Sentences with phrase «ultimate nature of reality»

If my life as a physicist has taught me anything at all, it's that Plato was right: Modern physics has made abundantly clear that the ultimate nature of reality isn't what it seems.

One Berkeley evening in 1990, while my friend Bill Poirier and I were sitting around speculating about the ultimate nature of reality, I suddenly had an idea: Our reality isn't just described by mathematics — it is mathematics, in a very specific sense.

Naturalists don't agree with each other about the ultimate nature of reality (though all of them would call their pet theory «natural»), they don't agree about the foundation and content of morality (provided they don't deny its existence altogether) and I could go on and on to list the countless varieties of naturalism out there.

One idea often associated with this tradition is that objective, impersonal knowledge of the ultimate nature of reality is a will - o» - the - wisp.

Not exact matches

«My point is that any summary conclusion jumping from our conviction of the existence of such an order of nature to the easy assumption that there is an ultimate reality which, in some unexplained way, is to be appealed to for the removal of the perplexity, constitutes the great refusal of rationality to assert its rights.»

It is one of the central, but one of the most disturbing, insights humans have had about the nature of ultimate reality.

The Tao, the ultimate principle of reality, is said to exercise its influence on nature and man not by active causation but by wu - wei, an untranslatable term for «active inaction» or, as I would prefer, «effective non-interference» or «non-interfering effectiveness.»

In this way the ontological argument, by drawing out the presupposition of metaphysical understanding, indicates that the choice before us is between holding that there is a God and that «reality» makes sense in some metaphysical manner, whether or not we can ever grasp what that sense is, and holding that there is no God and that any apparent metaphysical understanding of reality can only be an illusion which does not significantly correspond to the ultimate nature of things — unless this «nihilism» be regarded as a kind of metaphysical understanding instead of its blank negation.

What Greenawalt accepts as «rationality» is actually the irrational assumption that we can get along very well without employing any controversial assumptions about the nature of ultimate reality.

This is not an ultimate community whose solidarity is an expression of an ahistorical human nature or derived from some nonhuman objective reality, but the kind of democratic community endorsed by thinkers like Dewey.

Elsewhere, Berger elaborates by pointing out that religions provide legitimation and meaning in a distinctly «sacred» mode, that they offer claims about the nature of ultimate reality as such, about the location of the human condition in relation to the cosmos itself.

Is not the dialectical nature of the Christian community and separation really not dialectical, thus not reaching the core of ultimate reality?

The ultimate object of man wherein lies his greatest happiness in future life is to gain knowledge of the realities of things so far as his nature allows, and do what is incumbent upon him.

Whether or not one uses the word God, we are all engaged in a discussion about the nature — the ultimate nature — of reality.

Concerned with the nature of the world ground, it is also interested in how man must relate himself to this ultimate reality in order to achieve what, in Christianity, is called salvation.

Historic symbols and careful delineations of the nature of ultimate reality are both needed as necessary correctives one to the other.

Looking at these passages it is clear that the authors were investigating fundamental questions about the nature of reality, and seeking for ultimate principles that would explain its existence and nature.

They maintain that the very nature of reality is to be temporal and related to others and that even the ultimate reality denoted by the word «God» can be properly conceived only in these terms.

However, he denies the fairness and accuracy of this allegation, contending that his method is the only way philosophy can escape both radical skepticism about ultimate reality and an unwarranted tendency to assume that all of nature resembles human experience.

But whether the «nature of things» be grounded in God, or whether God be the primordial exemplification of «the nature of things» with respect to an independent, abstract «category of the ultimate,» it is the case that both the biblical record and process - relational thought recognize a pervasive movement toward greater richness of experience as a generic feature of reality.

God is: the supreme or ultimate reality, perfect in power wisdom and goodness — Merriam Webster the creator and ruler of the universe, the source of all moral authority, superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature — Oxford Dictionary the one Supreme Being the creator and ruler of the universe — Dictionary.com

It requires also that one resign oneself to an ultimate irrationalism: For the one reality that naturalism can never logically encompass is the very existence of nature (nature being, by definition, that which already exists); it is a philosophy, therefore, surrounded, permeated, and exceeded by a truth that is always already super naturam, and yet a philosophy that one can not seriously entertain except by scrupulously refusing to recognize this.

It rather appears to be the degree to which, in and through the experiences to which these statements point, there is effected an actual deepening and widening of spiritual insight into the nature of ultimate reality, of human existence and of the destiny of man.

The differences seem to be over whether these tensions can be resolved through our better understanding of nature (our position), or whether they are inherent to created reality and can not be rationally resolved but only founded upon the ultimate intelligibility of absolute love.

Religious symbolism pointing to some ultimate context of cosmic significance, to a ground of meaning and love, to a comprehensive preservative care, is at least not incompatible with what we now know about the logic of emergence and he nature of physical reality.

Although they generally agree that mystery is in some sense gracious, salvific, and fulfilling, there are endless variations in their imaginative envisagements of the nature of ultimate reality.

Merriam Webster defines «mystical» in concrete terms as «involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality.»

> This is how science is supposed to work for the ultimate arbitrator of reality is Mother Nature and not the scientist.