Sentences with phrase «way of understanding nature»

«It's different from getting lost in the anger, it's a way of understanding the nature of anger, it's taking a look at and exploring things in the body.»

Or is there some third way of understanding nature that is both global and local?

Note, first, that all of Whitehead's philosophical books are intended to express one and the same system of thought, one and the same way of understanding the nature of things.

However, beyond this level of conviction, life in a community also produces a primary perspective, a basic way of understanding the nature of things, a fundamental vision of reality.

The relation between Christian faith and the scientific way of understanding nature involves many complex and unresolved issues, but the plain fact is that scientific understanding had to grow largely under secular auspices, with too little encouragement and understanding from the religious tradition.

These beautiful STEM videos explore biodiversity and ways of understanding nature.

Not exact matches

In my September 1 blog entry I argued that economists typically focus on managing the asset side of the balance sheet, and almost never on the liability side, because they implicitly understand both the extent and the nature of economic growth to be almost wholly a function of the ways in which assets are managed.

«The truly great advances in our understanding of nature originated in a way almost diametrically opposed to induction.

This statement should continue to foster a better understanding, both in Australia and overseas, of the nature of the relationship between the Reserve Bank and the Government, the objectives of monetary policy, the mechanisms for ensuring transparency and accountability in the way policy is conducted, and the independence of the Reserve Bank.

It hasn't fundamentally changed the way think about financial system stability, though we now have a deeper understanding of the nature of the risks and the potential channels of contagion.

They arrange the elements of Christian faith differently and, as a result, use and understand the nature and purpose of the Scripture in significantly differing ways.

People often can not understand the question of human nature because their way of understanding it is framed (whether they know it or not) by the ideas of positivist empiricism.

I should answer that such an understanding of the way in which the compilation of the gospel narratives took place, and also of the nature of the material which they contain, delivers us in our preaching of the kerygma from much that was troublesome and confusing to an earlier generation.

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.

Irenaeus championed this understanding explicitly: «The Father of all» [47] is no less than «He who is impassible» (Against Heresies, 2.12.1).30 For Clement of Alexandria, this is true both for the nature of God (Stromata, 2.16) and for the highest achievable good of those who would truly embody the divine image: «Endurance also itself forces its way to the divine likeness, reaping as its fruit impassibility» (2.20).

I have often thought, particularly when working in the diocesan marriage tribunal, that our acknowledgement of the fact of Original Sin gives us such a head start when it comes to understanding human nature, and why people act the way they do.

That is why the effort to understand God Christianly, which must in the nature of the case proceed indirectly, might best proceed indirectly by way of study of the Christian thing in and as Christian congregations.

It is surely possible to think that Whitehead's understanding of the consequent nature of God or the kingdom of heaven is implicitly if partially grounded in a genuine eschatology, and is so because it apprehends a transmutation of evil into good by way of a cosmic and universal process.

One possibility is that we are simply using this current language to speak of the importance of the church's developing its doctrine of nature more fully and in ways appropriate to our new understanding of the relation between human beings and the natural world.

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.

A developed argument about American exceptionalism and the nature of the American Founding would take us a long way toward understanding why we don't want religion to be pushed from the shared mainstream over to one side's shore.

In contrast to the foregoing, our contention will be that the «natures» of God can better be understood, not as distinguishable parts, but as ways of indicating various interdependent modes of functioning by the whole actual entity, God.

I understand the new work on ecclesiology and ethics which the World Council of Churches has launched to be a way to find new ethical principles to interpret the very nature and being of the Church.

Yet much can be done in the way of making clear the understanding of man's spiritual nature, his high destiny which points beyond this life for its fulfillment, the meaning of the Kingdom for this life and the next, the Christian concepts of judgment and salvation with eternity in their span — in short, the goodness and power of a God who, having given us this life, can give us another in which to attain to his nearer presence, enjoy a richer happiness, and do his will more perfectly.

My personal view is that man invented these religions as it was the only way to understand the mystery of nature.

I think that most of this is baby talk, a way for the infant human race to understand his own nature.

