Sentences with phrase «nature of reality as»

There's an image for that fundamental reality of change: the dragon, which is the embodiment of the dynamic energy that drives the cosmos, that generative nature of reality as a tissue of transformation.

The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured.

It may be also that such churches have grasped the new nature of reality as it has been created in our subconscious by television and the other mass media.

And even more recently Whitehead has emphasized the dynamic, processive nature both of reality as a whole and also of its constituent elements.

To live in nondual harmony is to embrace the nature of all reality as 1) impermanent, 2) not existing as separate, and 3) interdependent.

Whitehead fundamentally views the nature of reality as a creative advance into novelty.

This is the view of the Trinity as immanent, the way in which God embodies the very nature of reality as relational or communal.

Thus, as we shall see in more detail later, James's theory as a whole did make the extension into considerations of the nature of reality as a whole.

Not exact matches

In reality, although Trump's regulations added some new restrictions, they didn't materially alter the nature of travel to Cuba as outlined by the previous administration.

This joint proclamation of certain truths about the nature of the human person and human community as created historical realities can not be accomplished, however, in a didactic way.

Recreation (literally, re-creation) reflects the order of creation, participating in the nature and order of reality as given by God.

Assuming it was Christianity, it ameliorated many of the harsh realities of human existence, such as your own death, the death of a loved one, injustice, feelings of being at the mercy of the forces of nature, and so on, gave you answers to questions about life, and so on.

On the other hand, political theologians are sometimes prone to the opposite danger, so historicizing their conceptualization of reality that nature comes to be treated, as it generally was in 19th century continental Protestant thought and on into the 20th century, as a mere stage for history.

The black community in America has confronted the reality of the historical situation as immutable, impenetrable, but this experience has not produced passivity; it has, rather, found expression as forms of the involuntary and transformative nature of the religious consciousness.

One understanding of human nature common to the modern era sees man as standing both above and outside nature (after Descartes, as a sort disembodied rational being), and nature itself as raw material — sometimes more pliable, sometimes less — for furthering human ambition (an instrumentalist post — Francis Bacon view of nature as a reality not simply to be understood but to be «conquered» and used to satisfy human desires).

The distinction between the two natures of God does not depend upon any of the intricacies of Whitehead's metaphysics as developed in Process and Reality and may well antedate it.

But if, as the doctrine of the Catholic Church has it, human nature is wounded but not totally corrupt, then these human realities of reason, affection and sexuality, while they are affected by the wound in our nature and so must be redeemed, remain essentially good.

Or, as the French Neo-Thomist Jacques Maritain put it nearly a decade later, «There is nothing more illusory than to pose the problem of the person and the common good in terms of opposition,» for in reality, it is «in the nature of things that man, as part of society, should be ordained to the common good.»

But he may not then turn around and demand that the rest of us, unrestricted by his methodological self - limitation, ignore obvious truths about reality, such as the clearly teleological nature of evolution.

Gratitude to God requires that we live not by evading the real nature of existence, not by denying the violent character of nature and history, but by facing reality as best we can, finally affirming the whole of life in all its sorrow and pain as a great gift.

They're showing you why your religion is wrong, which can be subjectively shown to be inaccurate, silly and not consistent with reality and the nature of the universe as we know it today.

Sigurd Daecke finds anthropocentrism to be deeply embedded in Protestant theologies of creation reaching back to Luther («I believe that God has created me») and Calvin (nature is the stage for salvation history) and finding a twentieth - century home in the humanistic individualism of Bultmann as well as the Christocentrism of Barth («the reality of creation is known in Jesus Christ»)(see Daecke).

They knew that suffering suffuses nature, just as they knew the harsh realities of defeat and captivity.

Theologians of nature, who take the evolutionary reality of the world seriously, also find it attractive as a noninterventionist way of speaking of God's agency in history and nature.

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.»

Using human experience as a model to depict the nature of reality, Whitehead argues that every actuality (i.e., every actual event) has both a present subjective immediacy and a past objectivity.

Various promissory notes are given (PR 32 / 47), such as the sole explicit discussion of «the «superjective» nature of God» (PR 88 / 135; but see PS 3:228 f), and the famous «fourth phase» of the last two pages of Process and Reality, which proposes a «particular providence for particular occasions.»

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.

To cite just one example, it is difficult to see how this synthesis, relying as it does upon a basically Aristotelian concept of nature or form as a static unchanging reality, can accommodate the discoveries of modern science.

For him it was better to have a minimum of realities that ennoble the nature of a thing than to multiply realities when they are not necessary and do not ennoble nature — or as we might say today «keep it simple» and elegant!

