This post is part of our ongoing series responding to The Problem of God by Mark Clark. We’re moving chapter by chapter, examining Clark’s arguments through the lens of evidence, reason, and what we call The God Question—a philosophy that begins not with belief, but with curiosity. Our goal is not to mock or belittle, but to critically and thoughtfully respond to the claims made, helping readers engage with the deeper issues beneath the surface.
🔍 Clark’s Opening Framing: An Appeal to Emotion
Mark Clark begins Chapter 5 by asserting that “this is the most personal chapter in the book.” That immediately tells us that emotion will drive much of the content that follows. And sure enough, it does.
He recounts personal pain—his mother’s cancer and death, his own physical suffering from a degenerative disease, and emotional abuse by his father. These are real, powerful, and humanizing experiences. But Clark attempts to move from the universality of suffering to a very specific conclusion:
Suffering is not evidence against God, but a reason we need Him.
This is the central move of the chapter. And it deserves close examination.
🧠 The Bait-and-Switch of Emotional Authority
Clark’s argument operates like this:
- We all suffer.
- I’ve suffered too.
- So let me tell you what suffering means.
This rhetorical sequence is powerful because it feels honest. But it also risks becoming manipulative. It subtly shuts down the deeper philosophical question—why does suffering exist at all in a universe supposedly governed by a loving, all-powerful God?—by overwhelming the reader with pathos.
The emotional groundwork makes it hard to question the logic without seeming cold or heartless. But we must question it.
❓Is Suffering Really a “Reason We Need God”?
Clark claims that suffering doesn’t negate God’s existence. Instead, it shows our deep need for God. He writes:
“We ask for answers. God doesn’t give us answers. He gives us Himself.”
This is poetic. But it’s also hollow. It assumes that God’s silence in the face of suffering is not a problem, but a feature of divine love. In other words: God doesn’t fix it because His presence is enough.
This, of course, raises a brutal contradiction: If God is powerful and loving, why is His non-intervention framed as an act of compassion?
The better explanation may be far simpler—and far more honest: There is no divine being answering prayers or intervening at all.
🔄 Reframing the Burden of Proof
Clark tries to turn the problem around. He argues that suffering only feels like a problem for the believer—because we expect a good God to do something about it. But for the atheist, he suggests, suffering shouldn’t be a problem at all. It’s just nature playing out—no meaning, no evil, just randomness.
This is a common apologetic move: to claim that atheists “borrow” their moral outrage from Christianity.
But that’s intellectually dishonest.
Non-theistic philosophies—like secular humanism, Buddhism, or Stoicism—have deeply coherent ways of explaining and confronting suffering. These worldviews acknowledge suffering without invoking a morally culpable, invisible deity.
In fact, atheism removes the moral contradiction entirely: in a natural universe, we suffer because of biology, environment, randomness, and human cruelty—not because a benevolent cosmic Father chooses not to intervene.
🔚 Where to Pause for Now
Let’s stop here, just before Clark begins offering the classic Christian responses to suffering (i.e., free will, soul-building theodicies, and Jesus’s suffering as solidarity).
In our next post, we’ll examine those claims in detail.
God or Delusion? 