Sentences with phrase «make sense of the world by»

It's just the natural human need to try to make sense of our world by starting with what is most familiar and going to what is most challenging — that which is least familiar.

Regarding conspiracy theories, the author says: «A likely function of this cognitive bias is to help people make sense of the world by offering simple explanations for complex events.»

Not exact matches

well i double - dog dare you to view the world and the universe with a critical eye instead of one clouded by religion and ask yourself if it really makes sense that it was all done by magic, and that every scientific discipline is wrong.

This is nothing more than an attempt by your mind to make sense of the natural world which apparently it can't comprehend.

By this he meant that the human brain, along with its senses, and with is learned cultural bias, and even with the extension our scientific instruments gives us, has only made a rough map in our minds of the REAL world (the territory).

We were never separate from whites nor are we now, but given the fact that most things in this country are white by design, does it not make sense to you to desire a piece of commonality that was ripped away from most races of the world by white people?

There can be no doubt that God makes decisions a propos of the disjunctive multiplicity of eternal objects; the difficulty is to establish in precisely what sense these divine decisions are distinguishable from the choices and calculations made by the Leibnizian deity Whitehead's dilemma seems to be this: on the one hand, the principle of classification is to be challenged by positing the primordiality of a world of eternal objects that knows «no exclusions, expressive in logical terms»; on the other hand, positing pure potentiality as a «boundless and unstructured infinity» (IWM 252) lacking all logical order would seem to be precisely that conceptual move which renders it «inefficacious» or «irrelevant.»

But there is a background, and the background more often than not is the world in the best sense of the word, the world as made, approved, loved, sustained and finally redeemable by God.

nothing makes the atheist more ticked off more than when you bring up GOD... God gets all the blame for all the tragedy in the world... If there wasnt a god in the first place, humans would not know tragedy or injustice when we see it... it would be a non-issue to us... survival of the fittest would not permit the emotions of love, compassion, empathy... Darwininian theory could not allow any of those and many other of the best of people's capacity for caring to surface... You cant explain it away by synapse or neurons... without a Supreme Being, there would be no sense of justice or injustice, we would not call it anything because there is no Ultimate Moral Standard to compare it.

Living by faith is taking God at His Word and acting upon it — even when it makes no sense to the rest of the world.

Cobb's gambit in presenting his interpretation of the extensive continuum was to make it appear that the extensive continuum in the future has a kind of reality such that it makes no sense to speak of its regions originating with concrescence, This effect was obtained by quoting Whitehead (PR 103) to the effect that «the extensive continuum... underlies the whole world, past, present, and future....

Makes much more sense to believe a book written 1850 years ago by a bunch of goat herders that thought the world was flat and didn't even have the sense not to use their drinking water as the toilet.

All this, finding focus in the event of Jesus Christ, has been made part of God in his «consequent aspect» — that is to say, in the concrete sense of God as One who is affected by that which has taken place in the world where he is ceaselessly at work.

The way in which we can make sense of it is by seeing that the two are inseparably related but that inevitably (in a world like ours) there will be diversity: «diversity of gifts but the same spirit.»

God made humanity the depository of the relationship of difference instituted by the word: men and women will establish in the world the law of their own word, and the text [of Genesis] shows how in this sense they are born of God.

But the phenomenological description offered makes it clear that presentational immediacy is consequent upon a particular type of bodily amplification and selection of sense data derived from the stream of consciousness comprising the immediate past actual world, further abstracted and focused in the human situation through selective conscious attention to some, but not all, of the features of the immediate external world recorded and amplified by the body.

So, it makes sense that in next song, «Time of the Season,» we leave the couple - love world of Odessey and Oracle, the world briefly made nauseatingly sunny by «Friends of Mine,» and explore (after darkening the lights) the idea of love / sex detached from permanent coupling.

All we really have to go by is our experiences and how we make sense of the world, after that we have mere speculation.

These include the respect in which they are held in the community, the genuine appreciation they receive for work well done, the privilege of being invited to be with persons in their brightest and darkest hours, the satisfaction of communicating ideas that are important, the security of being surrounded by people who have affection for them, and the deep sense of well - being that comes from self - investment in significant work which helps lighten the load of humanity and makes for a better world.

Although my thinking is inspired by the seminal work Practical Theology: The Emerging Field in Theology, Church, and World, edited by Don Browning (Harper & Row, 1983), my thoughts essentially are an attempt to make sense of what I do, and thereby add one more opinion to the important effort to reform and renew theological education.

