Morality Without God – God or Delusion?

Evil and Evolution: A Closer Look at “Prom Mom” and the Moral Law Argument

Chapter 5 – The Problem of Evil and Suffering | A Response to Mark Clark’s The Problem of God.

In the “Prom Mom” section of Chapter 5, Mark Clark leans heavily on a single, shocking anecdote—meant to jolt the reader into moral outrage—as a cornerstone of his argument that evil proves God’s existence. He presents the now-infamous story of a teenage girl who gave birth in a bathroom during her prom and discarded the newborn in a trash can, where the child died. The media dubbed her “Prom Mom.”

Clark’s point is clear: if you feel visceral disgust or horror upon reading this story, that means you recognize that real evil exists. And if real evil exists, so must real good. If there’s real good, there must be a transcendent standard—a moral law. And if there’s a moral law, Clark argues, there must be a moral lawgiver: God.

It’s a powerful emotional appeal. But is it persuasive?

The Gut Punch ≠ The Argument

Clark is banking on the reader’s emotional response to bypass critical examination. That’s understandable—stories like this one trigger immediate moral revulsion. But let’s pause.

Feeling horror at the death of a helpless infant is not proof of a cosmic moral law. It’s a deeply human response, shaped by millions of years of evolutionary development, social conditioning, and empathy. It’s precisely the kind of event natural selection would sensitize us to, given our species’ survival depends on protecting its young.

Clark briefly mentions Steven Pinker, who explains this through the lens of evolutionary psychology: “We love our children, feel their pain, and recoil at their suffering.” But rather than engaging with Pinker’s insight, Clark brushes it aside, as if merely pointing to our feelings were sufficient evidence of the divine.

This is a crucial omission. It’s not enough to feel that something is evil; the question is why we feel that way. If there is a natural explanation, then the need for a supernatural one collapses.

Why the Evolutionary Explanation Makes Sense

From an evolutionary standpoint, the protective instinct we feel toward infants is both biologically adaptive and neurologically reinforced. Across cultures, neglect or abuse of a child is among the most universally condemned actions. Not because of divine decree—but because our species wouldn’t survive without caring for our young.

That’s the uncomfortable truth: our moral impulses have natural origins. Our revulsion doesn’t require an invisible lawgiver in the sky. It requires empathy, bonding mechanisms, and group cooperation strategies—all of which evolution has selected for over thousands of generations.

Clark’s narrative assumes that because something feels like evil, it must be evil in some cosmic, objective sense. But moral psychology shows that our gut reactions—while powerful—are products of brain chemistry and social evolution. They’re not revelations of divine law.

Can Secular Morality Condemn Prom Mom?

Yes, unequivocally.

You don’t need the Ten Commandments to conclude that what happened in that bathroom was horrific. Secular ethics—based on empathy, reason, consequences, and shared values—has long condemned such actions. The harm is real. The suffering is real. The consequences are real.

And unlike divine command theory, secular ethics doesn’t have to ask whether God’s silence that night meant something. Or why prayers weren’t answered. Or whether the baby was predestined to die. It doesn’t make suffering into a mysterious test. It just calls it what it is: tragic.

The Real Problem Clark Ignores

Here’s what Clark avoids: If God exists and is all-loving, why didn’t he intervene?

If this moment is supposed to show us how evil points to God’s existence, it raises a harder question: where was God in that bathroom stall?

Theism has always had a problem explaining inaction in the face of suffering. A God who allows the Prom Mom story to unfold is a God who chooses not to stop evil. That’s a far greater problem than whether atheists can explain morality.

Final Thoughts

Clark’s story succeeds in stirring the reader’s emotions. But that’s not the same as offering a sound argument. His leap from “this feels wrong” to “there must be a God” bypasses the real question: Are there natural explanations for our moral instincts that don’t require supernatural causes?

The answer is yes—and they’re grounded in evidence, not emotion.

Morality from Molecules?

In this section of The Problem of God, Mark Clark raises a common apologetic question aimed at naturalistic worldviews: If morality is simply the product of evolution, how can we trust it?

