Richard L. Fricks

Chapter 3 Begins: Has the Bible Been Changed—or Just Romanticized?

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 the opening sections of Chapter 3 (pp. 63–67): “The Problem of the Bible,” “Modern Questions,” and “Has the Bible Been Changed?”

What happens when we stop assuming the Bible must be defended, and instead begin asking whether it stands up to scrutiny?

Mark Clark wants us to believe that skepticism toward the Bible is a modern trend rooted in rebellion, not reflection. But that framing betrays a deeper fear: that when we do examine the evidence, the Bible doesn’t hold up.

Clark starts Chapter 3 with a sweeping defense of the Bible’s accuracy and reliability, tying emotional imagery (like Torah celebrations) to claims of textual consistency. But as moving as these traditions are, they don’t prove the Bible’s divine origin or historical accuracy. At best, they show a deep reverence for a text. And reverence, however sincere, is not the same as evidence.

He argues that the Bible “hasn’t changed in any significant way,” but this claim is misleading. Textual criticism tells another story—one filled with variants, edits, redactions, missing books, and theological motivations behind what was preserved and what was excluded. From the dozens of versions of Genesis to the synoptic problem in the Gospels to the contested authorship of nearly half the New Testament, the real issue isn’t scribal accuracy. It’s the content itself. Is it true? Is it moral? Is it coherent?

Clark’s strategy is to confuse preservation with truth. But even if every manuscript had been copied flawlessly, we would still be left with a book filled with contradictions, moral atrocities, and mythic claims unsupported by archaeology or historical consensus.

So has the Bible been changed? Yes—by translation, by interpretation, by exclusion, and by centuries of theological agenda. But perhaps the better question is: Has our willingness to question the Bible changed? Fortunately, for many of us, it has.

Chapter 2 Summary – “The Problem of Science”

Why Mark Clark’s View of Science Fails the Test of Curiosity

This post concludes our multi-part response to Chapter 2 of Mark Clark’s The Problem of God. In this chapter, Clark tackles “The Problem of Science,” arguing that science not only points to the existence of God but fails to function meaningfully without him. Below is a recap of our critiques and key takeaways, analyzed through The God Question’s core philosophy: we don’t begin with belief—we begin with curiosity.

Clark’s Main Argument

Clark opens Chapter 2 by setting up a false choice between atheism and a divinely created universe. He claims that modern science is not only compatible with Christianity but actually supports it—pointing to Big Bang cosmology, the design of the universe, and the structure of DNA as evidence for a divine designer. Relying heavily on quotes from Christian scientists like Francis Collins and William Lane Craig, he builds a cumulative case that science, properly understood, leads naturally to belief in the Christian God.

Our Critique

1. Science is Misrepresented as Religious Support

Clark repeatedly assumes that invoking mystery or complexity in nature (e.g. the Big Bang, DNA) justifies inserting a divine agent. In reality, this is a textbook example of the God of the Gaps fallacy—an argument from ignorance rather than evidence.

2. Methodological Naturalism ≠ Philosophical Atheism

Clark conflates the scientific method (which limits itself to natural explanations) with a worldview of atheism. But scientists can—and do—hold a wide range of personal beliefs while still using a shared, naturalistic method. The method isn’t atheistic; it’s functional.

3. Design Is Assumed, Not Demonstrated

Rather than offering new evidence of design, Clark simply asserts that complexity = intention. But complexity doesn’t require a mind, and biological evolution already explains how intricate systems can emerge naturally. The analogy of DNA to “language” is poetic but not proof of divine authorship.

4. The Real Problem: Circular Reasoning

Ultimately, Clark’s argument assumes what it sets out to prove. He quotes scientists like Collins and builds theological meaning into scientific observations—but only by assuming that God must be the source of meaning in the first place.

Closing Reflection

Science doesn’t need a supernatural safety net. Its beauty lies in its humility—its willingness to admit what we don’t yet know, and to follow the evidence where it leads. If your god can’t survive honest questions, perhaps it’s not the truth you’re defending—but a tradition.

Rational or Religious? A Response to the “What If I Don’t Want to Believe?” Argument

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.

