As mentioned previously, I view Providence, Serendipity, Karma, Luck, and Coincidence as synonyms. Recently another blogger I follow was thinking and posted on a subject that was similar. Mike Duran's post was a complete thought on a different tack, but parts of what he wrote described some of what was going through my mind while I was in a recent phone conversation. It started out heading towards a topic of particular interest to me that I have posted on before. Namely Third Choice in a Two Sided Argument and the accompanying Flawed Thoughts (Part 1?). This topic is one that I was headed towards early in the summer and thought I'd have covered by now except for my split-personality life has not gone at all as I thought it could.
My fellow conversant is an old friend I call an Evangelical Catholic. He has been trying since 1987 to get me (and everyone else) to leave our religions and just come back to Catholicism as it was the first. He wrote the first 5 chapters of what I call a Catholic Apologetic that was very deep and steeped in tradition. Like most Catholics he believes in Church and then Scripture (Mike Duran's spot on words). He has recently begun to go back to college and is living with a retired professor who is (I believe an avowed) atheist. This is the often expected religious leaning of college professors, though it is usually of scientific types rather than English scholars.
As an engineer, I am a practicing scientist--engineers put science principles into action. One of the worst people groups to try to minister to and reach are engineers and scientists because we try to prove everything. This is a related flawed thought to the previously mentioned Flawed Thoughts.
A difference between scientists and religious types is that each has their own language, if you will. Each tries to explain the other in their terms. Scientists try to explain and "prove" God, religious types try to just believe (or more often not believe) scientific endeavours. It is like translating a book from Greek to English. In this case science speaking one language while religion speaks the other. At some point there is a word that exists in one language and not the other. At this point the translator has to take what I call poetic license with the word (e.g. agape translated to love and without displaying the true depth of agape). This is the point at which science and religion lose each other. This selection of words is where religion requires us to simply say it is a matter of faith. Science has no equal point. The translation breaks down.
Religion says it's a paradox, live with it; science says it can't be proven so it's false.
Links to posts: deCompose by Mike Duran First post on the matter Third Choice Second post on the issue Flawed Thoughts
~~~~~~~~~~~