Providence and coincidence

[Michael1801]

I’m still struggling to understand these things, but I’m gonna take a brief stab at what I think Aquinas is saying.

And I’m gonna return to the example of Ronald Reagan.

I think what he’s saying is that even though God is the ultimate cause of everything, and everyone–including Ronald Reagan and the world he lived in, his ethnicity, ancestry, and the country he was president of–there were a lot of secondary causes along the way that really contributed something in determining his first name, his second name, and his family surname (and the number of letters in each–not to mention our numbering system, with it’s ones column, it’s tens column, and it’s hundreds column.) One of these secondary causes would have been his mother (who chose the man she was gonna marry, and what she was gonna name her son.) Another one might have been William Shakespeare (and everyone along the way who helped make the English language what it was at the time he was born, and standardize the spelling of words and names.)
All these secondary causes would have been within God’s will, but he wouldn’t have willed all of them “per se” (in and of themselves.) And that means that some things can be said to happen by chance (or be coincidences), while other things are directly willed by God (“per se,” in and of themselves) for some purpose (or to send some message.)

An example might be freewill (which I think God wills “per se”–in and of itself), and sin, which follows as a consequence of a secondary cause (i.e. freewill.)

Anyway, I think that’s what he’s saying.

And I think it makes some sense.

But as I said, I’m still struggling to understand this (and Aquinas) myself.

 

[Freddy]

And if you feel intellectually or spiritually superior to me (or Ron, or Nancy, or Carl) could you please condescend to our level.

If you want a discussion on Jung then I’m sure a lot of people will treat the thread with the respect it deserves. The same will apply if you want to discuss Reagan being the anti Christ because his mum picked a particular name for him.

And here’s a quote by Richard Feynman for you to ponder:

“You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight… I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”

 

[Michael1801]

I’m more inclined to agree with Aquinas than Jung, and I picked Reagan because I don’t think he was the Antichrist.

Maybe if you went back over the posts, and re-read them, you’d have a better idea of what the thread is about.

No one was ever suggesting that a dead American president is the Antichrist–least of all me.

Mr. Reagan was the first president I voted for.

I once again thank MPat for contributing something of value here when he (or she) posted the following link.

"Summa Contra Gentiles”, Book 3 “Providence”, Chapter 74
“That divine providence does not exclude fortune and chance” (https://isidore.co/aquinas/ContraGentiles3a.htm#74).

If you stopped being snarky, and read some of what saint Aquinas said here, you might understand what we’re talking about.

 

[Freddy]

I’m more inclined to agree with Aquinas than Jung, and I picked Reagan because I don’t think he was the Antichrist.

Maybe if you went back over the posts, and re-read them, you’d have a better idea of what the thread is about.

No one was ever suggesting that a dead American president is the Antichrist–least of all me.

Mr. Reagan was the first president I voted for.

Gimme a break, Mike. You literally asked if it was a coincidence that Reagan had 6 letters in each name.

 

[Michael1801]

What I asked in the OP (and multiple times on this thread) was whether the word “coincidence” had any meaning if you believe in Providence, and I didn’t know that Saint Aquinas had a whole chapter on the subject at the time (so I’m apparently not the first to ask, and the good doctor thought it worth discussing.)

I regret you seem unable to grasp the fact that the number of letters in Reagan’s names was only an example (and the most absurd example of a coded message from God that I could think of.)

 

[Freddy]

What I asked was whether the word “coincidence” had any meaning if you believe in Providence, and I didn’t know that Saint Aquinas had a whole chapter on the subject at the time (so I’m apparently not the first to ask, and the good doctor thought it worth discussing.)

I regret you seem unable to grasp the fact that the number of letters in Reagan’s names was only an example (and the most absurd example of a coded message from God that I could think of.)

If you can actually ask in your very first post if it was just a coincidence that Reagan’s name had a certain number of letters then by using such a montrously risible example of numerology you started off immediately on the wrong foot.

