Tag: Mark Clark

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.