Source of Synchronicity

Faith & Science Conversation
13

I agree that one way in which God talked to us was through Jesus Christ, His only begotten son. I also believe that He did so though the Bible, &- at one point, at least- directly, as we see God speaking to people directly in the Bible.

However, I am not convinced that God never speaks to people today in different ways. The Bible says at one point that God will send visions and dreams to people. To me that is a form of communication. It’s in Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17, Numbers 12:6, etc.

Does God still speak directly to people? I’ve heard some people say that God has spoken to them through words or a different form, such as through an emotional experience & mental/spiritual understanding. Others believe God speaks in synchronicities, as well. I’m open to that. I don’t believe that every dream or coincidence is a message from God, but I believe that some dreams are & that some coincidences may be.

14

:smile: I was asking you if you were defining "synchronicity*** as one or the other. I was trying to figure out what you might mean by it, not giving you answer to any of your. For me, “synchronicity” occurred whenever my lips and the lips of my sweetheart met in the same place at the same instant, and the messages sent and received by each of us were mutual. Synchronicity like that doesn’t typically happen between more than two people at the same instant. And if it did, that would be weird.

2 Likes
15

Thanks Dale & everyone for the responses!

Dale,

I have never thought of Jung’s synchronicity as godless. However, I also haven’t thought much about the fact that he called it “acausal.” So, I understand what you were saying. I suppose that does infer that God isn’t using it as a means of communication. However, I don’t think that necessarily makes it godless. For example, if synchronicity wasn’t a form of communication, but it was evidence of the inner connectivity of all things, that interconnectivity could arise from our creation or creative source, which is God. But I’m not convinced that it is acausal as Jung suggested.

I wouldn’t think he left God out due to any personal prejudice against Him. Jung once said that he didn’t think God existed because he KNEW that God existed. That’s a firmly theistic or deistic response.

When I use the term synchronicity, I guess I don’t use it 100% as initially intended or defined because I don’t make the assumption that it is acausal. I studied some Jungian theory under a man who was a student of Jung’s direct student, so in academic lineage he was two people down from Jung separated from him by only one man. My former professor believed strongly in the existence of God, though he wasn’t Christian. He also believed that synchronicity was meaningful & had a cause. He believed that it was imbued with meaning to be interpreted, as if by communication.

I love your term, however. Co-instances is intuitively & accurately descriptive. It’s also a fun play on words, as it sounds like coincidences, but refers to “coincidences” that aren’t necessarily simply coincidental! I will have to use that, if I may. I will be sure to credit you.

I haven’t gotten to read your other post, yet, but will. I plan to respond to the linked post (on this thread). I love reading other people’s synchronicity experiences.

Keeping a log is a great idea. I wish I had been doing so. Maybe I can start now & add in a few older co-instances. In addition to thinking, as you do, that a string of similar co-instances seem more meaningful, there are some one offs that are so profound that I think they are also worth recording. But I get your point about not recording every small occurrence as they are more likely to be a coincidence.

2 Likes
16

Lol. Well, I thought your “description” even if it was a question was a good analogy. Hopefully, the latter part of my response explained what I meant?

So, you & your wife received a similar mental, emotional or spiritual message when kissing? What a beautiful experience!

Thank you for sharing your experience & thoughts.

1 Like
17

I don’t really know much about what Jung meant by synchronicity but my guess is it would have something to do with unconscious motivations involved in seeming coincidences, somewhat analogous to Freudian slips but not the same. Since as a non Christian I tend to think of God as something ‘inside’ rather than something ‘out there’ I think you could answer yes. But I have no idea how kosher that answer would be across the denominational spectrum of Christianity.

1 Like
18

Jung’s synchronicities have nothing to do with ‘the inside’ – they are more than remarkable, as in startling, instances of coordination between independent, objective, disjoint external events except for the individual(s) involved, imparting meaning (so in that sense they may be considered ‘inside’), not at all unlike God’s providential interventions. The latter, however, are most wondrous when they consist of entire sets of ‘synchronicities’. Jung’s were singular one-offs as I recall.

1 Like
19

This fits, having to do with God’s sovereignty over time and place (and timing and placing!):

…he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.
Acts 17:26-37

1 Like
20

Jung was a pseudoscientist. He denied that synchronicity was real and at the same time affirmed it was a window on the paranormal.

1 Like
21

I wouldn’t describe him as primarily a scientist. He had more subtlety than Freud in that regard.

1 Like
22

Sometimes. At least I perceive this to be the case. I also perceive there to be persons in the world making a causal link between an invisible intent and their visible actions – but that is just me.

Usually. We do indeed have overactive pattern/agency detectors. But science works because sometimes the pattern/agency we detect has real substance to it.

Perhaps. Just because we are paranoid doesn’t mean someone isn’t out get us.

But most of the time this isn’t helpful either way.

