The Problem of God’s Existence–(Chapter 2, Part 1): The Evidence of Morality?

📘 This post is part of a continuing response series to The Problem of God by Mark Clark. Each day, we examine one section of the book and critically respond using reason, clarity, and The God Question’s core philosophy: what’s true doesn’t fear investigation. Today’s entry addresses Chapter 2 (pp. 41–45), including the introductory setup and the first major argument: The Evidence of Morality.

🚲 The Setup: Personal Injury as Proof?

Clark begins with a story from childhood—being pulled on Rollerblades behind a bike, ignoring his mother’s warnings, and eventually getting injured. The lesson he draws? He didn’t believe her until he had evidence. He concludes this shows why he’s “always been that way.” A skeptic until shown otherwise.

But the story ironically undercuts the point he’s building toward.

He claims to be persuaded by evidence—yet the book itself isn’t offering scientific evidence for God. It offers apologetics. And as we’ll see below, his moral argument is built not on data or empirical support, but on intuition, anecdote, and assertion.

⚖️ The Moral Argument: C.S. Lewis in the Waiting Room

Clark’s first major claim in Chapter 2 is familiar: moral values prove God. He leans on C.S. Lewis (as many apologists do), citing Mere Christianity and the universal experience of people saying “That’s not fair!” as evidence that humans recognize some kind of absolute moral law.

He then adds layers:

Observations of his kids arguing about fairness.
A zoo encounter where strangers cut in line.
The idea that morality must come from a transcendent source—i.e., God.
Rejection of moral relativism as “logically bankrupt.”

But let’s examine this claim more closely.

❌ What Clark Gets Wrong About Morality

1. A shared sense of morality doesn’t require a supernatural source.

Clark assumes that because people share common moral instincts, they must be wired by a moral lawgiver. But that conclusion doesn’t follow. Evolutionary psychology explains these instincts well: empathy, fairness, loyalty, and justice evolved in social species to increase cooperation and survival. These adaptive behaviors became deeply embedded in our biology—not because a god wrote them into us, but because they worked.

2. He ignores the cross-cultural diversity of moral frameworks.

Clark cherry-picks examples where most modern people agree (“don’t cut in line”) but ignores where morality diverges—gender roles, caste systems, slavery, honor killings, child discipline, dietary laws, sexual taboos. These aren’t random differences—they reflect culture, geography, historical context, and social structures. If morality were truly “absolute” and God-given, wouldn’t we expect far more consistency?

3. He falsely equates moral feeling with moral fact.

Clark writes: “We feel like we should care… We know it’s wrong to drop napalm on babies…” But this is emotion—not evidence. Moral intuition is not moral ontology. Feeling that something is wrong doesn’t make it objectively so in a metaphysical sense. And if you define “objectivity” that broadly, you can make anything a pointer to God—from hunger to gravity.

4. He never addresses the Euthyphro dilemma.

This ancient critique—Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?—goes unmentioned. It exposes the fatal circularity of grounding morality in God. If God is the source of morality, then “good” becomes whatever God says—even if it includes genocide, slavery, or eternal torture. But if morality is separate from God, then God is not its source—he merely affirms it.

🧠 The God Question Rebuttal

We don’t need to believe in an invisible being to explain why we say “that’s not fair.” We need only understand:

Our evolutionary past
Our social conditioning
Our empathy and tribal psychology
Our need for cooperation and group cohesion

Morality is a human construct rooted in our biology, shaped by our culture, and evolving alongside our societies. It’s not flawless, fixed, or universal—but it’s real. And it doesn’t require a moral lawgiver any more than language requires a divine linguist.

The question isn’t “How do we know right from wrong?”

It’s “What happens when we stop pretending that morality proves anything about God?”

A 5-minute animated video that explains the secular foundations of morality—and why goodness doesn’t need a god.

📚 Next Up: “What If They Ate Your Sister?”

Yes, that’s the actual title of the next section in The Problem of God, and yes—we’ll be responding to it next.

Chapter 1 Rebuttal: The God of the Gaps and the Apologetics of Evasion

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.

The Godless Future That Wasn’t — and the Boundaries Science Never Crossed

This blog post is part of our ongoing series responding to The Problem of God by Mark Clark—a book widely promoted in Christian circles as a thoughtful defense of faith. Here at The God Question, we examine Clark’s arguments critically, engaging each section with honesty, clarity, and presence. Our goal is not to deconvert anyone, but to challenge assumptions, sharpen thinking, and invite deeper reflection. This post addresses the final sections of Chapter 1, pages 37-39: “The Myth of the Secular Society” and “The NOMA Principle.”

