Dr. M A Mujeeb | mujeeb_speaks @ YT/Insta/FB

Hashtag Contingency

(Image Credits: The Lallantop)

The recent two-hour academic debate between writer, poet and lyricist Javed Akhtar and Islamic scholar Mufti Shamail Nadwi on the topic, “Does God Exist?” has taken the internet by storm. Social media is flooded with short clips, reactions, and heated comment-section disputes as people passionately take sides. Amid all this noise, one word from the discussion has especially caught public attention: contingency.

At one point, Javed Akhtar openly admitted that he did not understand what this term meant and many viewers felt the same. This blog aims to unpack the ideas of contingency and infinite regress in simple language, using this unique debate, moderated by journalist Saurabh Dwivedi of India Today Hindi and Lallantop, as a reference point.

What Is Contingency?

A contingent thing is something that doesn't have to exist, it could just as easily not be here. Think of yourself: you depend on your parents, food, air, and a stable planet to exist right now. If any link in that chain breaks, you vanish. Everyday objects like your phone, a tree, or even the sun is contingent because their existence relies on prior causes or conditions. Philosophers like Thomas Aquinas argued that the entire universe seems contingent, nothing in it explains its own being.

Contingent beings borrow their existence moment by moment and without any constant support, they wouldn't persist. This leads to the big question: if everything we see is contingent, what keeps the whole show running? Just piling up more contingent things doesn't solve it.

Hence, Mufti Shamail Nadwi argued that because everything contingent requires a cause, there must ultimately be a necessary being (something that exists by its own nature, not dependent on anything else). In Islamic and Christian philosophy, this “necessary being” is identified as God.

Infinite Regress in the Spotlight

​Infinite regress happens when each explanation demands another one, stretching backward forever without a starting point. Imagine dominos falling: why did the last one tip? Because the one before hit it. Why that one? The previous pushed it. If this chain goes on infinitely, you've explained each fall but not why any are falling at all, no first push means no ultimate reason.

​In philosophy, this regress can be "vicious" if it makes a theory impossible or unexplanatory. A chain of fathers explains your existence (dad from granddad, and so on), but an endless chain of contingent causes leaves the core mystery untouched: why is there a chain instead of nothing?

Akhtar didn't directly counter the regress but shifted to burden of proof, comparing God to an undetectable teapot citing philosopher Bertrand Russell’s analogy, claimants must prove, not skeptics disprove. He implied endless chains or brute facts might suffice, urging focus on observable suffering over metaphysics.

Why this debate matters?

India often sees polarized debates on religion, but this event showed that an atheist and a religious scholar can share a stage without hostility. Saurabh Dwivedi ensured balance, allowing both sides to present their arguments fully, which reinforced the value of civil disagreement in a diverse society. By hosting the debate at the Constitution Club in New Delhi, the event symbolically tied the discussion to India’s democratic and secular ethos. It highlighted that questioning faith is not taboo in India’s public sphere, aligning with constitutional values of free speech and thought. Akhtar’s rebuttal and Nadwi’s technical depth created a bridge between academic philosophy and popular culture. Millions of views online show that Indians are eager to engage with complex ideas when presented in accessible formats.