Even though the image of God's humility is paradoxical to human reason, we may be enabled by it to make much more sense of our world than we could without it.

On the contrary, I should claim, what I have been saying is metaphysical in the second sense of the word which I proposed in an earlier chapter; it is the making of wide generalizations on the basis of experience, with a reference back to verify or «check» the generalizations, a reference which includes not only the specific experience from which it started but also other experiences, both human and more general, by which its validity may be tested — and the result is not some grand scheme which claims to encompass everything in its sweep, but a vision of reality which to the one who sees in this way appears a satisfactory, but by no means complete, picture of how things actually and concretely go in the world.

Nor was escape possible by making them mere thoughts in mind, since this would sacrifice the reality of the objects thought, an objective reality not to be accounted for by the ever - changing sense world.

In turn, this wondering precipitates a «crisis of explanation,» wherein reasons must be given for maintaining or reordering our concepts, the means by which we make sense of our world and ourselves.

Indeed, even as early as this writing, he acknowledges his uncertainty about the answer to the question of whether the events grasped by the theoretical language of mathematics can be sufficient «to «explain our sensations» (IM 33), or whether the mathematically formulated theory is even in a position to make an adequate reconstruction of other, unrelinquishable references to the world (such as sense perception).

Absolutely, it does make sense to at least 6 billion people on earth including but not limited to professionals and the elite such as Doctors, Scientists, Juries, Judges, Magistrates, Politicians, even by the person who holds the highest position of the most powerful country of the world.

Although Hasker concludes this argument by pointing out that for it too «it is God who is responsible for the existence of creatures who have the freedom and power to bring about great evils,» I had explicitly said that «God is responsible for [the distinctively human forms of evil on our planet] in the sense of having encouraged the world in the direction that made these evils possible» (Process 75; cf. God 308 - 09).

But it is precisely not «this stone» which, as a simple event» or a «simple object,» makes possible this individual sense certainty and the communication of truth which is built upon this certainty; rather, it is the structure of the world «embodied» by the stone which performs this task.

It is unfortunate that a country of this stature, who rules the world, from the skies like a god, and lacks comprehensive leadership to deal with these pressing issues... where are the Presidents akin to our late leaders that took the initiative and got things done, America has become a cold, hostile place to live, We lack the sense of unity that made us what we are... There are hundreds of thousand unemployed, Why can't the government promote an agency akin to the peace corps, that utilizes the young folks sitting on their a $ $ and make them earn their unemployment check by working in this storm zone, to rehabilitate and get these folks back on their feet... it would promote a culture of selflessness and charity and would without a question cause a paradigm shift in the minds of our youth, This is what makes a nation great!

Can you imagine God's creation of the world as a sort of book set in type by the printer; everything is in the right place and makes good sense when one reads it; and then while the typesetter is gone, a scoundrel confuses the type.

In other news, our team seems to be rounding nicely into form, with a productive off - season and several new additions already settling in, there seems to be a renewed sense of confidence in the air... our well - oiled machine has conducted business again early this year, so we can just sit back, kick our feet up and watch all those other suckers scramble to make panic moves in the 11th hour... of course, we need to tie up a few loose ends but our team of savvy negotiators, under the tutelage of our faithful leader, will perform their usual magic with ample time to spare... I have to laugh when I look around the soccer world and see all those teams look upon us with envy and scorn as they struggle to mimic our seemingly infallible business model... thank goodness the powers that be had the foresight and fortitude to resist the temptations of the modern football era... instead of listening to all the experts and simply taking the easy way out by making the necessary improvements on the field and in the front office, we chose the path never traveled... we are truly pioneers in our field... sometimes you just have to have faith in the people that have always conducted themselves in a respectful and honest fashion... most fans aren't so fortunate, they will never know what it's like to follow a team that treats everyone in and around the club as if they were an extended member of the family... all for one I say... so when you wake up this morning, please try not to gloat when you see rival fans pacing back and forth waiting for their respective teams to pull the usual panic buys, just say nothing and be thankful that it isn't you... like I've always said, this is why you stay the course... this is when the real benefits of having someone in charge for over 2 decades really pays off... have a great day fellow Gunners

