Faith and Reason – God or Delusion?

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.

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.

How to Spot Logical Fallacies in Religious Debates

When someone makes a bold religious claim—especially one involving supernatural events, eternal rewards or punishments, or divine authority—it can be difficult to know how to respond. The language is often emotional. The audience is expected to accept things on faith. And the pressure to conform can be overwhelming.

But there is one powerful tool we can all learn to use: logic.

If you want to evaluate religious claims with a clear mind, start by learning how to spot logical fallacies—errors in reasoning that can mislead even the most intelligent among us. Today, we’ll explore some of the most common fallacies found in religious debates, and how to recognize them in action.

🚩 1. Appeal to Authority

Fallacy: “The Bible says it, so it must be true.”
Why it fails: Just because a source claims authority doesn’t mean it’s reliable. All ancient texts—including religious ones—must be evaluated on historical, logical, and evidentiary grounds. The claim that a book is divine cannot be the evidence for its divinity.

🔎 Ask this instead: What objective evidence shows this authority is trustworthy?

🚩 2. Circular Reasoning

Fallacy: “Jesus must be God because the Bible says so, and the Bible must be true because Jesus is God.”
Why it fails: The argument relies on its own conclusion to prove itself—offering no independent evidence.

🔎 Ask this instead: Is there any way to test this claim without assuming it’s already true?

🚩 3. Appeal to Consequences

Fallacy: “If you don’t believe, you’ll go to Hell.”
Why it fails: Whether a belief has good or bad consequences has nothing to do with whether it’s true. Fear of punishment or hope of reward is a tool of emotional coercion—not rational argument.

🔎 Ask this instead: What does the actual evidence say about the claim, regardless of how it makes me feel?

🚩 4. False Dichotomy

Fallacy: “Either Jesus is Lord, or he was a liar or lunatic.”
Why it fails: This trilemma (popularized by C.S. Lewis) ignores many other possibilities—such as legend, exaggeration, or error in transmission over centuries.

🔎 Ask this instead: Are there more than two (or three) explanations for the evidence?

🚩 5. Burden of Proof Reversal

Fallacy: “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist, so He must.”
Why it fails: The person making the claim has the responsibility to prove it. If I claim there’s an invisible dragon in my garage, it’s not up to you to disprove it—it’s up to me to demonstrate it.

🔎 Ask this instead: What direct, falsifiable evidence supports this claim?

🧭 The Bottom Line

When religious beliefs are discussed, the bar for truth often gets lowered in the name of faith. But beliefs that shape lives, relationships, and public policy deserve just as much scrutiny as any other claim about the world.

By learning to spot logical fallacies, you gain clarity—and give yourself permission to ask better questions.