Sentences with phrase «how human nature»

I understand how human nature works when the going gets tough.

Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert explains how human nature thwarts smart decision - making — and what you can do about it.

I just couldn't understand how human nature has become so distorted, how our society has got to this point.

She also often incorporates used electronic components within her work, usually to convey how human nature is «hardwired» or to distill the meaning of the work down to one keyboard word.

It's interesting how human nature is the same whether you're religious or not.

Not exact matches

Marsh calls it, «an eye - opening exploration into how children are raised around the world and how child - rearing can inform the understanding of human nature more broadly,» noting the author's most essential point is that «one of the things which makes humans special as a species is that we don't limit care to our own children.

On Psych Pedia, Steven Parton, an author and student of human nature, explains how complaining not only alters your brain for the worse but also has serious negative repercussions for your mental health.

This year, I'm feeling the birthday doldrums a little more acutely than usual since I've just about finished up the manuscript on my next book, Humans 3.0, which is all about how technology is affecting human nature.

The goal here is to use «single - cell sequencing to understand how many different cell types there are in the human body, where they reside, and what they do,» as Nature reports.

Bourdain is talking about how an understanding of human nature can result in a huge variance in the unit economics of a business.

That is how I can recognize art and not just beauty in nature and especially in human beings.

I won't give you the full quote but it talked about how church as part of active discipleship can make strangers seem less threatening, but how the pull of human nature keeps trying to take us away from that (ie strangers become more threatening).

Most highly educated people who understand quantum physics and it's related fields realize that humans might not ever be able to understand everything, including the origins of the Universe, but it is human nature to look for it and to try to understand as much as we can about the universe and how everything interacts.

But here let us set aside the exact nature of these powers, how human beings have used them, and how human beings should use them, and consider instead several accounts of how best to understand the species that possesses these powers.

The issue of the relation of the human life and the nature is not merely the question of how to deal with the natural environment but that of the total creation, which involves the justice, participation and peace in an integral unity.

But though I will argue for this teleological view of nature and human nature from empirical premises and from reason, my purpose here is not to debate or attempt to prove this point, but rather to illustrate how some teleological understanding of nature and human nature is a necessary premise for the idea of environmental stewardship.

The issue of the relation of human life and nature is not merely the question of how to deal with the natural environment but that of the total creation, which involves the justice, participation and peace in an integral unity.

How is nature to be anything but the slave of the human master?

To take just one example, five hundred years ago, during the Reformation, there was a debate over just how broken human nature truly is.

He pointed out how, because of the dominant reductionist view of human nature, scientists are increasingly tempted to treat the human individual as «an object to be investigated, measured and experimented upon» rather than as an «irreducible subject».

That is how God works through human nature, and nature itself is a gift of the Creator.

The answer is pretty specific and pretty basic and it has to do with human sexuality, as that is how LGTQ, or current label differ from long - held teaching and tradition, and also what nature would seem to indicate.

Whitehead did work out a complex theory of value, but my point here is only to indicate that Whitehead's way of understanding human beings as part of nature both requires that we extend the ethical discussion and gives us clues as to how to do this.

It thinks of nature in materialistic terms, but in these terms it can explain neither the natural world nor how it is related to human beings.

How much the CES actually cares about «the most profound metaphysical questions concerning human existence and the nature of reality» within any recognisably Catholic perspective is, however, to put it as mildly as possible, perhaps in some doubt.

How has human nature actually been changed for the better?

Oh, the Calvinists could make perfect sense of it all with a wave of a hand and a swift, confident explanation about how Zarmina had been born in sin and likely predestined to spend eternity in hell to the glory of an angry God (they called her a «vessel of destruction»); about how I should just be thankful to be spared the same fate since it's what I deserve anyway; about how the Asian tsunami was just another one of God's temper tantrums sent to remind us all of His rage at our sin; about how I need not worry because «there is not one maverick molecule in the universe» so every hurricane, every earthquake, every war, every execution, every transaction in the slave trade, every rape of a child is part of God's sovereign plan, even God's idea; about how my objections to this paradigm represented unrepentant pride and a capitulation to humanism that placed too much inherent value on my fellow human beings; about how my intuitive sense of love and morality and right and wrong is so corrupted by my sin nature I can not trust it.

