Dr. Guestman wrote:Tyson's point about the universe being so dangerous was a counter to the argument "God must exist, because why else is the world so perfectly hospitable to life?"
In response, he goes on to say that the world, and the universe in general, are very dangerous and inhospitable to life; in other words, that argument is fundamentally flawed.
Yeah, that fits more with what I know of Tyson. I know he's an atheist, but he's not usually a dick about it.
Kaharz wrote:The varied hazards of the universe are not trying to kill us. They aren't sentient beings with intentional will. I believe the point is that most of the universe presents an incredibly hostile environment for life, including humans. The rationale is probably something along the lines of, "If God created the universe for us, why would trying to live in most of it kill us?" I'm not saying it is a good argument. I personally think scientists or atheists / agnostics should just completely ignore the subject of the existence of a god or other supernatural phenomenon for the most part. Just as I think creationists should stop trying to discuss evolution. Leave theology to the theologians and science to the scientists.
The reason not many people have been killed by any of the things you've listed is because we avoid them. Mostly by staying on the inhabitable parts of Earth where we are really safe from the hazards of the universe at large.
Yeah I never really understood the conflation of science and religion. I think people who use science arguments to argue religion don't really understand what religion is.