🛰 “Star Trek Got It Wrong”: A Straw Man Secularism

Clark opens with a familiar tale: the confident prediction that modernity would erase God. His example? The original Star Trek series—a future imagined without faith, where science had seemingly made religion obsolete. He contrasts this with The Next Generation, where some characters express spirituality.

The point he wants to make is that secularism didn’t win—and perhaps it never truly had the upper hand. But what’s missing here is nuance.

Yes, some futurists once imagined that religion would wither. Yes, belief in God remains widespread. But the assumption that scientific progress ought to lead to a rejection of God is itself a caricature—not a serious secular argument. Most critical thinkers today don’t argue that science automatically eliminates religion. They argue that science offers a better, evidence-based process for understanding the world—and that many religious claims fail under its scrutiny.

The “myth” here isn’t secularism; it’s the straw man version Clark has created. He reduces complex sociological trends to an oversimplified failure of prophecy, as if disproving one cultural prediction somehow validates theological truth.

🔬 The NOMA Principle: A Line in the Sand

Clark then tackles Stephen Jay Gould’s well-known concept of NOMA—Non-Overlapping Magisteria—the idea that science and religion occupy distinct domains. Science handles the natural world; religion deals with morality, meaning, and metaphysics.

Clark doesn’t attack NOMA directly so much as work around it. He says, essentially: sure, science can’t disprove God, but it can still point us toward him. He quotes scientists and theologians who believe the complexity of the universe suggests design, and he appeals to Paul’s letter to the Romans as evidence that the real issue is not a lack of evidence, but a willful suppression of the truth.

This is where Clark doubles down on his theme: people don’t reject God because the evidence is weak—they reject him because their hearts are darkened. They see the signs, but prefer to believe something else.

But let’s be clear: this is not an argument. It’s a psychological accusation. It bypasses any meaningful engagement with the critiques raised by science or secular thought and instead assumes what it needs to prove—that God exists, that his signs are everywhere, and that disbelief is rebellion.

🧠 Science Isn’t Silent — It’s Honest

Clark’s treatment of science is selective. He quotes Allan Rex Sandage, the Christian astronomer, to suggest that the greatest minds are driven to belief. But he glosses over the fact that most leading scientists—especially in fields like evolutionary biology and cosmology—are not theists. Even when he mentions that belief is higher among natural scientists than among social scientists, he stops short of reckoning with why that distinction might exist, or what kind of “God” is being affirmed.

And while he rightly notes that science can’t disprove God, he misses the larger point: science doesn’t need to. It simply withholds belief until evidence emerges. That’s not rebellion—it’s integrity.

What Clark ultimately reveals is the apologetic impulse to reframe science as not only compatible with faith but actually confirmatory of it—to use its discoveries as indirect evidence for a divine mind. But in doing so, he avoids addressing why so many scientific findings undermine traditional religious claims: a young Earth, a literal Adam and Eve, a global flood, and even the special creation of humans all collapse under the weight of evidence.

📌 The Real Problem: Not a Lack of Evidence, But a Lack of Honesty About the Evidence

Clark ends with Paul’s words in Romans: “For although they knew God… they became futile in their thinking.” He says the real issue is suppression, not skepticism.

But the real issue is this: Science has changed our understanding of the universe in profound ways. And for many of us, the gods of ancient texts no longer fit that universe. It’s not that we suppress the evidence—it’s that the evidence leads us elsewhere.

We didn’t darken our hearts.

We opened our eyes.

Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism–A Response

📘 Introduction for Blog Series Readers

This post is part of a daily series responding to The Problem of God by Mark Clark—a book that attempts to defend Christianity by critiquing science, reason, and secular worldviews. In this entry, we’re examining pages 34–37 from the chapter The Problem of Science, where Clark leans on philosopher Alvin Plantinga’s argument that if evolution and naturalism are true, then our cognitive faculties can’t be trusted. This post continues our project here at The God Question—a blog that exists to challenge inherited beliefs, reexamine dogmas, and invite clarity in place of confusion.

To read other posts in this series, visit: godordelusion.com\thegodquestion

🧩 Clark’s Argument: A Quick Summary

In this section, Clark presents what’s often called the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It goes something like this:

Evolution only selects for survival, not truth.
Therefore, if naturalism is true and our brains evolved solely through evolution, our beliefs might not be reliable.
As a result, we can’t trust our reasoning—including belief in evolution itself.
This is presented as a self-defeating view. If your mind evolved from purely natural causes, why should you trust it?
To support this, Clark quotes Alvin Plantinga and even Charles Darwin, who once expressed a doubt about the trustworthiness of human reason given its origins.