1 Like
23

That’s a nice way of putting it. He is described as a psychologist, just as Wallace is as a biologist - he believed in nonsense too. It’s only C20th physicists of stature that fell for claptrap. No biologist or biochemist or geologist or historian or psychologist or theologian or philosopher of any stature has since.

1 Like
24

I wanted to add that I don’t know if Jung meant truly acausal or if he simply meant that there was no apparent, mundane, scientifically provable causative agent. That meaning would still leave room for spiritual causation.

I have since read the anecdotal reports you’ve shared from two other sources. Thank you for sharing. They’re certainly interesting & profound, unlikely (through chance, etc.), though I find that the lady doesn’t seem to understand other cultures or religions well, & also seems to talk condescendingly about those who weren’t raised as she was. Buddha, for example, isn’t a god. He was just a man even according to Buddhists. He is simply considered by Buddhists to be a holy man or spiritual leader if I understand correctly.

Both experiences are certainly interesting, however, & I enjoyed reading them!

25

Thanks for sharing your perspective. Looking at it as Jung’s take on Freudian slips is an interesting take, & one I hadn’t heard before. I could see that in terms of things reminiscent of an unconscious repetition compulsion. Perhaps it could explain some synchronicities. I don’t know if the examples I have could be caused by subconscious motivations, though. They seem to be outside of one’s control.

1 Like
26

Thanks for sharing your perspective. Your response about human choices strikes me as similar to MarkD’s comment about subconscious motivations. The examples I know of, however, don’t seem to be caused by choice.

True about our pattern detection! I saw a study once that compared atheists & theists. I wish I could remember additional details, so that I can look it up and share it here. Perhaps I will find it later. What I do remember is it they were trying to say if these people would take something that they were sharing with them. I don’t know if they were sharing patterns, is they were trying to see if they were being shown something they’ve been shown before, etc. All I remember is the conclusion that they came to you was that the evidence suggested that while theists were more likely to think they saw something that wasn’t there, atheists were more likely to not detect things that were there. So, they both had short comings in opposite directions. I can’t remember if it was related to patterns, however, but if it was, then it would be like one group was hypersensitive to the patterns, and the other group wasn’t sensitive enough to detect all of the meaningful patterns.

When you say that most of the time it isn’t helpful anyway, do you mean being concerned, or do you mean synchronicity isn’t helpful, either way?

1 Like
27

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It’s true that “appears” meaningfully related doesn’t mean that something is related, but it also doesn’t indicate that it is not related. You’re right that we have hyper-sensitive pattern detectors; presumably that sensitive detection has benefited us, as you indicate.

Some patterns are meaningful; others are not. I can’t always decide what I think about synchronicity.

28

He was a psychologist, which is a type of scientist, but I don’t think a person’s career is the whole of who they are. To me, Jung’s “work” or ideas aren’t all about psychology nor was he only a psychologist. I see him as a philosopher who had a strong spiritual side, & yes, dealt with psychosis. His work was spiritual & philosophical in nature.

However, I do believe there is some therapeutic worth in some of his psychological discoveries or on the psychological ideas he expounded upon. A review of studies on the matter indicate that Jungian psychoanalysis does appear (yep, appear- it’s hard to know 100% about most things) to help clients psychologically.

Here’s the review I’m referencing:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4217606/

One part of Jung’s work that I find meaningful is his dream work. Not everyone believes dreams have meaning. I believe they do. I can’t say if all dreams do, but I certainly believe some do. Beyond spiritual meaning or God sending us signs, I believe that other dreams can give us insight into our subconscious. If they arise from our subconscious, they surely reflect it. I’m convinced that my dreams show me things from my subconscious & Jung’s method of deciphering dreams strikes me as much more intuitive (I had a similar idea before even knowing of his ideas on the matter) & logical than Freud’s. It’s pretty obvious sometimes once I figure out what it means. I feel like smacking myself in the forehead for not seeing it sooner.

2 Likes
29

Thanks for engaging! I’m sure lots of folks don’t know what it means. No worries! Have you ever experienced such a coincidence?

30

No that was specifically in response to the idea of synchronicity coming “from a less savory place.” On the spectrum from naïve trust to paranoia, human civilization requires something more towards the trusting end of the spectrum. And I have rarely seen a preoccupation with evil and demons doing much good. Ignoring the bad guys may not make them go away but it does rob them of some of their power over us. And too often the invention of an enemy is used for manipulation and getting good people to do evil things.

1 Like
31

Interesting question. I can often, easily speak of the same thing in both ways: coincidence and something divinely orchestrated. Depending on the circumstance I’m not usually entirely wedded to either view, because I see both as a possiblilty.
Generally, however, I lean toward a co-incidental understanding.

1 Like
32

I’m confused, as well! They’re certainly interesting, but it can sometimes be difficult to know if it’s intentionally meaningful.