Does the problem of evil disprove the existence of God?

The problem of evil challenges the idea of an all-powerful and benevolent God. Philosophers argue that suffering may serve deeper metaphysical or moral purposes.

Is morality possible without God?

Some philosophers argue that morality arises from reason and human flourishing, while others believe it ultimately requires a transcendent foundation.

Can reason prove the existence of God?

Classical philosophers proposed arguments such as the cosmological and moral arguments to support belief in God, though critics debate whether these provide proof or philosophical justification.

Section 3: The Moral Law | The God Debate: Atheism vs. Theism

Moderator: We have debated the existence of the cosmos and the problem of suffering. Now we turn to the realm of human action: morality. Where do our concepts of "good" and "evil" come from? Are they divine commands, or can they be grounded in reason and science alone? Dr. Harris, the floor is yours.

Sam Harris: The idea that we need an ancient book and a celestial dictator to be good is one of the most pernicious myths ever foisted upon humanity. It is not only false; it is demonstrably dangerous. Morality is not about pleasing an invisible God. It is about the well-being of conscious creatures. That is the only rational foundation for ethics. "Good" is that which supports well-being. "Evil" is that which causes unnecessary harm and suffering. These are not arbitrary opinions. I contend that there are objective facts about how conscious beings can flourish, and these facts can be studied by science.

We don't need a god to tell us that torturing a child for fun is wrong. We know it's wrong because we understand the horrific suffering it entails. Our empathy is a product of our evolution. The most profound moral progress humanity has ever made—the abolition of slavery, the recognition of women's rights—has been achieved not because of religion, but in spite of it, by appealing to our shared sense of reason and compassion. A secure, objective, universal morality can and must be built on the firm ground of scientific fact and human well-being, not on the shifting sands of divine whim.

Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī: Dr. Harris has made a valiant attempt to build a house on water. His entire argument rests on a hidden premise: that "well-being" is the objective good we ought to pursue. But from a purely materialistic, scientific perspective, why should we? Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. It can tell you that a certain action will cause pain. It can never tell you that you ought not to cause pain. This is the famous is-ought problem, and you have leapt across it without a bridge. In a godless universe, "good" and "evil" are illusions. For a moral statement like "murder is evil" to be objectively true, it requires a legislator with the authority to issue a binding command. This authority can only be God.

Ibn Rushd: Precisely. Dr. Harris's "moral landscape" is a landscape with no compass. He speaks of "peaks of flourishing," but one man's peak is another's valley. Who is to say which is objectively better without a transcendent standard? Science cannot answer this. It leads inevitably to moral relativism. Divine Law (Sharīʿah) is the anchor that prevents this collapse. It is grounded in the Creator's infinite knowledge of His own creation. God's commands are not whims; they are the principles for our ultimate benefit. These actions are evil not simply because they cause harm that we can measure, but because they violate the objective moral order established by the Creator of that order. Without this divine foundation, your morality is a castle in the air, with no ground to stand on.