When the Universe Isn’t an Argument: A Response to Clark’s “Astronomy” Section

Clark’s Argument: A Watch on the Beach, a Universe in the Sky

Mark Clark opens this section by invoking William Paley’s 18th-century watchmaker analogy: If you’re walking along a beach and find a watch, you don’t assume it came together by accident. The watch implies a watchmaker. Clark then transfers this logic to the universe: something so complex, orderly, and “fine-tuned” must also have a designer.

To bolster this claim, he invokes the anthropic principle, emphasizing the improbability of a life-permitting universe. He cites physicists who say the odds are stacked against existence without divine intervention, referring to “122 variables” that had to be “dialed in” for life to be possible. He then echoes astronomer Fred Hoyle’s famous remark that “a super intellect has monkeyed with physics,” and concludes with Stephen Hawking’s reflection on the razor-thin margin that allowed the Big Bang to avoid collapse. His final move: dismissing “chance” as an explanation and claiming theism is the more rational option.

Why the Watchmaker Still Fails

Let’s begin with the core analogy. Paley’s watch argument—and Clark’s repackaging of it—rests on a category error. Watches are clearly designed artifacts, shaped by intentional human minds, fabricated in factories, and distributed by supply chains. Universes are not.

We recognize design by comparing an object to natural patterns and inferring it doesn’t fit. But we have no comparative universes to use as a baseline. We cannot say “this universe looks designed” unless we’ve seen one that isn’t. The watch is out of place on a beach—its artificial nature obvious because it contrasts with its surroundings. But there is no “outside” to the universe against which we can contrast it. We’ve never observed a universe not made by a god.

The analogy is emotionally compelling—but logically empty.

Fine-Tuning or Just Being Human?

The fine-tuning argument, central to Clark’s case here, suffers from multiple issues:

Selection Bias: Of course the universe appears “fine-tuned”—we are here to observe it. If it weren’t hospitable to life, we wouldn’t be around to ask why. This is not profound; it’s basic logic. This is the weak anthropic principle, and it’s uncontroversial.
Assuming Intentionality: The argument moves from “it’s improbable” to “therefore, someone meant it.” But low probability outcomes happen constantly. A specific hand of cards has odds of around 1 in 600 billion—but someone always gets one. The existence of our universe doesn’t require a designer, just a universe with observers. That’s us.
Misstating the Math: Clark claims the odds of our universe existing are 1 in 10¹³⁸. But where did that number come from? Probability only works if you know the range of possible outcomes. We don’t. We have no idea how universes form, how many variations are possible, or what the distribution of constants might be. So assigning odds is not just speculative—it’s meaningless.
God of the Gaps, Redux: Clark’s appeal to improbability is a classic argument from ignorance: “We can’t explain this without God, therefore God.” But unexplained is not unexplainable. Ignorance is not evidence. It is simply ignorance.

When Did the Laws Begin?

Clark tries to deepen the dilemma by asking when the laws of physics themselves began. He claims that the “laws” must have existed prior to the Big Bang, or the Big Bang couldn’t have occurred. This implies something outside the natural world—like a mind or designer—must have existed first.

But this question is deeply philosophical, not evidentiary. It’s not that Clark is wrong to wonder when or how the laws emerged. The problem is he treats the question itself as proof of a designer. But cosmology has long acknowledged the possibility that time itself began with the Big Bang. If time is a feature of the universe, asking what came “before” the universe is like asking what’s north of the North Pole.

And as physicist Sean Carroll has pointed out repeatedly, “Laws” of physics are not external prescriptions but descriptions of patterns we observe. They are our models, not floating commandments waiting to be enforced.

Quoting Hawking—But Ignoring the Context

Clark ends by quoting Stephen Hawking to bolster his view that the odds against the Big Bang’s success are enormous. But this is selective citation. Hawking himself did not believe the universe required a designer—and explicitly rejected the necessity of God in multiple interviews and writings. He believed that the laws of nature could explain the universe entirely.

Quoting Hawking’s amazement at the universe while ignoring his conclusion is not just misleading—it’s dishonest rhetoric.

“Chance” Is Not the Only Alternative

Finally, Clark claims that “chance” is a non-explanation, and that theism is more rational. But again, he reduces the spectrum of possible explanations to just two: random chance or intentional design. That’s a false dichotomy.

