Tag: Atheism and Morality

Proving Too Much, Explaining Too Little

In this installment, we examine the section of Chapter 5 titled “We Need to Prove More.” Here, Mark Clark tries to flip the burden of proof. Rather than defending why evil exists in a world ruled by a loving, all-powerful God, he argues that atheism and secular worldviews face an even greater challenge: explaining why evil is evil at all.

Let’s follow his logic—and then follow it to where it breaks down.

1. The Moral Absolutism Card

Clark argues that when an atheist points to a school shooting, cancer, genocide, or abuse and says, “This is evil,” they’re making a moral claim that presupposes an objective standard—something atheism supposedly cannot provide.

He writes:

“When someone appeals to evil to argue against God, they’re assuming the very thing they deny.”

This is a familiar apologetic move popularized by C.S. Lewis and many since. The logic goes like this:

  1. If you say something is really evil, not just personally disliked, you’re appealing to a moral law.
  2. A moral law implies a moral lawgiver.
  3. Therefore, your outrage at evil ironically proves God exists.

It’s a clever move. But it’s also a rhetorical sleight of hand.

2. Morality Without God Is Not Moral Relativism

Clark assumes that without God, morality must be subjective, fluctuating with cultural whims or personal preferences. But this is a false dichotomy. There’s a wide spectrum between absolute theistic morality and complete moral relativism.

Secular ethicists have developed powerful frameworks for grounding morality in human well-being, flourishing, reciprocity, and empathy—all without invoking the supernatural.

For example:

  • Sam Harris defends moral realism grounded in human suffering and well-being.
  • Peter Singer builds utilitarian ethics on the capacity to suffer.
  • Michael Shermer and Steven Pinker argue from evolutionary psychology and rational empathy.

These frameworks don’t rely on divine command—they rely on human experience, biological wiring, and the shared consequences of actions in a social world.

In other words, one can object to child abuse not because a deity told them to, but because children suffer, and we have the capacity to care and act accordingly.

3. God’s Existence Doesn’t Make Evil Less Evil—It Makes It More Troubling

Even if we granted that atheists lack a basis for calling anything truly evil (they don’t), that wouldn’t solve Clark’s problem.

Because the Christian worldview doesn’t merely acknowledge evil—it claims that God created a world where evil was possible, knew it would happen, allowed it, and in many cases, uses it for His purposes.

This raises bigger questions than it answers:

  • Why create a world where moral atrocities are part of the plan?
  • Why intervene selectively?
  • Why punish temporary rebellion with eternal torment?

Clark never addresses these contradictions directly. He prefers to highlight the flaws in naturalistic morality while glossing over the moral absurdities within theism itself.

But if God is the source of morality, then everything God does must be moral—even genocide, slavery, or the killing of firstborns. That’s not a solution to evil. That’s a divine endorsement of it.

4. You Can’t Borrow What You Don’t Need

Clark accuses secular thinkers of “borrowing” moral values from theism. But what if they’re not borrowing—what if they’re just using the same evolved moral instincts we all share?

A child doesn’t need a Bible verse to know that hitting someone is wrong. A dog doesn’t need a deity to know when it’s being mistreated. Compassion, fairness, and pain aversion are not the property of any one religion.

In fact, many moral advancements—from the abolition of slavery to women’s rights to LGBTQ+ acceptance—have come despite religious resistance, not because of it.

If anything, secular ethics have often led the way.

Conclusion: Proof That Distracts from the Problem

Clark wants to shift the spotlight. He wants us to stop asking how an all-loving God coexists with suffering and start asking how atheists can justify moral outrage.

It’s a classic apologetic tactic:

Distract, redefine, accuse.

But when we peel back the layers, we see the strategy:

  • Move from the existence of evil to the definition of evil.
  • Shift from God’s inaction to atheism’s inconsistency.
  • Use philosophical judo to avoid confronting divine silence.

But the core question remains:

If God exists, why is the world the way it is?

Not why we feel it’s wrong. Not how we define evil. But why, if there’s a loving and powerful God at the controls, evil persists—on massive scales and in personal tragedies.

Until that is answered, no amount of philosophical finger-pointing can restore faith in the moral credibility of the Christian God.

The Evolution of Morality: Why Humans Are Good Without God

Is it possible to be good without God? For many believers, the answer is an automatic “no.” The argument goes like this: Without a divine lawgiver, there can be no objective standard of right and wrong—only shifting preferences and moral chaos. If God doesn’t exist, then “anything goes.”

But reality tells a different story.

🧬 Morality Isn’t Handed Down—It Evolved

Long before organized religion, early humans lived in cooperative groups. Those who shared food, cared for the sick, and punished cheaters were more likely to survive and reproduce. These behaviors—altruism, empathy, fairness—are not divine mandates but evolutionary advantages.

In fact, primates like chimpanzees and bonobos exhibit basic moral behaviors: they reconcile after fights, help others in distress, and protest unfairness. Morality, then, is older than scripture. It’s baked into our biology.

🤝 The Real Roots of Right and Wrong

We don’t need to read Leviticus to know that murder is wrong or kindness is good. Moral instincts are rooted in human empathy and cultural evolution. Over time, societies refined moral codes—not through divine revelation, but through trial and error.

Ask yourself: Do we need the threat of hell to avoid hurting others? Or do we avoid it because we feel the suffering of another person—and because stable, fair societies benefit everyone?

If belief in God were required for morality, then nonbelievers (atheists, agnostics, the “nones”) should be rampaging the streets. But countless studies show otherwise: Secular societies consistently rank higher in measures of human well-being, peace, and social trust.

🔍 If Religion Created Morality…

Then why do so many religions sanction slavery, genocide, and the subjugation of women? Why did morality evolve past scripture—outgrowing its tribal, violent, and sexist roots?

Modern values—human rights, gender equality, LGBTQ+ dignity, racial justice—have flourished not because of religion, but often in spite of it. They are the product of reason, dialogue, and the widening circle of empathy.

📜 Morality Without Myth

A god who must command you not to murder or steal is not making you moral—he’s threatening you into submission. Genuine morality arises when we do what’s right even when no one is watching.

If your goodness depends on divine surveillance or the promise of paradise, what does that say about the source of your morality?

We are good—not because we fear God, but because we care about each other.