This post is part of an ongoing series at The God Question blog, critically responding to Mark Clark’s apologetics book, The Problem of God. In each entry, we analyze Clark’s claims one section at a time—and offer an honest, evidence-based rebuttal rooted in presence, reason, and clarity. This response covers Chapter 1 (pp. 23–39), where Clark tackles the so-called “problem of science.”
What Mark Clark Claims
Chapter 1 of The Problem of God aims to counter what Clark calls the “myth” of conflict between science and faith. He accuses atheists of misunderstanding both and argues that:
- Science and Christianity are not only compatible, but Christianity is the best foundation for science.
- Many of the most important scientific discoveries were made by Christians.
- Atheism requires more faith than belief in God, especially when it comes to the origin of the universe and the fine-tuning of physical constants.
- The “new atheists” misrepresent science and push an agenda of moral relativism and meaninglessness.
Clark frames science as a tool that points to God, insists that materialism can’t explain consciousness or morality, and positions Christianity as the most reasonable worldview.
What the Evidence Actually Shows
While Clark’s tone is confident, his arguments crumble under scrutiny.
1. He misrepresents both science and atheism.
Clark routinely builds strawman versions of secular thinkers. He caricatures atheists as arrogant, meaning-denying nihilists and paints science as a neutral enterprise that is most “at home” in a Christian worldview. This is revisionist apologetics, not honest engagement.
2. His “Christian roots of science” argument is irrelevant.
Yes, many early scientists were religious—but that proves nothing about the truth of Christianity. Most were religious because that was the dominant culture, not because Christianity produced scientific thinking. In fact, science advanced most when it began challenging church dogma, not submitting to it.
3. He relies heavily on the “God of the gaps” fallacy.
Clark argues that because science doesn’t (yet) fully explain the origin of the universe, consciousness, or morality, God must be the best explanation. This is classic “God of the gaps” reasoning: plug in a deity wherever knowledge is incomplete. It’s not only intellectually lazy—it’s dangerous. It turns faith into a placeholder for ignorance.
4. He misuses “faith” as a rhetorical weapon.
Clark claims atheists have “faith” in materialism or science. But this is a false equivalency. Scientific models are provisional, based on evidence, and subject to revision. That’s the opposite of religious faith, which demands belief despite a lack of evidence—or in defiance of it.
5. He ignores the actual history of science-religion conflict.
Clark waves away centuries of religious opposition to scientific discovery—from Galileo to Darwin—as irrelevant or misunderstood. But these weren’t small bumps. They were structural confrontations between revealed dogma and evidence-based inquiry. To claim otherwise is to whitewash history.
The God Question Perspective
Chapter 1 of The Problem of God ultimately reveals more about Clark’s strategy than about science. He’s not trying to present a rigorous case—he’s trying to reassure Christians who feel threatened by science. He offers the illusion of intellectual safety without doing the hard work of real intellectual honesty.
But The God Question is not afraid of complexity.
We affirm that:
- Wonder doesn’t require worship.
- Beauty doesn’t require a creator.
- Morality doesn’t require commandments.
- Consciousness doesn’t require a soul.
And when we allow science to speak for itself—without shoving in a God—we begin to see reality more clearly. We begin to grow up.
📚 In Case You Missed It: Section-by-Section Responses
- The Plantinga Effect: When Apologists Dress Up in Lab Coats
- Whose Faith Is Blind?
- The Science That Didn’t Say What He Said It Said
- Faith, Proof, and the Apologetics of Misdirection
⏭️ Coming Up: Chapter 2 – The Problem of God’s Existence
In the next chapter, Clark tackles the big one: Does God even exist? Unsurprisingly, his answers rely more on emotional appeal and tired apologetics than honest inquiry. But don’t take my word for it—come see for yourself.
God or Delusion? 