There are naturalistic frameworks (like multiverse theory, quantum fluctuations, and inflationary cosmology) that offer possible explanations without invoking a deity. These may be incomplete or speculative—but they are rooted in scientific curiosity, not theological assumption.

And in the absence of sufficient evidence, the rational position is not to declare “God did it”—it is to withhold belief until more is known.

Closing Thought

Mark Clark’s astronomy section isn’t about astronomy at all. It’s a polished version of an old argument: everything is too perfect to be accidental, therefore God. But perfection is a perception, not a fact. And arguments from awe are still just that—arguments from awe.

The stars don’t prove God.

They just are.

A Leap of Faith in Reverse: Dissecting the “Evidence of Design”

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 the “Evidence of Design” and “Biology” sections of Chapter 2 (pp. 56–57).

Mark Clark shifts his focus now to a classic apologetic argument: the design of the universe. He claims that an “anti-randomness” within biology and astronomy points to a cosmic designer. His language is familiar: the universe shows “intentional precision and balance,” and to reject this as chance or luck requires “a leap and measure of faith” that Clark says he “can’t justify.”

But isn’t that just a reversal of burden? Rather than asking whether there’s solid, testable evidence for a divine designer, Clark assumes design and asks readers to justify rejecting it. It’s an argument from incredulity, cloaked in awe.

Let’s break down his central assertions in these two sections:

1. “The Evidence of Design” — Precision, Balance, and a Hidden Designer

Clark tells us there is “a strange and mysterious design” to the cosmos that “points strongly to a designer.” But he provides no actual scientific data—just poetic phrasing. The argument leans heavily on what feels designed, not what proves design.

This is the classic “fine-tuning” claim: that the universe’s physical constants are so precise that life could not exist otherwise. But Clark fails to mention how much this argument rests on (a) speculative cosmology, (b) a lack of imagination about alternative life-forms or universes, and (c) a deep misunderstanding of probability.

To say that life exists therefore it must have been designed is to confuse post hoc reasoning with explanation. It’s like marveling that your birthdate matches your birth certificate, and assuming divine planning is the only possible cause.

2. “Biology” — DNA, Amoebas, and Francis Collins

Clark then pivots to biology, quoting Francis Collins, a scientist who happens to be a Christian. He calls DNA “coherent and information-filled code” and declares that an amoeba contains “enough structured and meaningful data to fill thirty encyclopedias!”

This is rhetorical sleight of hand. The comparison to encyclopedias is a metaphor, not a scientific measurement. DNA contains biochemical sequences shaped by evolution—not messages sent from a cosmic author. Calling it a “language” may work poetically, but it doesn’t mean DNA was composed by a mind. We also “observe the presence of structured, coherent communication” in computer viruses—does that imply divine authorship too?

Clark’s core claim is this: if something looks designed, it must be. But this is the same argument William Paley made with the watch in the sand—and it suffers the same flaw. Nature has had billions of years to evolve complexity without foresight or intention.

What Clark Doesn’t Say

Clark never addresses the evolutionary mechanisms that explain complexity without requiring a designer. He doesn’t mention natural selection, cumulative adaptation, or the fossil record. Instead, he focuses on selective amazement, pointing to complexity and declaring: This couldn’t have just happened.

But it could—and we have mountains of evidence showing how.

Today’s Takeaway

Clark suggests that rejecting a divine designer requires faith. But in reality, the only thing that requires faith here is assuming design without evidence. Awe is not evidence. Metaphors are not science. And invoking a designer when we don’t yet understand something is a long-abandoned move in serious scientific inquiry.

We don’t need a telescope or a microscope to see the flaw in this logic. Just a bit of curiosity—and the willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Nobody × Nothing = Everything? A Closer Look at Mark Clark’s Math

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 “Nobody Times Nothing Equals Everything?” (pp. 54–56).

Chapter Summary and Analysis:

In this section, Mark Clark lays out one of the most common arguments in modern Christian apologetics: the Kalam Cosmological Argument, restated in lay terms. His goal is to make the Big Bang appear to point undeniably toward God by arguing that:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe had a cause.
That cause must be an immaterial mind—i.e., God.