The implication is clear: if you want reliable thinking, you need God.

🧠 Why This Argument Fails—And Why It Still Persists

1. It’s a Strawman of Evolution and Cognition

Plantinga’s argument—and by extension, Clark’s—is deeply flawed. It assumes that survival and truth are mutually exclusive, but that’s simply not true. In many real-world scenarios, accurate models of the world help an organism survive. Misjudging the location of food, predators, shelter, or other agents would lead to death—not reproduction. Evolution does favor usefulness, but often truth is useful.

2. Science Has Corrective Mechanisms

Clark frames naturalistic thinking as “blind,” but science is not a lone mind guessing in the dark. It’s a collective, cumulative system of testing, peer review, prediction, and falsifiability. Plantinga’s argument ignores the tools we’ve built to overcome cognitive bias: experimentation, statistics, review, and replication. These don’t depend on a divine origin—just consistency and feedback.

3. It’s the Ultimate Double Standard

If our minds can’t be trusted under naturalism, what makes them trustworthy under theism? Clark wants to say, “If God made your brain, it works.” But this assumes the very thing in question—a trustworthy, intentional designer. If we’re misled under evolution, couldn’t we also be deceived by God? Why should a mind made by divine design be assumed reliable without any evidence?

And let’s be honest: if Christian minds are so reliable, why are there tens of thousands of denominations? Why do believers disagree about virtually every major doctrine?

4. Darwin’s Quote Is Misused

Darwin’s “horrid doubt” is often used to show he questioned his own theory. But this is a cherry-picked, rhetorical quote taken from a letter. Darwin was engaging in philosophical reflection, not scientific denial. He didn’t abandon his trust in science. He continued to rely on empirical observation to understand the world, and his legacy shows that clearly.

5. This Argument Is Philosophy in Disguise

The EAAN sounds scientific, but it’s not. It’s a philosophical sleight of hand—trying to make science look self-defeating by redefining “truth,” ignoring empirical tools, and offering a false choice: either God made your brain, or you can’t trust it.

But the actual choice is between a rigorously tested method of inquiry (science), and an assumed supernatural guarantee with no built-in way to test error or illusion.

🧭 Closing Thought

Plantinga’s argument, recycled here by Clark, might feel clever at first glance. It plays on doubt and uncertainty—a favorite tactic of religious apologetics. But what it offers in mystery, it lacks in substance. The real question isn’t whether our minds are perfect; it’s whether our methods are improving.

Science doesn’t pretend to be infallible. Religion does. That’s the problem.

Doubt as Dogma?

📘 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 32–34 of the book — the section titled “Alternate Beliefs.”

If you’re just joining us, you can view all prior entries in this series here: godordelusion.com\thegodquestion

🔄 Doubt as Dogma?

Responding to the “Alternate Beliefs” section in Mark Clark’s The Problem of God

In the section titled Alternate Beliefs, Mark Clark pushes forward a common apologetic move: turn the charge of “faith without evidence” back on the skeptic. He claims that secularism, skepticism, and naturalism are not neutral or rational at all — they are simply other belief systems, with their own faith commitments.

According to Clark, skepticism itself becomes a kind of “narrow-minded dogma” — a refusal to commit to spiritual truth disguised as intellectual humility.

Let’s walk through his arguments and test their substance.

1. 🌀 Reframing Skepticism as Just Another Belief System

Clark opens by asserting:

“Skepticism is itself a set of narrow-minded and dogmatic beliefs.”

He argues that choosing not to believe is still a belief — that avoiding metaphysical claims is itself a metaphysical position. And he calls this “the inherent irony” of secularism: it teaches its own set of doctrines (e.g., naturalism, finality of death) with just as much faith and dogma as religion.

❌ What’s the flaw here?

Skepticism isn’t a belief system. It’s a method.

Skeptics don’t claim certainty that there is no God.
They ask, “What evidence supports this claim?”
If there is none, they withhold belief — not out of dogma, but caution.

Clark tries to equate caution with closed-mindedness. But skepticism, properly understood, is the opposite of dogma. It is open to truth, but requires justification.

2. 💬 The Sam Harris Straw Man

Clark quotes Sam Harris:

“Atheism is not a philosophy; [nor] even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious.”

He uses this as an example of the arrogance of skeptics who believe their view is neutral — while denying they’re simply trading one belief system (Christianity) for another (secular humanism or scientific naturalism).

But this misses the point.

When Harris says atheism is “an admission of the obvious,” he’s reacting to the extraordinary nature of theistic claims. Believing that a first-century Jewish man rose from the dead and is alive today requires more than just a philosophical framework. It requires evidence.