God in His will through history had into reality seemingly illogical or cruel events to happen in our world, but no one is spared if the purpose is for the good of humanity, wars pestilence even the holocust has a reason and purpose beyond our comprehension at our times but will be reveald in the future, The Phillipine catasthrophy for example is viewed by some as Gods punishment, we experienced the brunt of natures punishing power but it also unveiled the true feelings and concern of the whole world in helping us materially and spiiritually by aiding and consoling us that was unprecedented in history, The whole world had demostrated, to me, a kind of humanitarian concern and love that trancends races and culture, A kind of demonstration by higher being the we humans is one with Him.The cost of human lives and misery is nothing in history compared to its positve historical consequences

With the philosophy of Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650), the nature of reality was no longer seen as writ large over the universe only to be discovered by the exercise of reason but rather was what the human mind perceived, interpreted, made it to be («Cogito, ergo sum.

It can not deal with the paradoxical nature of presently evolving realities but must freeze them, as it were, in order to make sense out of them.

And this at once gave assurance of a wholly rational interpretation of its processes and the growing conviction that mechanism and materialism as a final reading of the nature of reality were indisputable.

It usually refers to the real substance or essential nature of something (though what those terms precisely mean is a matter of philosophical discussion); so Hebrews 11:1 is more getting at faith as providing substance to a future we hope for — that their hope for the future, through faith, becomes a present reality to affect their actions.

Just as I can't possibly grasp the true nature of the reality of science, I've had to admit that I also can't possibly grasp the true nature of the divine, sacred, God, whatever you want to call it.

Indeed, the most recent study of them, by E. Jüngel in his Paulus und Jesus, claims that the Kingdom of God actually becomes a reality for the hearer of the parables in the parables themselves, which are, by their nature as parable, peculiarly well designed to manifest the reality of the Kingdom as parable (E. Jüngel, Paulus und Jesus [21964], pp. 135 - 74; cf. J.M. Robinson, Interpretation 18 [1964], 351 - 6.)

17 Linguistic analysis can not develop as a discipline by ignoring ontology, i.e., a reflection on the nature of reality.

If the appearances to the apostles were private manifestations, in the sense that a casual bystander would have seen nothing: if; that is to say, they were in the nature of visions rather than of bodily seeing, this does not imply that these men were not confronted with the Lord's presence as an external reality.

The problem for Nature, as he describes it in Process and Reality (Part II, Chapter III, Section VII) is to produce societies which can survive through time but which do not sacrifice all opportunity amongst their constituent actual occasions for what he called «intensity» of experience.

The movements Howell mentioned were all led by powerful personalities, but they also dealt with basic issues of Baptist identity and Christian faith: namely, the balance of Scripture and tradition as norms of belief and practice (Campbellism); the nature of the true church and its identity markers (Landmarkism); and the reality of divine grace in the plan of salvation (hyper «Calvinism).

But if we hold, as for example in Process and Reality, that all final individual actualities have the metaphysical character of occasions of experience, then on that hypothesis the direct evidence as to the connectedness of one's immediately present occasion of experience with one's immediately past occasions, can be validly used to suggest categories applying to the connectedness of all occasions in nature.

Charles W. Morris, in Six Theories of Mind, writes: «Whitehead's course of procedure is to give a comprehensive description of human experience and then to take this description as a key to the nature of reality» (quoted in 1:51).

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.

Hartshorne is willing to begin with the metaphysical reality of God and other selves (not just as a postulate, but as concrete existences), and then to use inference and imagination to provide an account of their nature and relations — an account which can he more or less adequate to its object, given the limitations of our form of consciousness.

«In those times, we knew about things that have become common today: the reality of abortion, of people who manifest homosexual tendencies, whose personal dignity we always respected, but we were formed to see these acts as absolutely unacceptable, against the nature that God had created for us.»

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.

By calling his own brand of naturalism «integral,» Artigas wishes to convey the notion that nature as understood by the natural sciences points beyond itself to a larger reality to which the natural owes its existence, a reality to which the methods of the natural sciences do not of themselves, however, give direct access.

A major difference, however, between Bergson's theory and James's notion of the stream of thought as outlined in his Psychology is a matter of stress: whereas James, in the Psychology, was hesitant in extending his conclusions beyond the flow of our experience itself, 1 Bergson was always concerned primarily with what is revealed in our experience about the nature of reality, and in particular the nature of time.

One way of viewing the religious crisis of our time is to see it not in the first instance as a challenge to the intellectual cogency of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, or other traditions, but as the gradual erosion, in an ever more complex and technological society, of the feeling of reciprocity with nature, organic interrelatedness with the human community, and sensitive attention to the processes of lived experience where the realities designated by religious symbols and assertions are actually to be found, if they are found at all.