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:
- If you say something is really evil, not just personally disliked, you’re appealing to a moral law.
- A moral law implies a moral lawgiver.
- 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.
God or Delusion? 