He’s not alone in asking. Christian apologists from C.S. Lewis to William Lane Craig have long argued that if moral values are not grounded in a transcendent source (i.e., God), then they are arbitrary at best and illusory at worst.

But let’s slow down and examine what Clark is really claiming—and where his argument fails to account for what science, psychology, and philosophy have already uncovered.

1. The Straw Man: Evolution Equals Relativism

Clark begins by suggesting that if morality evolved naturally—i.e., as a byproduct of survival-based behaviors—then we have no reason to consider those moral instincts true or binding. They’re merely “useful” for survival, not grounded in ultimate right or wrong.

But this misrepresents how moral reasoning is understood in an evolutionary context.

Yes, evolution may have shaped our emotional and cognitive responses—empathy, fairness, disgust, loyalty, etc.—because those traits helped humans live together cooperatively. But from these building blocks, humans developed moral systems, reflective traditions, and philosophies that transcend mere utility.

In other words: Evolution gave us the capacity for morality. Culture, reasoning, and reflection shaped the content of our ethics.

To claim that evolved traits can’t produce “real” morality is to misunderstand what morality even is. It’s not about divine commands. It’s about flourishing, suffering, justice, and harm—all things humans are wired to care about deeply.

2. The False Dilemma: Objective Morality Requires God

Clark, like many apologists, presents a false choice:

Either morality comes from God, or it’s meaningless and subjective.

But this ignores a third—and widely accepted—option: objective morality as a natural phenomenon.

Morality can be objective without being supernatural.
Suffering is objectively real.
Human flourishing is objectively measurable.
Actions that cause widespread harm—genocide, rape, torture—can be judged objectively wrong because they reliably cause suffering and degrade human dignity.

We don’t need a cosmic lawgiver to know this. We need only empathy, reason, and a commitment to minimizing suffering.

3. Evolution Doesn’t Undermine Morality—It Explains It

Instead of seeing evolution as a threat to morality, many philosophers see it as a powerful explanatory framework:

Why do we feel empathy when others are in pain? Because social cooperation enhanced survival.
Why do we punish cheaters or value fairness? Because groups that punished freeloaders thrived.
Why do we instinctively recoil from murder, even when no one is watching? Because deeply ingrained social norms keep groups stable.

None of this makes morality unreal. It makes it natural—and all the more remarkable for being grounded in our shared humanity, not imposed from outside.

4. The God Hypothesis Doesn’t Help

Clark wants to assert that without God, we can’t call things truly right or wrong. But invoking God doesn’t solve the problem—it merely pushes it back a step.

If something is good because God commands it, then morality is arbitrary—God could command genocide, and we’d have to call it good.
If God commands it because it is good, then goodness exists independently of God.

This is known as the Euthyphro dilemma, and it still dismantles the claim that morality must be grounded in a deity.

Ironically, when the Bible itself condones slavery, commands genocide, and treats women and children as property, it’s hard to argue that this God is the source of a perfect moral law.

5. We Are the Moral Beings We’ve Been Waiting For

Clark dismisses evolutionary ethics as insufficient. But the truth is: the evolution of morality is one of humanity’s most awe-inspiring achievements.

We’ve built systems of justice.
We’ve outlawed slavery.
We’ve expanded human rights.
We’ve even reformed religious moral codes themselves.

This progress didn’t come from religion—it often came in spite of it.

We no longer burn heretics, stone adulterers, or shun menstruating women—not because God changed, but because we did.

Conclusion: Morality Doesn’t Require the Divine

Mark Clark’s insistence that morality must come from God is a theological assertion, not a philosophical necessity.

In reality:

We can explain moral emotions through evolution.
We can build ethical systems through reason and reflection.
We can ground our values in shared goals: reducing harm, protecting rights, and promoting well-being.

None of that requires belief in God. And none of it is diminished by understanding where it came from.

To the contrary, it affirms something beautiful: that we are moral not because we were commanded to be, but because we care.

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.