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits

Although it will be incredibly difficult to ever match his contributions on the pitch, it's vitally important for a former club legend, like Henry, to publicly address his concerns regarding the direction of this club... regardless of those who still feel that Henry has some sort of agenda due to the backlash he received following earlier comments he made on air regarding Arsenal, he has an intimate understanding of the game, he knows the fans are being hosed and he feels some sense of obligation, both professionally and personally, to tell it like he sees it... much like I've continually expressed over the last couple months, this team isn't evolving under this current ownership / management team... instead we are currently experiencing a «stagnant» phase in our club's storied history... a fact that can't be hidden by simply changing the formation or bringing in one or two individuals... this team needs fundamental change in the way it conducts business both on and off the pitch or it will continue to slowly devolve into a second tier club... regardless of the euphoria surrounding our escape act on Friday evening, as it stands, this club is more likely to be fighting for a Europa League spot for the foreseeable future than a top 4 finish... we can't hope for the failures of others to secure our place in the top 4, we need to be the manufacturers of our own success by doing whatever is necessary to evolve as an organization... if Wenger, Gazidis and Kroenke can't take the necessary steps following the debacle they manufactured last season, their removal is imperative for our future success... unfortunately, I strongly believe that either they don't know how to proceed in the present economic climate or they are unwilling to do whatever it takes to turn this ship around... just look at the current state of our squad, none of our world class players are under contract beyond this season, we have a ridiculous wage bill considering the results, we can't sell our deadwood because we've mismanaged our personnel decisions and contractual obligations, we haven't properly cultivated our younger talent and we might have become one of the worst clubs ever when it comes to way we handle our transfer business, which under Dein was one of our greatest assets... it's time to get things right!!!

This is because arguments are increasingly decided by ethos rather than logos, and while logos isn't the only way of making sense of the world, there's a high cost to its deposition.

Basing her approach in attachment theory and the groundbreaking work of Dr. Gordon Neufeld, Deborah MacNamara has written as essential primer on how to be a parent by making sense of the inner world of children.

Maintaining open communication by explaining the who, what, why and where of daily situations, will help the child make sense of the world.

Preschoolers naturally want to sort things by color, shape, and size, and when you are watching your child play, you will see this tendency in action as they try and make sense of the world around them.

If play is the primary means by which children view and make sense of their world, then it follows that play should be beneficial in understanding and processing emotional pain and hindrances (Sweeney, 1997).

Researchers have identified a powerful human motive that has not been adequately appreciated by social and behavioral scientists: the drive to make sense of our lives and the world around us.

How can today's education prepare them to make sense of how the world works; to think critically and independently; and to lead interesting, responsible, and productive lives in a culture increasingly shaped by science and technology?

And I mean it made sense vaguely at least to me that you could dream things and they could come that you could dream things and that it happened on the other side of the world and they would turn out to have been true or [that you] could predict the future in some way by some mysterious means.

Niels Bohr who took the opposite side of that argument said, «No, no, the quantum theory is fine; your problem is that you're trying to make sense of the world in some sort of classical terms, and you can't do that by looking through the lens of quantum physics.»

«These studies, combined with others on auditory scene analysis, help us to understand more about how we are able to make sense of the noisy world by picking out what is important and ignoring the rest.»

The finding of miRNAs in organisms as simple as Chlamy makes sense, Stern says, as «much of biology turns out to be run by the RNA world.»

This piece you are currently reading is going to bounce around a little bit to make sense of everything we must focus on here, so we will break it down by first looking at the laws in North America (United States, Canada and Mexico), then we will take a quick peek into how the laws work in other countries around the world.

Which makes some sense within the Buddhist framework — it is, after all, only by eliminating the confining walls of the self that the enlightened are able to open themselves up and experience the world in a pure and true manner.

Similarly, whereas Marsh paid exquisite homage to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by never explicitly invoking them, Zemeckis turns «The Walk» into a revisionist celebration of restoration, sentimentalizing (and probably exaggerating) Petit's role in making New Yorkers fall in love with the World Trade Center, and ending on a note that, while undeniably bittersweet, still manages to convey a reassuring sense of optimism.

But there's absolutely nothing here so strange that it impedes the viewer's enjoyment; Shyamalan does a superb job of establishing this world and its inhabitants, as well as the rules that clearly govern their actions (eg nobody is terribly surprised by Story's presence, which does make sense within the context of the film).

While the first two films skirted by on charm and sheer energy, «At World's End» clunks through three hours of excessive characterization and exposition — and none of it makes any sense.

Amazingly, there seems to be even less of that than before, as the screenplay is packed with things that simply don't make any sense, even in a world populated by cars.