Reading and responding, one section at a time.
It’s been nearly two years since my law school friend Edrie Pfeiffer visited our home with her husband, Harry, during one of their cross-country motorhome trips. We shared supper and memories. But before leaving, Edrie handed me a book — The Problem of God by Mark Clark — with a knowing smile and a sense of urgency.
She had recently discovered through my novels (and a direct email exchange) that I’d deconverted from Christianity. This book, I gathered, was her way of nudging me back — or at least asking me to reconsider. It sat unopened for a long time. But now, I’ve decided to read and respond to it, section by section.
This post engages with Chapter 1, pages 23–25 — specifically the opening of the chapter titled “The Problem of Science.” I’ll tackle The Plantinga Effect in a follow-up post.
🔍 Clark’s Argument: Science vs. Faith, or False Dichotomy?
Mark Clark opens Chapter 1 with a typical framing of the “faith vs. science” debate. He paints a picture of two sides:
- On one side: a respected Oxford-trained evolutionary biologist who argues that science, not faith, holds the answers to life’s questions.
- On the other: “Joe Smith,” a caricatured Christian who homeschools his kids, believes Oprah is the Antichrist, and lives in a swamp.
Clark claims this extreme binary — between reason and religion, between rationality and superstition — is a myth manufactured by secularism and embraced by modern culture. He wants us to believe that:
“Faith and science aren’t enemies. They’re partners. Christianity is not the less rational worldview, but the more rational one.”
To get there, he blames the Enlightenment, secularism, and atheists like Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens for misrepresenting faith. And he positions his own journey — coming to faith through reason — as a case study in how Christianity is not just compatible with science, but more logical than atheism.
🎯 My Response: Faith, Science, and the Demand for Evidence
Mark Clark’s rhetorical move is familiar: he deflects the actual conflict by attacking the way it’s often framed. But he doesn’t truly engage with the real tension at the heart of the matter.
Let’s address that directly.
1. Secularism Isn’t a Conspiracy
Clark treats “secularism” as though it were a coordinated movement led by loud, smug atheists — an ideology with its own dogmas. But secularism, in its most basic sense, simply means this:
Public policy and education should be grounded in what we can verify — not in supernatural claims.
It’s not about oppressing religion. It’s about recognizing that beliefs without evidence don’t deserve special treatment when it comes to law, science, or education. Clark is right that secularists often criticize religion, but he’s wrong to equate that with a rejection of all spiritual exploration or moral inquiry. What secularism rejects is unwarranted certainty.
2. Faith vs. Science Isn’t a Straw Man — It’s a Methodological Divide
Clark says faith and science are compatible. And sure, many scientists are also people of faith — but that doesn’t erase the central problem:
Science requires testable, falsifiable claims.
Faith, by definition, does not.
The moment faith makes truth claims about the natural world — virgin births, global floods, literal resurrections — it enters science’s territory. And in that territory, evidence rules. When evidence contradicts the claim, science adjusts. Faith does not.
So the conflict isn’t cultural. It’s methodological.
3. Mocking Extremes Doesn’t Redeem the Middle
Clark complains that secular critics like Dawkins or Harris dismiss faith as “delusional” or even a form of “mental illness.” Whether or not you find those comparisons helpful, the underlying critique is this:
Faith asks people to believe in things they cannot verify, and often in spite of contrary evidence.
Calling that irrational is not an insult — it’s an observation about epistemology. We don’t use faith to fly airplanes, treat cancer, or build bridges. Why should we use it to answer life’s biggest questions?
Clark never responds to that. He only laments the tone.
4. Clark’s “Rational Christianity” Is Just a Claim (So Far)
Clark ends this section by asserting that Christianity is the more rational worldview. But he offers no argument, no evidence — only his own personal journey as proof. He speaks of studying history, science, and philosophy, and concludes:
“I have come to see that Christianity isn’t a less rational worldview … but a more rational one.”
Maybe so. But rationality demands reasons, not just testimonies.
💬 Final Thoughts: What I’m Looking for in This Book
I appreciate that Edrie gave me this book in love and sincerity. I’m reading it not to score points but to understand — and to think alongside others who are still searching, still questioning.
But if Chapter 1 is any indication, Mark Clark is more interested in rehabilitating belief than challenging it. He wants to recast faith as reasonable by knocking down shallow portrayals of atheism. That may feel good to believers — but it’s not good argument.
Still, I’ll keep reading. Tomorrow, I’ll take up The Plantinga Effect and continue the conversation.
Truth doesn’t fear investigation. Let’s see where this leads.
God or Delusion? 