To strengthen this chain of reasoning, Clark claims that science has ruled out the possibility of an eternal universe and that no reasonable alternative to divine creation can explain the Big Bang. He ridicules the “nothing hypothesis”—the idea that perhaps the universe just began without a cause—as irrational and anti-scientific. He even inserts an anecdote about a house alarm going off at night to illustrate how absurd it would be to believe “nothing” triggered an event.

But does this argument actually succeed?

What Clark Gets Wrong

Let’s examine his assumptions through The God Question’s Core Philosophy:

1. “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.”

This may sound intuitive, but it collapses under scrutiny. The notion of cause and effect is rooted in our experience of time and space—inside the universe. To say it applies before the universe existed (when time itself began) is speculative. The laws of physics—including causality—may not even apply at the boundary of spacetime.

Furthermore, in quantum mechanics, particles can and do appear to emerge from what we call a “quantum vacuum”—an energy field that is not nothing, but certainly isn’t a someone. So the simplicity of “everything that begins must have a cause” is misleading at best.

2. “The universe began to exist.”

It’s more accurate to say the observable universe appears to have originated in a hot, dense state ~13.8 billion years ago. But physicists are not unanimous that this marks an absolute beginning of everything. There are multiple theoretical models—such as the cyclical universe, multiverse, or quantum gravity proposals—that suggest our universe may have emerged from something else entirely.

The honest answer is: We don’t yet know.

3. “Therefore, the universe had a cause… and it must be a mind.”

This leap is unjustified and deeply theological. Clark equates “cause” with “conscious creator” based not on evidence but on desire—he wants a god at the origin. But to posit an immaterial, timeless, spaceless, changeless, all-powerful being as the simplest explanation is a textbook case of special pleading.

Worse, this “cause” is intentionally defined to be immune to the same scrutiny. Who or what caused God? Clark says nothing. The cause of everything must be something that didn’t need a cause—a mind that exists outside time. But this just shifts the mystery, it doesn’t solve it.

4. “Nothing caused everything = absurd.”

This rhetorical jab (“nobody × nothing = everything”) is effective in sermons but misleading in serious discussion. Cosmologists don’t claim that literal “nothing” caused everything. Instead, they admit uncertainty while exploring naturalistic mechanisms—none of which require a conscious mind.

Clark’s argument exploits the discomfort people feel when facing uncertainty. He prefers a wrong answer that feels reassuring to a humble admission of “we don’t know.”

What This Chapter Actually Proves

Clark’s entire chain of logic leads not to God, but to this:

“We don’t understand the origins of the universe completely, so let’s insert God into the gap.”

That’s not evidence. That’s a God of the Gaps argument, which has a long history of retreating in the face of progress. Lightning used to be divine wrath. Disease used to be demonic possession. Now, it’s the Big Bang.

If history teaches us anything, it’s that betting on “God did it” when science hasn’t yet answered a question is a guaranteed losing strategy.

The Problem of God — and Cosmology: Big Bang, Big Questions, Bigger Assumptions

The God Question is a blog committed to respectful but rigorous examination of Christian truth claims. This post is part of an ongoing series analyzing Mark Clark’s bestselling book The Problem of God—a work popular among evangelical apologists for its accessible defense of Christian belief. Each post highlights a specific claim or chapter, testing it through logic, science, history, and reason—all through the lens of The God Question’s core philosophy.

Cosmology & Big Bang

Mark Clark begins Chapter 2 of The Problem of God with the claim that the existence of moral law points to the existence of a divine lawgiver. He then pivots, calling cosmology—the study of the universe’s origin—the “second evidence” for God’s existence. Citing Immanuel Kant’s phrase “the starry hosts above,” Clark introduces this section with an air of reverence and inevitability. And yet, as with much of his apologetic method, the argument quickly reduces to a series of well-worn and misleading claims.

“Whatever begins to exist has a cause”

Clark recycles the familiar Kalam Cosmological Argument—popularized by William Lane Craig—claiming:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause (which he identifies as God).

It’s a tidy syllogism, but it carries massive philosophical and scientific baggage. For one, premise one—“everything that begins to exist has a cause”—is assumed, not demonstrated. In quantum physics, subatomic particles (like virtual particles) appear to come into being without any identifiable cause at all. Some physicists argue this undercuts the first premise entirely.