Harris — and others like him — are not claiming omniscient neutrality. They are saying: If you want me to believe that, show me something.

3. 🔃 Doubting Resurrection = Just Another Belief?

Clark turns to Timothy Keller’s quote:

“You cannot doubt unprovable Christian belief A, except from a position of faith in unprovable non-Christian belief B.”

This is clever, but misleading.

Clark argues that those who doubt the resurrection do so because they are already committed to the “unprovable” belief that people don’t come back from the dead. But this reverses the burden of proof.

Here’s the difference:

The claim “dead people stay dead” is not a belief. It’s an observation of universal human experience.
The claim “this particular person came back to life” is an extraordinary claim that demands evidence.

Refusing to believe something until it’s demonstrated is not a competing belief system. It’s rational skepticism.

4. 🌌 Science Is Changing — Therefore Miracles?

Clark appeals to quantum mechanics and changing models of the universe to suggest that the old rules — like Newtonian physics or Darwinian evolution — no longer bind us to a worldview in which miracles are impossible.

But this is another rhetorical move, not a substantive argument.

Quantum mechanics may challenge our intuitions, but it doesn’t suddenly make walking on water or rising from the dead plausible. Complex doesn’t mean chaotic. Scientific revision doesn’t equal supernatural permission.

Clark is arguing: “We used to be wrong, so we can’t say we’re right now.”

That’s not humility — it’s an invitation to believe anything.

5. 🧠 Cultural Hegemony and Miracles

Clark quotes Craig Keener, who says that ruling out miracles is:

“Not an act of neutrality… but an act of cultural hegemony.”

This is meant to sound profound — like Western secularism is just another colonial tool used to crush spiritual voices. But again, it dodges the real issue.

The reason people rule out miracles isn’t cultural oppression. It’s that miracles have not been demonstrated in a reliable, repeatable, evidence-based way.

If miracles are real, show them. Don’t blame Western culture for not embracing unverifiable anecdotes.

🔚 Final Thought: The Difference Between Open-Mindedness and Gullibility

Clark wants to argue that skeptics are just as dogmatic as believers — that refusing to commit to a spiritual claim is itself a kind of belief.

But this is wordplay, not argument.

A refusal to believe without evidence is not faith.

A demand for evidence is not dogma.

Doubt is not a rival religion.

It’s precisely because we care about truth that we withhold belief until the case is made. That’s not close-mindedness. That’s intellectual integrity.

Is Belief in Science Also “Faith”?

📘 About This Series

Today’s post responds to content found in pages 30–32 of the book — the section titled “Everyone Has Faith.”

If you’re just joining us, you can view all prior entries in this series here: godordelusion.com\thegodquestion

🔄 Is Belief in Science Also “Faith”?

Responding to Mark Clark’s argument that everyone has faith—even atheists

In The Problem of God, Mark Clark attempts to level the playing field between believers and skeptics by claiming that everyone has faith. The atheist who trusts in science and evidence? Faith. The secular doctor who says a dying patient “won’t be suffering anymore”? Faith.

His argument is simple: No one is exempt. Whether you’re a religious believer or a rationalist skeptic, you’re making assumptions about things you can’t prove. Therefore, all worldviews—including atheism—are faith-based.

It sounds clever. But does this hold up?

Let’s examine the three layers of Clark’s argument.

1. 🔁Redefining Faith to Include Everything

Clark starts by challenging the idea that “faith” is something only religious people have. He writes:

“Everyone believes in something and makes assumptions about reality that can’t be proven even through science.”

To illustrate, he tells the story of a nurse overhearing doctors agree that removing a patient from life support would end the patient’s suffering. How did they know there wouldn’t be suffering after death? They didn’t. That was a faith statement.

Clark’s move is to redefine “faith” as any belief without absolute proof.

But here’s the problem:

Faith isn’t merely lack of proof. It’s belief in the absence of—or often in defiance of—evidence.

If we broaden “faith” to include all reasonable trust or inference, we destroy the very distinction Clark wants to erase. Trusting that gravity will work tomorrow is not the same as believing someone rose from the dead 2,000 years ago because an ancient text says so.

Equating the two is rhetorical sleight of hand.

2. 🧠Smuggling in Religious Faith Through Everyday Uncertainty

Clark argues that even science is driven by faith, citing biologist Richard Lewontin, who once said scientists have “a prior commitment to materialism.” Clark interprets this as evidence that scientific naturalism isn’t based on facts, but on philosophy—thus, it’s just another faith position.

Here’s what Clark misses:

Lewontin’s quote acknowledges that science operates under a methodological assumption, not a metaphysical dogma.
Methodological naturalism says: “Let’s assume natural causes, because that’s what works.” It doesn’t say, “Only nature exists.”

