Now that we're getting philosophical here, I actually thought of something else that Hume said that kind of relates to this (in my mind at least.)
Essentially, Hume stated, with decent backing arguments, that a rational mind never believes in miracles since there is always a more likely explanation. However, he left quite blatantly open that this doesn't mean that miracles couldn't happen. Which is, in a way, true, if you think of miracles as "stuff you'd never have thought of as possible".
The problem with this logic is of course that even if miracles would happen, a person who is "rational" in the way Hume describes here would still disbelieve them, no matter how much the evidence mounted. Every single miracle is discounted, and thus every following miracle would be discounted, and so on.
Obviously, this leads to two conclusions;
1) Purely rational minds don't make good scientists, since they would rather disbelieve things they previously thought as impossible, and thus the most amazing scientific breakthroughs would've propably never happened. From this follows the second conclusion:
2) For the advancement of science (and civilization and human happiness), we have to accept that occasionally "miracles" do happen.
(There's also a third conclusion which states that "rational" people end up as partisan bigots. But that's a different subject.)
With that in mind, replace "miracle" with "the universe blowing up".
Close enough I would say. Less trumpets.
Which is why I don't laugh at people like Jolinar (joke as I may about the subject in general). They kind of only have to be right just once for it to matter.
I'm not saying that we should never do anything that could theoretically blow up the universe. I just think worrying about it is indeed a valid point of view which can be reached through careful and informed thinking.
|