It’s like asking if it’s just a coincidence that ships and planes hapoen to dissapear in the Bermuda Triangle and then get all huffy if people tell you it’s nonsense.

 

[Michael1801]

Is it theologically correct to say (as many believers do) that there are no coincidences?

Years ago, someone did a computer analysis of the book of Genesis, and found that if you start with the first taw (the Hebrew letter with a “t” sound), and count every 50th letter, the text of Genesis spells out the word Torah (which is what the Jews call the first five books of the Bible–Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.)

He found some other interesting things, and published a book called the Bible codes, and it led to quiet a sensation for awhile.

It wasn’t long before some Evangelical Christians were using the Bible codes method to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, and it looked like they had.

They applied the same methods the original author used on Genesis to other Biblical books, and found embedded messages clearly saying that Jesus is the Messiah.

They were called “the Yeshia codes,” and there were books written about them.

But the excitement died down, and Christian missionaries in Israel stopped using the codes to try and convert Jews living in Israel, when an Orthodox Rabbi in Israel found what seemed to be embedded codes saying that Jesus was a false prophet

Then there’s the number 666.

A lot of people thought Bill Clinton was the Antichrist at one time because “William Jefferson Clinton” adds up to 666 in both Hebrew and Greek (even though the alphabets and numbering systems are different.)

But while he’s certainly no paragon of virtue, he’s not president any more.

And he can’t run again.

And he doesn’t appear to be the Antichrist.

And Ronald Reagan also had a connection to 666.

The winning lottery number in Maryland the day he was elected was 666.

And he had six letters in each of his names–Ronald Wilson Reagan.

And the lottery thing gives him something in common with a junior state senator from Illinois, because the Illinois State lottery pick 3 number was 666 the day after Barrack Obama was elected president.

So my question is whether any or all of these things could be coincidences?

And what that word means if you believe in a God who knows all, and sees the future?

Are Providence and coincidence mutually exclusive?

Or is there some definition of “coincidence” that might still be meaningful for a believer?

This is what I said in my first post.

I was clearly asking if the concepts of Providence and coincidence were mutually exclusive.

And I used examples of apparent coincidences that were chosen to make those who might be inclined to say that there are no coincidences think.

It’s not my fault that you didn’t understand the question, and chose not to think (but to heckle instead.)

And as MPat’s link proves, no less a thinker than Saint Thomas Aquinas (a doctor of the Church) not only thought the topic was worth discussing, but devoted a whole chapter to it.

If you had wanted to say something useful, you could have said “yes, I think these things can be called coincidences, and here’s why,” instead of choosing to attack someone you felt intellectually superior to (by saying things like “my I.Q. just dropped 10 points.”)

 

[EndTimes]

Is it theologically correct to say (as many believers do) that there are no coincidences?

define what you mean by ‘coincidences’ ?

 

[Michael1801]

Michael1801:

Is it theologically correct to say (as many believers do) that there are no coincidences?

define what you mean by ‘coincidences’ ?

Since I’m the one who said I was struggling for a definition, you should probably be giving me thoughts on how you’d define it, and what you’d call a coincidence (if anything.)

But with the help of Saint Thomas, I think I’d define a coincidence as something that God doesn’t will per se (in and of itself), but that results from secondary causes.

And to answer another one of my own questions, I think such things are necessary, and I think there’d have to be many such things in any possible world.

As an example, if any number under a thousand has a negative connotation (be it 666, or any other number under a thousand), any country with a population of millions, that assigns a number to each of it’s citizens (such as a social security number) would have multiple citizens with the unwanted number (because, as someone here said, you can’t get to a thousand without passing 666–or to any number over a thousand without passing every number under a thousand.)

So in any world where God wills a lot of people to exist, wills some relatively low number to have some negative connotation (for whatever reason), and wills human governments to have social programs (and to assign numbers to their citizens so they can provide services), there will be multiple individuals who have that negative number (not necessarily because God wills it per se–because He wishes to say something negative about these particular individuals–but as the result of secondary causes.)

By “coincidence” (as I’m using the term here.)

