Coincidences are not "important"

Of course, of course, the problem is not coincidence in itself, but the way we talk about it. Our current "explanatory (ordinary) idiom" is filled with Aristotle's four causes, giving us a highly animistic conceptual framework to describe causal relationships (notice that spirits are substituted by intentions or meaning in both Aristotle and much of our common talk). And so, even though is clear and obvious that any two given facts are in some way related, we talk about the relationship as meaningful or intended to serve some purpose. Probability and statistics don't use such concepts and nonetheless can give a correct account of coincidences. So, resuming, the thing is not that there are some coincidences, but that we fail to give a right account of why they happen because we think of them in magical terms.