1- The problem of evil is considered by many atheists as one of the strong arguments in favor of atheism. On the other hand, I see atheists are starting to replace the word “evil” with “pain and suffering.” Is there any difference between the two terms?

Yes, there is a difference. “Evil” is an evaluative term. To say that something like suffering or immorality or ignorance is evil   is to say that it is bad – that it has negative value. The word “suffering” is not an evaluative term. Of course, suffering is usually bad, but it is not bad by definition. The advantage of appealing to “suffering” instead of “evil” in arguments against God’s existence is that some theists deny that value, whether positive or negative, can exist without God. They claim that evil can’t be evidence against God’s existence because it couldn’t exist without God. I think they are mistaken about this. But even if they were right, that would not solve the problem of suffering; for even if there is no God, suffering certainly exists.

2- What contribution does your (hypothesis of indifference) bring to the argument?

Philosophers used to think that the inability of theism to explain certain facts about suffering and other evils was a reason to reject theism. But what a hypothesis must explain, and how well it must explain it, depends on the explanatory power of competing hypotheses. That’s where the hypothesis of indifference comes in, though now I prefer to use metaphysical naturalism as my alternative hypothesis to theism.

3- Western “Social-Conservative” political parties are gaining vast popularity in many western societies, and many such parties have religious support and are ideologically aligned with religion. Given this phenomenon, what is the future of atheism in the western hemisphere?

Being a philosopher and not a prophet, I hate to predict the future. However, I will say this. It is my impression that, in the United States, atheism actually gained ground when religious conservatives began mixing religion with politics in ways that many Americans find objectionable.

4- Based on your experience and research, what is the biggest challenge to theism in modern times and why?

Being a philosopher and not a sociologist or a psychologist, I haven’t really investigated the issue of what the biggest cause of atheism is. Urbanization seems correlated with atheism. Also, scientism—the (mistaken) belief that science can answer all of our questions and solve all of our problems—may make it easier for some to reject theism. But I’m just guessing. I do, however, have a more settled position on what ought to be the biggest cause of atheism. In other words, I can answer your question if you are asking me what the biggest logical or evidential challenge to theism is. My answer is this. The strongest evidence against theism is the fact that many human beings and animals fail to flourish in their brief lives on earth, and many suffer intensely for prolonged periods of time.

5- In your opinion, could natural selection be God’s will?

That is possible, but unlikely because natural selection, and especially survival selection, leads to many early deaths and an enormous amount of suffering.

6- What’s keeping you from jumping off the fence between metaphysical naturalism and metaphysical theism? And what would that side be?

The evidence is ambiguous. Some evidence favors theism and some favors naturalism. For example, on theism one would expect the existence of things like consciousness, free will, and objective morality. Their existence is very surprising, however, on naturalism, which is why many naturalists deny that these things are real. Naturalism, however, does a better job than theism of accounting for the suffering in the world, as well as for things like religious diversity and the high degree of dependence of consciousness on the brain. Naturalism also starts out with a higher probability than theism, though this head start is not as large as some naturalists think. The bottom line is that both views have their strengths and weaknesses. That is why I am an agnostic.

7- Tell us more about your personal life. What do you do for fun?

I used to play basketball, but I’m too old for that now; so I walk stairs for exercise and play poker to satisfy my need for competition. I also like to spend time with my wife, daughter, and two cats. When they are sleeping, I like to read novels. They seem to need more sleep than I do (especially the cats).

8- Lastly, I would like to conclude with a classical question to refresh the philosophical debate; based on your understanding, what is God?

To qualify for the title “God,” a being would have to be a numinous supernatural agent who is worthy of our worship. I borrow the term “numinous” from Rudolf Otto’s book The Idea of the Holy, which is one of the greatest books ever written on religion. One cannot really define the word “numinous,” so don’t take what I am about to say literally, but a numinous being is a sacred, awe-inspiring, beatific being of great majesty, urgency, mystery, and enchantment.

Professor Paul Draper, thank you again for yout time.