I wouldn’t describe him as primarily a scientist. He had more subtlety than Freud in that regard.
1 Like
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
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
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!
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
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
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.
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
Thanks for engaging! I’m sure lots of folks don’t know what it means. No worries! Have you ever experienced such a coincidence?
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
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
I’m confused, as well! They’re certainly interesting, but it can sometimes be difficult to know if it’s intentionally meaningful.
Most of my dreams are triggered by the stimulation of my prostate by my distended bladder…
2 Likes
When they occur in meaningful sets, we ought to get a clue, especially when they are God-related, as were the multiple instances in the thread about God’s interventions.
Even one-offs should remind us of God’s sovereignty.
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
Proverbs 16:33
I don’t claim confusion. I don’t spend a lot of energy analyzing or agonizing over things I can’t be certain of.
If a Christian is going to focus on synchronicity, there are a number of considerations one must be ready to deal with:
Of PRIMARY concern: Does God speak to us in specific ways outside of his Word at all? (And I will leave the discussion of what comprises God’s Word for another thread.) Perhaps consider
Revelation 22:18 “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book; if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.”
If one believes God does speak in such a way now:
What are the bounds of such communications?
- Dreams
- Interesting coincidences
- Desirable convergences of events
- Apparently coordinated disasters
- Healing
- Languishing long until death
On what basis does one decide the bounds of such communications?
- What I want?
- What suits my needs?
- What confirms my already held beliefs?
- What helps me serve or obey Christ better? (His will is already clearly stated in his Word. We don’t need message via syncronicity.)
- What helps me love my neighbor better? (We already have this as well. We don’t need another word.)
- Something else?
How does one interpret such synchronistic events? How does one evaluate the validity of the interpretation?
When the interpretation involves someone else, on the basis of what real authority does the interpreter have a right to speak, much less direct another to act according to the interpretation? What if the recipient or others reject this subjective word, which may or may not be valid?
As I think through possible examples to list, which I have decided not to, I see so many hideous, ghastly things. I’ve been told by people, who must believe they have better skills of interpretation, that I should try to understand what God would have me learn from this or that. I am incapable of interpreting the synchronicities of suffering, misery, death, long-term grinding disability, crushed innocence, insanity, inequity, abuse of power and more in a way that would tell me anything other than that evil and injustice are overwhelming and the same hideous end awaits us all.
Ecclesiastes 9:1-6
But all this I laid to heart, examining it all, how the righteous and the wise and their deeds are in the hand of God. Whether it is love or hate, man does not know; both are before him. 2 It is the same for all, since the same event happens to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil, to the clean and the unclean, to him who sacrifices and him who does not sacrifice. As the good one is, so is the sinner, and he who swears is as he who shuns an oath. 3 This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that the same event happens to all. Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead. 4 But he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.
So, I refrain from spending my limited mental energy on something so speculative. There is enough in God’s Word that is clearly spelled out. His revealed will is more than enough.
Over in the “The End of Apologetics” thread
Daniel Fisher quoted from Kierkegaard ( don’t have a citation):
3 Likes
Are you familiar with George Müller (not as an apologetic argument, but as encouragement for Christians)? (Even @Klax calls him ‘incarnational’. ; - )
I am, Dale. And he is an encouragement.
But I want to bring a stern warning as well, to those who want to interpret selectively and self-centeredly in ways that suit their fancies or their personal inclinations, ever seeking a special word, without having obeyed the most obvious commands of the Lord, or the ones that suit them. Ever taking the lovely, without facing the hideous realities that are here with us as well.
Müller was acting in sacrificial obedience to server others.
That is not normally the case.
2 Likes
Can we discern Sadducees today and spend our time more wisely?
In my estimation, the source of synchronicity would be a matter of faith. The detection of synchronicity is heavily biased because we are basing the importance of it on subjective human emotions and we are calculating backwards for the probability which is extremely susceptible to the Sharpshooter fallacy and confirmation bias. In order for synchronicity to start to move into the land of the objective we would need to predict what events will happen and when they will happen in the future, and then compare our predictions with real outcomes. To put it another way, if the universe is proceeding in a non-teleological manner would we expect false positives for synchronicity? I think we would.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying synchronicity is true or false in a teleological sense. Rather, the source is unknowable in an absolute or objective sense.
3 Likes
Dale, I don’t know what you’re getting at. And I’m not sure it’s even wise for me to ask.
3 Likes