Well, as a thoughtful scientist with a heavy background in analytic philosophy, I put a lot of stock into the “web of belief” idea put forward by W.V.O. Quine in “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” Essentially, because theories face the jury of empirical evidence holistically it is impossible to fully separate “metaphysics” from “science” and so Quine advocates a sort of Pragmatic Empiricism that I heartily endorse. Essentially, that you judge theories not only on their ability to jive fully with experimental evidence, but also in their fecundity, predictive power, and aesthetic appeal in addition to other things.

To that end, I see no problem in attributing at least some of the (at least empistemlogical, possibly ontological) randomness we see in the physical universe to the machinations of a impersonal, uncaring, thing I can give a name to, at least insofar as “doing so amuses me.” Since, in terms of “polluting the web of belief” from a Quinean perspective, the cost for doing so is entirely negligible. There’s no real predictive or descriptive advantage to this model, but it has its aesthetic appeal (so probably more acceptable in a Kuhnian sense than a Quinean sense, but I digress). Since it’s an entirely disorganized and private religion, it avoids all of the harms of organized religion while still supplying “warm fuzzies” and other benefits of spirituality, and doesn’t really offer any of the common mental traps supplied by various popular dogmas (in fact, I prefer to parodize them). So from a purely pragmatic sense, it’s entirely logical, if we can ascribe some sort of logic to “things that make me happy.”