Clark wants to portray science as secretly religious—driven by unprovable metaphysical beliefs. But this is a category error. Science does not claim certainty. It welcomes revision, which is the opposite of religious faith.

3. 🧩The Four Big Questions and the Faith of Worldviews

Clark concludes this section by quoting Brian Walsh and J. Richard Middleton, who claim that everyone has a worldview, and that worldview is how we answer four questions:

Who am I?
Where am I?
What’s wrong?
What’s the remedy?

This is a fair observation—worldviews matter. But Clark wants to turn worldview thinking into a justification for belief without evidence. Just because all people interpret reality doesn’t mean all interpretations are equally valid.

Atheists may answer those questions differently than Christians, Buddhists, or Muslims—but what distinguishes the secular thinker is a commitment to revise those answers when evidence demands it.

That’s not blind faith. That’s intellectual honesty.

🧩 Final Thought: Faith Isn’t the Problem. Unexamined Faith Is.

Clark’s goal is clear: if everyone has faith, then no one can criticize religious faith without hypocrisy. But this argument fails because it hinges on a flattened definition of faith—one that ignores the difference between trust earned through reason and belief granted without it.

Trusting your doctor is not the same as trusting the Bible.

Making assumptions in science is not the same as worshiping a resurrected savior.

And living with uncertainty is not the same as embracing doctrine.

Yes, we all live with some unknowns. But that doesn’t mean all faiths are created equal. Some are built on evidence, openness, and correction. Others are built on ancient authority, fear, and unchanging claims.

Let’s not confuse the two.

Was Christianity the Soil from Which Science Grew?

📘 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 28–30 of the book — the section titled “The Garden of Christianity.”

If you’re just joining us, you can view all prior entries in this series here: godordelusion.com\thegodquestion

🌱 Was Christianity the Soil from Which Science Grew?

Examining Mark Clark’s claims about religion and the roots of modern science

In The Problem of God, Mark Clark continues his case that Christianity is not only compatible with science — it was the fertile ground from which science itself grew. In the section titled The Garden of Christianity, Clark argues that the Christian worldview laid the necessary philosophical groundwork for the development of modern science, while other religions and worldviews (animism, Buddhism, polytheism, Judaism, Islam) failed to do so.

Clark’s central claim is this:

“Christian theology was the garden out of which modern science grew… No other worldview, philosophy, or religion of the ancient world offered the unique perspective Christianity did.”

But does this hold up under scrutiny? Let’s take it one root system at a time.

🧱 Clark’s Key Assertions

1. Christianity provided a worldview that made science possible:

Nature is not divine (unlike animism or polytheism), so it can be studied.
The universe is orderly, rational, and governed by laws.
Human beings are made in God’s image and capable of rational thought.

2. Other worldviews actively discouraged science:

Animism deifies nature and discourages investigation.
Buddhism treats the world as illusion, making inquiry pointless.
Polytheism attributes natural events to capricious gods.
Judaism and Islam, Clark says, emphasize legal interpretation rather than scientific exploration.

3. Modern science emerged from the biblical mandate to “take dominion over nature.”

🔍 Let’s Break This Down

✅ What Clark Gets Right

It’s true that many early scientists were Christians, and that some were inspired by theological ideas like order, design, and rationality.
It’s also true that many pre-modern worldviews didn’t prioritize empirical investigation as we know it today.

But the conclusion that Christianity was uniquely necessary for modern science is far more ideological than historical.

🚨 Problem 1: Science Advanced When It Broke Free from Theological Control

The Scientific Revolution didn’t happen because everyone followed the Bible. It happened when intellectuals began questioning dogmatic interpretations of nature, rejecting biblical literalism, and relying on experimentation and evidence rather than authority.

Yes, many scientists were Christians — but science grew by separating itself from theology, not by obeying it.

🚨 Problem 2: Non-Christian Cultures Also Pioneered Scientific Thought

Clark ignores or downplays massive scientific contributions from:

Islamic civilization (algebra, optics, medicine, astronomy)
India (zero, early atomic theory, surgery)
China (magnetism, seismology, paper, printing, gunpowder)
Greece (geometry, natural philosophy)

These civilizations didn’t lack “the philosophical framework necessary for science” — they lacked the geopolitical and economic conditions that allowed science to institutionalize the way it did in Enlightenment Europe.

Science is not a Christian invention. It’s a human endeavor.

🚨 Problem 3: Clark’s Treatment of Other Religions is Shallow and Dismissive

Saying things like:

“Buddhism sees the universe as illusion, so science is pointless,” or “Polytheists just blamed Poseidon for ocean bubbles”

…isn’t careful scholarship. It’s caricature.

