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 If I Don’t Want to Believe?” (pp. 59–62).
🔍 The Real Problem Isn’t Wanting—It’s Projecting
In this section, Mark Clark suggests that atheists reject God not out of intellectual conviction, but emotional rebellion. He opens by quoting philosopher Thomas Nagel, who once admitted he didn’t want there to be a God—and from that admission, Clark builds a universal theory: unbelief is motivated by desire, not reason.
But Clark’s claim quickly falls apart under scrutiny.
🔹 1. One Philosopher’s Quote ≠ Universal Psychology
Quoting Nagel to prove that atheists in general reject God because they “don’t want Him to exist” is like quoting one Christian who doubts and concluding that all Christians secretly disbelieve. It’s anecdotal, not analytical.
Clark commits the psychologist’s fallacy, projecting inner motives onto others. Even if some atheists are emotionally biased, the same can be said of believers who want God to exist. That desire doesn’t invalidate their belief—but neither does its absence invalidate unbelief.
🔹 2. Motivated Reasoning Cuts Both Ways
Clark warns that nonbelievers may be influenced by motivated reasoning. That’s true. But so are believers.
Many religious people believe in a God who offers:
- Eternal life
- Cosmic justice
- Moral clarity
- Ultimate meaning
- Parental love
Each of those ideas fulfills deep psychological needs. If we’re going to talk about biased motivation, we must admit that religious belief is at least as susceptible to emotional influence as disbelief.
🔹 3. Morality Doesn’t Require a God
Clark claims that without God, we lose all basis for morality. But this is a false dichotomy. Moral frameworks like:
- Humanism
- Utilitarianism
- Kantian ethics
- Virtue ethics
…have nothing to do with divine authority, yet still offer strong arguments for good and ethical behavior. They are taught in philosophy departments worldwide, and taken seriously by thoughtful people—religious and secular alike.
Morality grounded in human well-being is no less binding than morality decreed by a deity. It’s just reasoned, not revealed.
🔹 4. The Conscience Isn’t Divine
Clark invokes C.S. Lewis’s “Law of Human Nature” argument: our inner moral compass is evidence of a divine moral lawgiver.
But we now know, thanks to evolutionary psychology and cognitive science, that humans evolved moral instincts through natural selection. Cooperation, empathy, fairness—these traits help social species survive. There’s no need to invoke a cosmic moral source when the biological one explains the data better.
🔹 5. Honest Doubt Isn’t Rebellion
Clark ends by encouraging nonbelievers to “lay down their weapons” and stop fighting God. But this framing presumes too much. It assumes:
- A God exists.
- Atheists know He exists.
- They’re actively resisting Him.
This is not a description of intellectual honesty. It’s a caricature of rebellion.
Many of us left belief not because we hated God, but because we followed the evidence. We grieved our loss of faith. We wrestled. We studied. And eventually, we found something more real than belief: clarity.
✅ Conclusion
If the only way to defend belief is to psychologize unbelief, then the argument is already lost. We don’t need to fear our doubts. We need to follow them—honestly, carefully, and without presuming the conclusions.
That’s what The God Question is about.
God or Delusion? 