We have learned how physical damage to the brain impairs the functioning of various parts of the body to which the nervous system connects it, and severe brain damage of a congenital nature can prevent the development of anything like a genuinely human personality altogether.

If redemption is about Grace alone, with no place for human nature, than how can there be a relationship between the human and the divine?

Perhaps only a postmodern sensibility that routinely takes apparent contradictions in stride can appreciate how a thoroughly constructivist brain is grounded in the universals of human nature.

God has given us much evidence of His existence: how about the intricacies of how the human body works - can you really believe that happened without a master plan; what about the beauty of nature - can we really think that that just happened; what about the testimony of millions throughout the ages including Scientists attempting to disprove God, that point to things beyond their comprehension or doing.

After all, how could it be that something so vanishingly small and insignificant as a human could «know» the true nature of god, especially the god you believe in.

The rejection of dualism and the full inclusion of every aspect of human reality within nature profoundly affect how nature is understood.

How can we change human nature?

Instead, I find increasingly within the animal rights movement and within discussions of environmental ethics (although less so there) a perspective that illustrates just how alienated from the rest of nature the human species has become.

... you can claim free will and by so cover all of the human actions done to the world but how can say that god is real and controls nature when nature has killed more purely innocent lives then anything in history ever... if god was just and comp@ssinate why send the wave that killed 300 thousand, why create the plague that killed nearly 75 million in the middle ages when nearly everyone was a VERY devout believer....

Back in the early seventeenth century Francis Bacon, the first modern philosopher of science, recognised that the developmental nature of modern scientific methodology provided a truer vision of how human knowing arrives at formality than the scholastic theory of abstraction.

He seems well versed in nonscientific historical tidbits; however, he derails himself when he begins discussing Darwin, biology, and how these relate to human nature.

To choose soundly what to teach and how to teach it, to judge what educational goals are practicable and what ones are not — such wisdom requires the best possible understanding of human nature and its transformation.

The question then becomes: How does the human soul comprehend the nature of virtue?

His doctrine of two separate substances, extended matter and thinking mind, each sort of substance requiring, with God bracketed out of the picture, nothing other than itself in order to exist, rather unceremoniously threw mind, that is, distinctively human being, out of nature and left philosophy with the hopeless task of trying to figure out how a mind outside of nature, a mind not of nature, could ever really come to know nature.

More must now be said about why, conceptually, it is important to see that religious commitment involves making serious claims as to the nature of things, what the setting of human life is like, as well as serious claims as to how human persons should behave in that setting.

I may refer here, perhaps immodestly, to the book which I just mentioned, where I have sought to show how this comes to be, while in still another book, The Christian Understanding of Human Nature (Westminster, Philadelphia, and Nisbet, London, 1964), I tried to relate the theme to Christian theology in a wider sense.

The church members find dialogue difficult because they rarely question their presuppositions about human nature or how truth is known.3 Yet, these things are similar in many ways.

It pushes questions that will not be pushed back: How do we do all our theological reflection from earth - centered praxis, with «earth» encompassing of the human economy and the economy of [the rest of] nature together?

We may pause to ponder, that while these royal morons disported themselves in beastly passion in Antioch and Alexandria, a petty hill town of their domains, age - old Jerusalem, followed its Temple services that went their quiet way, day after day, year in and year out; and there, groups of thoughtful men reflected upon the nature of human life, reasoning that «The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,» that «The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul,» or fervently ejaculated, «Oh, how I love thy law!

The problem came to be how to show that the Cross expressed the transcendent reality of Christ and his transforming power in human nature.

For it begins with God, not with human reasoning, and how we conceive of God is dependent on the nature of the reality that is presented to us — in the language of the Bible, that which is seen.

[2] One canget a glimpse of how far this can go in some of the more extreme interpretations of Maximus the Confessor, in which it is suggested that, without the fall, the Incarnation would not have taken place in the person of Jesus, but in a «universal» incarnation in human nature through man's free co-operation with divine grace.

For us these are the components of reality that explain the nature of the world, the phenomenon of life within it, and even how we human organisms think through our brains.