Religions and philosophies are internally diverse and evolve over time. Many Buddhist schools, for instance, have engaged seriously with psychology, consciousness, and physics. Islamic thinkers advanced optics and astronomy. Clark paints with a very broad, very self-serving brush.

🚨 Problem 4: His 10-Point “Christian Science Framework” Is Cherry-Picked

Clark lists 10 ideas from Kenneth Samples that supposedly made science possible — things like “the universe is intelligible,” “God encourages exploration,” and “human beings can discover truth.”

But none of these are uniquely Christian.

Greeks believed in rational order.
Muslims developed math and astronomy in service of religious duties.
Confucian thought emphasized harmony, pattern, and intelligibility.

What was uniquely Christian was this: the Church’s control over education in the West for centuries. That explains why science emerged in a Christian context — not because Christianity was necessary, but because it was omnipresent.

🔚 Final Thought: Science Isn’t a Product of Faith — It’s a Product of Freedom

Clark wants to argue that Christianity deserves credit for the rise of modern science. But the historical record shows something more complex — and less flattering.

Science flourished when thinkers were free to question, free to test, and free to follow evidence wherever it led — even when it contradicted religious assumptions.

So yes, Christianity played a role in shaping the context. But to say it caused science, or that it was the only worldview capable of doing so, is not a historical argument.

It’s an apologetic one.

Rewriting the Past: Does the Church Deserve a Free Pass on Science?

📘 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 26-28 of the book — the section titled “The Myth of the Church vs. Science”.

If you’re just joining us, you can view all prior entries in this series on The God Question blog at godordelusion.com\thegodquestion.

In this section of The Problem of God, Mark Clark argues that the supposed historical conflict between the church and science is a myth, fabricated by nineteenth-century skeptics and kept alive by modern atheists.

He claims:

“There was no warfare between science and the church.”

“The church did not persecute Copernicus or Bruno or Galileo for scientific theories.”

“The flat earth story is revisionist propaganda.”

“Christianity birthed modern science.”

It’s a bold attempt to rehabilitate the Church’s image as science’s ally — not its enemy. But how accurate is it?

Let’s examine the claims carefully.

🔍 Claim 1: The Church Never Persecuted Scientists for Their Ideas

Clark argues that Galileo, Bruno, and Copernicus were not persecuted for their science but for theological reasons, and that stories of their mistreatment are “exaggerated” or even “untrue.” He cites Thomas Kuhn, David Lindberg, and Alister McGrath to make this case.

📌 The Reality:

It’s true that some historical details have been dramatized. Bruno wasn’t burned only for heliocentrism — his theological views (e.g., pantheism and denial of the Trinity) were central. Galileo wasn’t tortured — he was sentenced to house arrest. And Copernicus died before the controversy took off.

But let’s not sanitize history:

The Church did censor and suppress Galileo’s heliocentrism.
He was forced to recant under threat.
His writings were banned.
Scientific work was stifled for decades in Catholic Europe.

So while Clark is right to point out oversimplifications, he goes too far in the other direction. The Church may not have burned people for astronomy, but it actively resisted scientific discoveries when they contradicted its theology.

This wasn’t a partnership. It was control and coercion.

🔍 Claim 2: The Flat Earth Myth Was Fabricated

Clark also claims that atheists falsely accuse the Church of believing in a flat earth — calling it a nineteenth-century invention to smear Christianity.

📌 The Reality:

Here, Clark is mostly correct.

Ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round. Educated medieval scholars also knew it. The idea that medieval Christians broadly believed in a flat earth is indeed an overblown myth — popularized by writers like Washington Irving and John Draper.

So yes, this accusation is historically unfair.

But it’s also a distraction.

Critics of the Church are far more concerned with how dogmatic theology has blocked scientific progress — not whether people thought the Earth was round. This point feels like a rhetorical sleight of hand: correct, but largely irrelevant to the deeper issue.

🔍 Claim 3: Christianity Birthed Modern Science

Clark argues that modern science was “conceived and born” within the matrix of Christian theism — that science grew out of a Christian worldview that saw order, design, and harmony in nature.

He cites Oxford theologian Alister McGrath and others who see Christianity as the “garden” from which modern science grew.

📌 The Reality:

It’s true that many early scientists were Christian. That’s because almost everyone in Europe was Christian at the time. The Church ran the universities. The Bible was the framework.

But correlation isn’t causation.

Here’s the core question:

Did Christianity give rise to science, or did science emerge despite it?