Then you truly do not understand the true nature of God... He saw that none of us would be good enough to attain heaven (except little children who die at an early age) so He sent the only One who had never sinned, who even though he sweated blood and asked if there was any other way, but ultimately said,» not my will but Yours,» paid our way into Heaven.

For John Paul, socialism turned out the way it did — anti-growth, anti-human, and anti-worker — because it was based on a false understanding of human nature.

This perspective distorts the principle of the sacredness of life to a point where it threatens life itself, for it does not understand that one species supporting or being supported by another is nature's way of sustaining life.

They help to define the nature of evangelicalism's theological impasse in a way that the average Christian churchgoer who reflects on the faith can understand.

Before that Axial Period, each ethnic group had evolved its own culture and language, with its own distinctive way of understanding the world and worshipping the forces of nature.

To understand the nature of suffering from the ancient, medieval and Reformation perspectives may help us to stop fearing pain and affliction the way we do.

(By the way, I prefer to refer to this view as «the open view of the future,» since the most distinctive aspect of Open Theism is not its understanding of the nature of God, but its understanding of the nature of the future).

In proposing a way forward, the study rejects the primacy of place that is given to the therapeutic mentality because it fails to appreciate the role that religious devotion and faith play in the moral life of the priest, and has no proper understanding of human nature, original sin and free will.

He states, consistently with his Kantian commitments, that «nature itself can not become the principle of a new way of action without some kind of mediation, without some permeation of nature through society and anthropology».18 This allows him to keep his concerns fully within the political arena, narrowly understood.

The book begins with the person's graced nature - indeed «grace is somehow constitutive of human nature» and the way to come to an explicit understanding of this grace is through narration, through «telling the story».

«Holloway suggests that the concept of environment is a helpful way in which to preserve the relevance of the subject without losing its realistic objectivity because a subject is inherently related to its environment whilst at the same time distinct from it... We would propose it as a sort of medium between... (the fairly uncritical) adoption of the post-modern subject and... «scholastic rationalism»... If then we further understand the human person as being within a personal environment, that of the living God... We can affrm that human nature is intrinsically ordered to God» (page 4).

Whereas Feuerbach understood the consciousness of God as man's consciousness of himself, Marx investigates the nature of the man who can develop the self - consciousness only in an alienated way.

In framing the relationship between nature and mind in this way we can, claims Hegel, arrive at an understanding of the place of nature in the general scheme of things, which at the same time leaves nature as it is.

It would be to do for the modern era what Aristotle succeeded in doing for an earlier age — it would be to find a way, given the modern world's understanding of nature, to do justice to human being as a part of nature so understood.

By approaching the question of mind and nature in this way Whitehead is able to provide us with an aesthetically rich understanding of nature, which at the same time preserves a necessary role for reason and the search for truth as an indispensable element in the determination of conscious experience, the enhancement of our aesthetic sensibilities, and the general advancement of civilization as such.

I've thougth about this before and the best way I can understand it form having read about it is that on the cross it feels like God has forsaken Jesus and in his humanity that is what he says because of the ovewheming nature of the suffereing.

This book is in many ways a description of my own journey to understand the comprehensive nature and dangerous consequences of low - intensity conflict.

It therefore belongs in its own way to the factors without which ontology and the nature of the mind and its activity can not be understood at all.

The major consideration must be the nature of the self, but briefly we understand the whole person in the following way.

Is it not possible to understand the nature of sin in a way that avoids these pitfalls?

Third, since God is not the great exception, metaphysically speaking, but is himself «the supreme exemplification» of the principles which actually and concretely operate in the world, a study of how the world goes will be the best way in which we can come to understand the nature of the divine activity itself.

If the Trinity is not to be understood tritheistically, the generation of the Logos from the Father is God's self - expression, whereby God's nature is articulated in ways at least partially accessible to discursive reason.

Speaking of Jesus in this way may seem to make him merely one of many great men, exceptional but not superhuman, not the divine being he is believed by Christians to be; but however his person and nature are understood, I for one can not believe that even in him God acted in any way inconsistent with the same natural laws and operations by which he works today.

When we do this, we can assume that whatever appears inconsistent with the nature and character of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Gospels, comes not from God but from agents who oppose the will and ways of God, or from those who simply do not understand what God is truly like.