This post is part of our ongoing series examining Mark Clark’s book, The Problem of God, one section at a time. Each post critically analyzes Clark’s claims through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s core philosophy: we don’t begin with belief—we begin with curiosity. This installment responds to “What Dawkins Gets Wrong” (pp. 47–48).
🧠 The Core Claim: God Is the Source of Morality
Mark Clark argues that our sense of right and wrong is not learned, not evolved, and certainly not secular—it’s divine. Citing Romans 2 and referencing Harvard biologist Marc Hauser’s famous moral thought experiments, Clark insists that our moral instincts are “written on our hearts” by the Christian God.
He concludes that objective morality must exist—and therefore God must exist too.
But this entire argument hinges on a flawed assumption: that moral intuition can only come from a divine source.
🔬 What Hauser’s Experiments Actually Reveal
Marc Hauser’s research, particularly his scenarios involving trolley dilemmas, reveals that religious and nonreligious people respond nearly identically to complex moral choices. That’s not a sign of divine fingerprints—it’s a sign of shared human cognition.
Clark acknowledges this fact, but then tries to twist it into a theistic argument: if atheists can recognize moral truths, it must be because God hardwired them to do so. But that’s not what the evidence shows.
In truth, Hauser’s work undermines the need for religion in ethics. If belief doesn’t affect moral judgment, then God is irrelevant to moral reasoning.
⚖️ Is There “One Right Answer” in Morality?
Clark compares ethics to math. Just as people can be wrong about 2 + 2 = 4, he argues, people can be wrong about right and wrong—but that doesn’t mean a correct answer doesn’t exist.
But this analogy fails.
Math is built on axioms and logical rules. Morality is shaped by culture, experience, and empathy. Comparing the two is like comparing a chess rulebook to human suffering. One is formal; the other is human.
Even if objective moral values did exist (a highly debated idea), that still wouldn’t point to God. And certainly not Clark’s God, whose moral track record in the Bible includes slavery, genocide, and divine tantrums.
💬 Dawkins, Misrepresented
Clark criticizes Richard Dawkins for suggesting that morality doesn’t require God—but Dawkins’ point is precisely that: morality doesn’t require God. And that point is backed by data, reason, and centuries of moral progress despite religion, not because of it.
Clark’s attempt to turn secular moral behavior into proof of divine authorship is like claiming GPS satellites prove the Earth is flat—he’s using the evidence to argue against what the evidence actually shows.
🔍 Final Thoughts: What Looks Like God Isn’t Always God
Clark wants to believe that if morality feels objective, then it must come from God.
But human beings can feel deeply about things that aren’t true. Intuition is not evidence. Consensus is not revelation.
What’s needed is not a divine lawgiver, but an honest reckoning with how morality really works: it evolves, it adapts, and it thrives best in freedom—not faith.
God or Delusion? 