When we look at the broader historical pattern, it’s clear that science advanced most rapidly when it escaped the control of the Church. The Scientific Revolution exploded when natural philosophers began relying on observation and experiment, not revelation and doctrine.

While Christian thought emphasized divine order, it also enforced:

Biblical literalism
Heresy trials
Bans on “forbidden” knowledge

In short: Christianity both nourished and choked the roots of science.

💬 Final Thoughts: Myth-Busting or Revisionism?

Clark’s goal in this chapter is to flip the script — to show that it’s not Christianity that opposed science, but modern secularism that has twisted history to make it look that way.

But in doing so, he replaces one distortion with another.

Yes, the “warfare” narrative is simplistic. But so is the claim that the Church and science have always been friends. The truth is more complex, more nuanced — and less flattering to religious authority.

It wasn’t a war — it was a long, uneasy negotiation.

And history shows that progress most often came when science was freed from theology’s grip, not when it stayed under its thumb.

The Academic Respectability Illusion: Debunking “The Plantinga Effect”

📘 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 25-26 of the book — the section titled “The Plantinga Effect”.

If you’re just joining us, you can view all prior entries in this series on The God Question blog at godordelusion.com\thegodquestion.

Why philosophical theism isn’t gaining the ground Clark claims it is.

In The Problem of God, Mark Clark tells a story that many Christians love to hear: that belief in God is once again becoming intellectually fashionable, thanks largely to the work of Alvin Plantinga. He calls this movement “The Plantinga Effect,” and he uses it to argue that theism is not only rational — it’s regaining academic respectability.

But is that really what’s happening?

Let’s examine the claims, the context, and the credibility of what Clark calls a “fundamental shift” in the world of science and philosophy.

🧠 What Clark Argues

Clark builds his case on three main points:

Quentin Smith’s WarningSmith, a noted atheist philosopher, once warned that Christians were “taking over philosophy departments” and that the field was becoming “de-secularized.” Clark treats this as evidence that theism is resurging — not by ignorance, but through reason.
Alvin Plantinga’s InfluencePlantinga, a Christian philosopher, is credited with making belief in God “academically respectable.” His arguments for the rationality of theism are portrayed as having turned the philosophical tide.
David Bentley Hart’s Dismissal of AtheismHart is quoted as saying that atheism is not only irrational but amounts to superstition — a position Clark presents as reflective of a broader academic awakening.

🔍 What’s Actually Going On?

1. Plantinga Is Respected — But Not Convincing the Majority

Alvin Plantinga is, undeniably, a heavyweight in modern philosophy of religion. His work — particularly his claim that belief in God can be a “properly basic belief” — has shaped academic discussions.

But here’s the problem: most philosophers don’t agree with him.

According to the 2020 PhilPapers Survey, about 73% of professional philosophers identify as atheists, while only 15% identify as theists. So while Plantinga has legitimized theism as a discussion topic, his arguments have not reversed the broader philosophical consensus. His influence is real, but not revolutionary.

2. Quentin Smith Was Sounding an Alarm, Not Celebrating a Shift

Clark quotes Smith as though he were acknowledging a renaissance of reasoned Christianity. But Smith’s actual point was one of concern, not endorsement. He was warning that Christian apologetics was gaining visibility — particularly in Christian institutions — not that their arguments were winning converts among secular philosophers.

This is a common rhetorical move: frame critique as concession.

3. David Bentley Hart’s Dismissal Is Polemical, Not Philosophical

Clark ends the section with a quote from David Bentley Hart, who calls atheism a “superstition” and claims it stems from “a tragic absence of curiosity.” It’s a colorful insult, but not an argument.

This kind of language may feel satisfying to believers — flipping the script on those who’ve long dismissed religion — but it doesn’t provide evidence. It simply mirrors the ridicule that many Christians rightly reject when it’s aimed at them.

Ironically, Hart’s mockery commits the very error Clark criticizes elsewhere: dismissing a worldview without engaging its strongest arguments.

💡 The Real “Effect” of Plantinga

If anything, the Plantinga Effect demonstrates this:

It is possible to argue for theism in academically serious ways —

but it is not inevitable that reason leads to belief.

Clark wants his readers to feel reassured that theism is gaining intellectual ground. But citing a few Christian philosophers and institutional trends does not amount to a paradigm shift. In fact, it reveals a deeper truth:

Christian apologetics often relies not on evidence, but on reframing old ideas as newly respected.

If theism is making a comeback in some circles, it’s not because the arguments have suddenly become airtight. It’s because, like any belief system, it’s finding ways to adapt, promote, and repackage itself for modern audiences.

And that’s not a triumph of reason. It’s a triumph of marketing.