 

[Freddy]

If you had wanted to say something useful…

OK. Here’s something useful. Stop bringing the farcical subject of numerology into what I presume you want to be a serious discussion of providence.

 

[Michael1801]

Michael1801:

If you had wanted to say something useful…

OK. Here’s something useful. Stop bringing the farcical subject of numerology into what I presume you want to be a serious discussion of providence.

A discussion forum (particularly a sub forum on philosophy) should be a place where we can discuss ideas, and help each other think things through–not a place to heckle and attack each other.

And if numerology were self evidently farcical (on the face of it, without serious discussion), Thoma Aquinas wouldn’t have discussed it. He does in fact discuss numerology, astrology, sortilege, and any number of other things related to the topic of Providence.

He doesn’t treat any of these topics as unworthy of discussion.

(And what’s self evident to you may not be self evident to someone else.

Can’t you please stop your heckling?

 

[Freddy]

And if numerology were self evidently farcical…

It isn’t. Until you read about it. Then it is. Like astrology. Which Aquinas accepted with reservations:

‘…the action of heavenly bodies produces certain inclinations in corporeal nature.’

‘On the other hand if one were to apply the observation of the stars in order to foreknow those future things that are caused by heavenly bodies, for instance, drought or rain and so forth, it will be neither an unlawful nor a superstitious divination.’

Should we include that as well because it was discussed by Aquinas? Or should we discount it as an example of the limited knowledge of the 13th century?

 

[EndTimes]

Since I’m the one who said I was struggling for a definition, you should probably be giving me thoughts on how you’d define it, and what you’d call a coincidence (if anything.)

The onus to define terms rests on the shoulders of the one who introduces them

 

[Dan_Defender]

I guess it is possible but many believed Jesus was the Messiah before anyone suggested a Bible code. I don’t think it takes a Bible code to know that. There are many signs in the OT that point to Jesus, many types of Christ, many symbolic events. Then there’s the destruction of the First Temple which Orthodox Jews accept as punishment by God while the destruction of the Second they refuse to be related to Jesus. I am pessimistic that anything can convert Jews, but that’s just my opinion.

 

[Michael1801]

Michael1801:

Since I’m the one who said I was struggling for a definition, you should probably be giving me thoughts on how you’d define it, and what you’d call a coincidence (if anything.)

The onus to define terms rests on the shoulders of the one who introduces them

That would depend on the context in which the terms were introduced.

If I were raised in another faith, and I asked you to tell me what you mean by “The Holy Trinity,” and “Mother of God,” the onus to define those terms wouldn’t rest on me.

It would rest on you.

If someone comes to you saying (as I did) that he’s having trouble thinking through the ramifications of Providence, and doesn’t know if it leaves any room for what we call coincidence, or if the term really has any meaning for a believer in Providence, the onus to define the terms would rest on anyone having greater understanding.

If you don’t know, you say “I’m at a loss too,” and wait for someone to say something useful.

If you have greater understanding, you say “here’s how I would define those terms” and offer some thoughts.

 

[Michael1801]

Michael1801:

And if numerology were self evidently farcical…

It isn’t. Until you read about it. Then it is. Like astrology. Which Aquinas accepted with reservations:

‘…the action of heavenly bodies produces certain inclinations in corporeal nature.’

‘On the other hand if one were to apply the observation of the stars in order to foreknow those future things that are caused by heavenly bodies, for instance, drought or rain and so forth, it will be neither an unlawful nor a superstitious divination.’

Should we include that as well because it was discussed by Aquinas? Or should we discount it as an example of the limited knowledge of the 13th century?

I remember that on the night of the great north east black out of 1965, my mom and I were stuck on the Brooklyn bridge, and a couple of good Samaritans stopped and gave us a ride home. I don’t remember what happened to the car, but I do remember the guys talking.

There was a full moon that night, they worked at Bell View Hospital (a famous psychiatric hospital in New York), and they were very glad they weren’t working that night.

