It seems to me that Carl Jung's concept of synchronicity applies well to this discussion.
Synchronicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events, that are apparently causally unrelated or unlikely to occur together by chance, that are observed to occur together in a meaningful manner. The concept of synchronicity was first described by Swiss psychologist Carl Gustav Jung in the 1920s.
The concept does not question, or compete with, the notion of causality. Instead, it maintains that just as events may be grouped by cause, they may also be grouped by their meaning. Since meaning is a complex mental construction, subject to conscious and subconscious influence, not every correlation in the grouping of events by meaning needs to have an explanation in terms of cause and effect.
I'm sure most of us will admit to experiencing synchronicity at least a few times in our lives.
I'm a piano teacher and 2 days ago I was listing to one of my talented 14 year old student playing a Chopin piece we had worked on together. It suddenly dawned on me that she would probably play Debussy's ''Clair de Lune'' really well. When she finished playing I told her we should start working on a new piece but before suggesting ''Claire de Lune'' I asked her if there was any piece she wanted to play. She then told me that her cousin had given her the score to a piece called ''Clair de Lune'' and that she had started working on it at home... She then proceeded to playing the part she had learned while I was just sitting there, dumbfounded by the coincidence and by how naturally she played it for her age.
YouTube - CLAUDE DEBUSSY CLAIRE DE LUNE
When you think of it, there's nothing very spectacular about this. ''Clair de Lune'' is a fairly popular piece. But the point here is that the coincidence was very meaningful
to me and to her. It all just felt so right.
The fact that two causally unrelated events can be connected by meaning can ironically appear as meaningless to the materialist skeptics because to them, the concept of causality
has precedence over the concept of meaning
, which is ''merely'' a creation of our minds... They'll say that a coincidence is all it is, refusing to see in it any demonstration of a universe permeated with
meaning. This demonstrates their belief that only a human mind has the necessary depth and complexity necessary for ''meaningfulness'' to exist, revealing their own hubris.
As if only human life had ''meaning''! It seems to me that they are disconnecting themselves from the Cosmos from which they are born, failing to see that the meaning that permeates our mind is caused by the Cosmos itself.