Second, while Clark confidently asserts that the universe “began to exist” 15 billion years ago, modern cosmology is less certain. The Big Bang represents a beginning of our observable universe—space, time, matter, and energy—but what (if anything) came before remains unknown. Physicists like Sean Carroll and Lawrence Krauss argue that asking “what caused the Big Bang?” may be a category error, akin to asking “what’s north of the North Pole?”

Clark fails to mention the range of cosmological models that don’t require a supernatural cause: vacuum fluctuation models, cyclic universes, multiverse theory, and more. Instead, he cherry-picks the version that supports his belief.

The Universe Had a “Birthday”

Clark writes that the universe “began to exist fifteen billion years ago,” and thus “has a birthday.” But a birthday implies a beginning in time. According to Big Bang cosmology, time itself began with the Big Bang—making the phrase “before the Big Bang” meaningless. Again, Clark applies language shaped by everyday human experience to a context (cosmic origins) where such language breaks down.

He then draws this conclusion:

“The cause must be mind, not matter, because matter itself began to exist at the Big Bang.”

But why must it be “mind”? Why not energy, or some still-unknown quantum field? This is argument by assertion, not evidence.

“That’s exactly what Christianity has been claiming from the beginning”

Here, Clark tries to claim cosmology for Christianity—suggesting that Big Bang cosmology confirms the Bible’s creation story. But Genesis depicts a firmament, a stationary Earth, a six-day creation, and light existing before the sun. None of this aligns with modern cosmology.

What’s more, Clark sidesteps the historical truth: for centuries, the church fought against emerging scientific cosmologies—from Copernicus to Galileo to Darwin. He also fails to mention that Georges Lemaître, the Catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang, did so while insisting it should not be used to justify theological arguments.

“Nobody times nothing equals everything?”

Clark ends this section with a rhetorical jab, mocking secular explanations of origins as “nobody times nothing equals everything.” But this misrepresents what scientists actually say. Most do not claim the universe came from “nothing” in the philosophical sense; instead, they speak of a quantum vacuum or primordial state that does not equate to “nothing.”

Clark either doesn’t understand—or doesn’t care to accurately represent—those he disagrees with.

🧠 Final Reflection

Clark’s use of cosmology is not an honest inquiry but a clever repackaging of scientific mystery as theological certainty. Rather than follow the evidence wherever it leads, he frames the evidence to serve a preordained conclusion. And he does so without wrestling seriously with opposing views—from quantum cosmology to secular metaphysics.

If you want to explore real cosmological questions—without the theological bait-and-switch—look instead to physicists who admit what they don’t know. There’s more humility, and ironically, more awe, in their uncertainty than in any apologetic proof.

Do We Need God to Be Good?

INTRODUCTION

This blog is dedicated to a simple idea: Belief is not a virtue—and asking questions is not a sin.

If you’ve ever found yourself whispering your doubts or biting your tongue in church, you’re not alone.

Here at The God Question, we don’t preach—we probe. We examine what’s claimed, compare it to what’s actually known, and ask what best explains the difference.

You don’t need certainty to be curious. You don’t need faith to care about truth.

All you need is a mind willing to think, a heart willing to feel, and the courage to ask the next honest question.

Do We Need God to Be Good?

A Response to the Claim That Evolution Can’t Explain Morality

Can evolution explain why we care for others? Why we risk our lives for strangers? Why we feel revulsion at racism or injustice? According to many theists, including the author of The Problem of God, the answer is no. In a section titled “Is There an Evolutionary Explanation?” the argument goes like this:

Evolutionary morality is just “selfish genes” dressing up as altruism.
Darwinian logic led to eugenics and even the Holocaust.
If morality came from nature alone, we wouldn’t feel strongly against racism, injustice, or cruelty.

It’s a powerful emotional case. But does it hold up?

Let’s explore this claim using The God Question’s Core Philosophy:

What is claimed? What is actually known? And what best explains the difference between the two?

1. What Is Claimed?

The book argues that:

Morality rooted in evolution is not “real” morality—it’s utilitarian at best, dangerous at worst.
Natural selection cannot explain true altruism or our revulsion at cruelty.
Because of this, moral law must come from God—a transcendent being who has “stitched” love and goodness into our souls.