When Faith Meets Science: A Response to The Problem of God by Mark Clark

Reading and responding, one section at a time.

It’s been nearly two years since my law school friend Edrie Pfeiffer visited our home with her husband, Harry, during one of their cross-country motorhome trips. We shared supper and memories. But before leaving, Edrie handed me a book — The Problem of God by Mark Clark — with a knowing smile and a sense of urgency.

She had recently discovered through my novels (and a direct email exchange) that I’d deconverted from Christianity. This book, I gathered, was her way of nudging me back — or at least asking me to reconsider. It sat unopened for a long time. But now, I’ve decided to read and respond to it, section by section.

This post engages with Chapter 1, pages 23–25 — specifically the opening of the chapter titled “The Problem of Science.” I’ll tackle The Plantinga Effect in a follow-up post.

🔍 Clark’s Argument: Science vs. Faith, or False Dichotomy?

Mark Clark opens Chapter 1 with a typical framing of the “faith vs. science” debate. He paints a picture of two sides:

On one side: a respected Oxford-trained evolutionary biologist who argues that science, not faith, holds the answers to life’s questions.
On the other: “Joe Smith,” a caricatured Christian who homeschools his kids, believes Oprah is the Antichrist, and lives in a swamp.

Clark claims this extreme binary — between reason and religion, between rationality and superstition — is a myth manufactured by secularism and embraced by modern culture. He wants us to believe that:

“Faith and science aren’t enemies. They’re partners. Christianity is not the less rational worldview, but the more rational one.”

To get there, he blames the Enlightenment, secularism, and atheists like Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens for misrepresenting faith. And he positions his own journey — coming to faith through reason — as a case study in how Christianity is not just compatible with science, but more logical than atheism.

🎯 My Response: Faith, Science, and the Demand for Evidence

Mark Clark’s rhetorical move is familiar: he deflects the actual conflict by attacking the way it’s often framed. But he doesn’t truly engage with the real tension at the heart of the matter.

Let’s address that directly.

1. Secularism Isn’t a Conspiracy

Clark treats “secularism” as though it were a coordinated movement led by loud, smug atheists — an ideology with its own dogmas. But secularism, in its most basic sense, simply means this:

Public policy and education should be grounded in what we can verify — not in supernatural claims.

It’s not about oppressing religion. It’s about recognizing that beliefs without evidence don’t deserve special treatment when it comes to law, science, or education. Clark is right that secularists often criticize religion, but he’s wrong to equate that with a rejection of all spiritual exploration or moral inquiry. What secularism rejects is unwarranted certainty.

2. Faith vs. Science Isn’t a Straw Man — It’s a Methodological Divide

Clark says faith and science are compatible. And sure, many scientists are also people of faith — but that doesn’t erase the central problem:

Science requires testable, falsifiable claims.

Faith, by definition, does not.

The moment faith makes truth claims about the natural world — virgin births, global floods, literal resurrections — it enters science’s territory. And in that territory, evidence rules. When evidence contradicts the claim, science adjusts. Faith does not.

So the conflict isn’t cultural. It’s methodological.

3. Mocking Extremes Doesn’t Redeem the Middle

Clark complains that secular critics like Dawkins or Harris dismiss faith as “delusional” or even a form of “mental illness.” Whether or not you find those comparisons helpful, the underlying critique is this:

Faith asks people to believe in things they cannot verify, and often in spite of contrary evidence.

Calling that irrational is not an insult — it’s an observation about epistemology. We don’t use faith to fly airplanes, treat cancer, or build bridges. Why should we use it to answer life’s biggest questions?

Clark never responds to that. He only laments the tone.

4. Clark’s “Rational Christianity” Is Just a Claim (So Far)

Clark ends this section by asserting that Christianity is the more rational worldview. But he offers no argument, no evidence — only his own personal journey as proof. He speaks of studying history, science, and philosophy, and concludes:

“I have come to see that Christianity isn’t a less rational worldview … but a more rational one.”

Maybe so. But rationality demands reasons, not just testimonies.

💬 Final Thoughts: What I’m Looking for in This Book

I appreciate that Edrie gave me this book in love and sincerity. I’m reading it not to score points but to understand — and to think alongside others who are still searching, still questioning.

But if Chapter 1 is any indication, Mark Clark is more interested in rehabilitating belief than challenging it. He wants to recast faith as reasonable by knocking down shallow portrayals of atheism. That may feel good to believers — but it’s not good argument.

Still, I’ll keep reading. Tomorrow, I’ll take up The Plantinga Effect and continue the conversation.

Truth doesn’t fear investigation. Let’s see where this leads.