The reason they were glad was that they believed that the patients always acted up more when there was a full moon, and they were sure it would be even worse with all the lights out.

Were they right about the patients being more difficult every time there was a full moon?

I don’t know.

But I do know that a lot of health care workers are of the opinion that their jobs are more difficult when there’s a full moon, and I know that because I’ve talked to them.

The point is that none of this is farcical on its face.

What Saint Aquinas was saying in the discussion on astrology (which you only quoted part of) was that he didn’t believe that God had ordained an individual’s fate to coincide with the position of the stars at the time of his birth, or that we’re controlled by the movement of the heavenly bodies, that demons can be involved in the interpretation of such things, and that it’s wrong (and sinful) to look to them instead of to God.

I believe all of that is true, and as worth saying today as it was in the 13th century.

And what he was saying in your quote was that if heavenly bodies have any influence on animals, it would be as secondary causes, and if you were able to make some educated guesses about the future based on observing these secondary causes, it wouldn’t be sinful.

And I believe that’s as theologically and philosophically correct now as it was in the 13th century.

It’s not even entirely untrue scientifically, as the moon is a heavenly body, it’s known to effect the tides, and the tides are known to effect the breeding patterns of some organisms.

And if observing the moon can help fishermen know when to expect a good catch of crabs in the cheasapeake bay, it isn’t sinful.

So Aquinas stands up pretty well after all these centuries, and I believe all these things are worth including in a discussion on Providence.

(And, again–we should be respectful to each other, and willing to help each other think things through here.)

 

[Michael1801]

I guess it is possible but many believed Jesus was the Messiah before anyone suggested a Bible code. I don’t think it takes a Bible code to know that. There are many signs in the OT that point to Jesus, many types of Christ, many symbolic events. Then there’s the destruction of the First Temple which Orthodox Jews accept as punishment by God while the destruction of the Second they refuse to be related to Jesus. I am pessimistic that anything can convert Jews, but that’s just my opinion.

Your comment about the 1rst and 2nd Temple is interesting.

Thank you.

What is it that you think is possible?

 

[EndTimes]

That would depend on the context in which the terms were introduced.

If I were raised in another faith, and I asked you to tell me what you mean by “The Holy Trinity,” and “Mother of God,” the onus to define those terms wouldn’t rest on me.

It would rest on you.

A meaningless What If… .

 

[Michael1801]

Michael1801:

Are Providence and coincidence mutually exclusive?

And did Aquinas say anything that might be relevant.

As a matter of fact, he did. See “Summa Contra Gentiles”, Book 3 “Providence”, Chapter 74
“That divine providence does not exclude fortune and chance” (https://isidore.co/aquinas/ContraGentiles3a.htm#74).

The name of the chapter is a pretty clear hint, isn’t it?

For that matter, even if the things you listed were intended as such, they could be intended as something other than messages.

For example, they could be intended as a trap for the ones not willing to read the texts plainly, so that they would end up looking badly after finding those “messages” and publishing them.

Thanks for posting that link, and for your comments.

When Saint Aquinas speaks of secondary causes, is he only talking about rational beings (like the man who goes to market, and the debtor he meets there, in the example he gave), or is he also talking about inanimate things?

I mean, would it require some rational being other than God (like a human programmer, a prankster, the devil, or a demon) to be involved in something like the serial number assigned to tickets for The Passion of Christ at a movie theater, for it to be what Saint Thomas would call a chance occurance (as opposed to something God directly willed, per se, for some purpose, or to send some message)?

And as far as the suggestion that the so-called Bible could have been intended “as a trap for the ones not willing to read the texts plainly, so that they would end up looking badly,” isn’t that kinda like the suggestion that God created the universe with the appearance of age?

Wouldn’t God be lying if He did such a thing?

Or would He not be?

I’m just repeating something I heard a long time ago–I haven’t thought it out, and I’d like your help.

 

[EndTimes]

Providence and coincidence​

Are Providence and coincidence mutually exclusive?

OK… . So… What did you mean by 'coincidence" in the OP Question?