2. What Is Actually Known?

Here’s what science, anthropology, and evolutionary psychology suggest instead:

Reciprocal altruism is a well-documented evolutionary strategy found in many species, including humans. It helps social groups survive—not because it’s “fake,” but because cooperation works.
Genuine empathy is observable even in infants and some non-human primates. While its origins are biological, the experience is real. You don’t have to believe in God to feel compassion.
Group morality evolves and matures culturally. Over time, human societies have expanded their moral circles—from tribal kinship to universal human rights—not because of divine command, but because of growing awareness and reasoned reflection.
The horrors of eugenics and Nazi ideology weren’t inevitable results of evolution—they were corruptions of Darwinian ideas, shaped by political, religious, and racial ideologies. Blaming Darwin for Hitler is as misleading as blaming Jesus for the Inquisition.

3. What Best Explains the Difference?

The problem here is a false dichotomy: either morality comes from God, or it’s meaningless. But that’s simply not true.

Morality can—and does—emerge naturally from our shared humanity:

From our evolved capacity to feel,
From our reason to reflect,
From our experience of suffering and joy.

We don’t need a divine lawgiver to recognize that cruelty is wrong or that compassion matters. We only need to be conscious, to listen honestly to what it feels like to be hurt, to be helped, and to help others.

The impulse to lay down one’s life for a stranger isn’t proof of God—it’s proof of the depth of our shared connection.

🚫 A Final Word on “Favoured Races”

The book also points to Darwin’s subtitle—The Preservation of Favoured Races—to suggest that evolution is inherently racist. But this is a dishonest reading. In the 19th century, “races” often meant varieties or subspecies, not ethnic groups. Darwin opposed slavery, and his work undermined the idea that humans were specially created in racial hierarchies. Using his book to justify racism is both historically and morally wrong.

So, is there an evolutionary explanation for morality?

Yes—one rooted in connection, compassion, and consciousness.

And that’s not just “good enough.”

It’s actually beautiful.

There Really Is a Right Answer?

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.

Do We Need God to Know That Eating Your Sister Is Wrong?

📘 About This Series

This post is part of a daily response series to The Problem of God: Answering a Skeptic’s Challenges to Christianity by Mark Clark. The series critically engages with each chapter and section of the book, examining Clark’s arguments through the lens of reason, historical evidence, and The God Question’s core philosophy: what’s true doesn’t fear investigation.

Today’s post responds to content found in pages 45-47 of the book — the section titled “What If They Ate Your Sister?”

If you’re just joining us, you can view all prior entries in this series on The God Question blog at https://godordelusion.com/the-god-question/. The God Question is a blog that investigates Christian claims with clarity, courage, and calm. We believe truth can withstand scrutiny—and that real meaning doesn’t require pretending to know what we don’t.

Can we know that something is morally wrong—even if we don’t believe in God?

Mark Clark doesn’t think so.

In Chapter 2 of The Problem of God, Clark tells a story from his time at Michaels craft store. An atheist co-worker claimed that morality is culturally constructed. To test him, Clark asks: “What if a jungle tribe tortured and ate your sister? Could you really say that’s wrong?” The implication is clear: If you don’t believe in objective morality, you must accept that cannibalism is just a matter of taste.

But this argument falls apart under scrutiny.

It relies on shock—not reason. Clark knows we’ll recoil in horror at the idea of someone eating a loved one. That horror, he argues, proves the existence of a moral law, which in turn proves the existence of a lawgiver—God.

But this is emotional sleight of hand. Just because something feels deeply wrong doesn’t mean it requires a supernatural explanation. Our moral instincts are real—but they’re also explainable through biology, psychology, and culture. Evolution favors cooperation and empathy. We’ve learned, over centuries, that causing harm leads to chaos.

Clark’s argument also creates a false choice: Either you believe in God, or you believe nothing is really wrong. That’s simply not true. Secular ethics offers a rich tradition of moral reasoning based on harm reduction, shared values, and reason—not divine command.

And ironically, history shows that religious people—including Christians—have often used “God’s law” to justify moral atrocities: slavery, holy war, racism, subjugation of women. These weren’t moral advances—they were cultural norms disguised as divine mandates.

So the real question is this: Do we need God to explain why torturing people is wrong?

No.

We need empathy, intelligence, and a commitment to human dignity. And those are available to believers and non-believers alike.

A clear, clever breakdown of moral development from a secular point of view.