical World
"Hang my head in shame": Javed Akhtar furious over "reverent" welcome given to Afghanistan's Foreign
Image credit : ANI
“Science is confined to the physical world, while God, by definition, is beyond it,” said Mufti Shamail Nadwi while opening the discussion.
This statement established the foundation of his argument. Science is a method built to study nature. It observes matter, energy, space, and time. Its conclusions depend on measurement and repeatability.
God, as understood in classical theology across religions, is not a physical object inside the universe. God is described as the source of the universe itself. Expecting science to prove or disprove God assumes God must behave like a natural object.
When atheists use science to deny God, they are not applying science neutrally. They are redefining God into something science can reject.
2. God Is a Metaphysical Question, Not a Scientific One
Science explains physical processes. Scripture appeals to revelation. God’s existence belongs to metaphysics, the domain that deals with existence itself.
Javed Akhtar represents a rational tradition that values evidence and reason. Yet even science does not claim authority over metaphysical questions. It does not explain why existence exists, only how it behaves once it does.
Treating God as a scientific hypothesis misunderstands the nature of the question being asked.
3. Science Explains How the Universe Works, Not Why It Exists
Science and Religion
Image credit : Freepik
“Discoveries in physics or biology explain how the universe works, not why it exists,” said Mufti Shamail Nadwi.
This distinction is central to the entire debate. Science can describe gravity, evolution, and cosmic expansion. It cannot explain why there is something instead of nothing, or why the laws of nature exist at all.
Javed Akhtar did not deny this gap, but he resisted filling it with God. Yet rejecting God because science explains mechanisms is not a scientific conclusion. It is a philosophical position.
Explaining how reality functions does not eliminate the question of why reality exists.
4. Belief, Faith, and the Limits of Evidence
“Faith means there is no witness, no proof, no rationale, no logic — and yet you believe,” Akhtar said.
He added that accepting something without logic or evidence amounts to intellectual dishonesty.
For Akhtar, belief should be shaped by reason, evidence, and testimony. Faith, as he sees it, demands surrender without proof. This, he argued, is where religion becomes dangerous, because it asks people to switch off reason.
This critique is powerful, but it also clarifies something important. Akhtar is not using science to disprove God. He is using ethical and intellectual standards to question faith. That distinction matters. Moral and philosophical discomfort is not scientific denial.
5. Questioning Drives Progress, Not Surrender
He rejected the claim that religion encourages questioning. In his view, faith ultimately asks for obedience.
“You are told to believe this and not ask questions. I am not ready to surrender,” he said.
This argument speaks to the psychology of belief rather than the existence of God itself. Akhtar’s discomfort is with unquestioned authority, not with metaphysics. His argument explains why he rejects faith, not why God cannot exist.
Questioning is essential to progress. But questioning alone does not become scientific evidence against God.
6. Human Suffering Challenges Faith, Not Science
People praying
Image credit : Freepik
Akhtar returned repeatedly to human suffering, especially the deaths of children in war zones.
“If He is seeing and does not interfere, then why should I pray?” he asked.
He went further, saying that prayer in the face of extreme injustice feels morally empty.
This is the emotional core of Akhtar’s position. His rejection of God is driven by moral discomfort rather than scientific reasoning.
Responding to this, Mufti Shamail Nadwi said:
“Good can only be understood in contrast to evil. Without wrongdoing, justice would lose meaning.”
Akhtar challenged this sharply. He questioned whether respect for women requires the existence of sexual violence, or whether children’s innocence needs to be defined through their deaths.
This exchange highlights a moral clash, not a scientific one. Science can document suffering. It cannot decide whether suffering disproves God. The problem here is ethical, not empirical.
7. Free Will, Moral Tests, and the Limits of Certainty
Israel Palestinians Gaza
Image credit : AP
Describing life as a test, Mufti Shamail Nadwi argued that both good and evil exist to allow moral growth.
Evil, in this view, is not divine cruelty but a condition that makes moral choice meaningful.
Akhtar responded by asking who created evil if it is part of this design.
“In this world, the majority looks evil,” he said, suggesting that moral imbalance often appears built into reality itself.
When the discussion turned to certainty, Akhtar clarified his position clearly.
“We should have the humility to say that we don’t know,” he said, warning against what he called “worshipping our ignorance.”
This admission is crucial. Akhtar does not claim to know that God does not exist. He resists absolute answers, religious or otherwise. That humility undercuts the very idea that science can decisively deny God.