Sentences with phrase «whether human nature»

Depends whether human nature is using it to treat cancer or build nuclear bombs.

Not exact matches

It's a carpe diem mindset, which I believe is human nature regardless of whether one has emergency fund or not, especially if someone is in their late 30s and has some life experience.

To be sure, valid questions may be raised about whether Enlightenment justifications based on insecurity in the state of nature can truly ground human rights.

The philosophical significance of his own attitude to transgenderism seems lost on him: Transgenderism raises fundamental questions about the nature of the human person — indeed, about whether one can even speak in terms of human nature anymore in any universal, meaningful sense.

Unfortunately, humans seem to forget this fact when we find ourselves turning to nature to guide us through difficult choices, such as arguments about whether life begins at conception, or over the proper structure of the family.

Here's the penultimate paragraph: Unfortunately, humans seem to forget this fact when we find ourselves turning to nature to guide us through difficult choices, such as arguments about whether life begins at....

I am not a big fan of human nature, whether it be that of atheists, Hin dus Agn ostics or Christians.

Neuroscience, Psychology, and Religion: Illusions, Delusions, and Realities About Human Nature By Malcolm Jeeves and Warren S. Brown Templeton, 168 Pages, $ 17.95 There was a time when people worried whether God existed.

The March 12, 2015 issue of Nature magazine contains an essay — not an original thesis, rather a summation — by two English geographers entitled «Defining the Anthropocene,» the subject of which is whether (and starting when) human activity has so altered the global environment as to constitute a new geologic age: the Anthropocene Age, as successor to the 11,000 - year Holocene Epoch that is itself part of the larger 2.6 million year - old Quaternary Period (or Great Ice Age).

This essay focuses on the nature of self - interest, and that is a different question than whether self - interest is the only possible end of human action.

Senior German churchmen have made clear that they believe something different from what's in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, whether the issue is the nature of marriage, the ethics of human love, the character of the Holy Eucharist and the priesthood, the authority of revelation, or the enduring effects of baptism.

Thus, when we consider whether or not human beings are naturally religious, we need to reject the empiricist notion that we can read human nature off the surface of human behavior.

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.

Clearly, selective breeding can cause dramatic changes in a creature like a dog, so what does it matter whether it's humans doing the selecting of traits, or nature preferring certain traits based on suitability to survive?

i'm an avid believer in the power of the human mind to over come most problems whether they are man vs. nature, man vs. man or man vs. the supernatural... we can conquer most obsticules placed in our path.

The primary social question in regard to occupation is whether work is determined by the requirements of a sovereign economic mechanism or by deliberate social planning guided by an integral concept of human nature.

The supernatural element in human life, whether it comes to us through conscience as human beings or through the Spirit as believers, is not to be located externally in the world of nature and social institutions (as for Taylor and MacIntyre), nor internally (as for the Romantics), but in the interaction of the individual with his world.

But the Virgin Birth, like the Cross itself, confounds what we think we know; it confounds our belief that power, whether human power or the brute force of nature, prevails in the world.

If it is true, as Holloway argues, that the very foundations of matter and the identity of human nature are aligned upon the coming of the Word made flesh, then a society which is uncertain about the existence of God and whether Man has any meaning or purpose must be subject to crisis, alienation and chaos even more inevitably than CiV is able to show.

Calvin asked whether human beings have a natural knowledge of God (his answer was yes); whether they can arrange what they know from nature into an intelligible pattern known as natural theology (his answer was no); and whether redeemed — and only redeemed — human beings can construct a legitimate theology of nature by reclaiming nature as a useful source of the true knowledge of God (his answer was yes).

The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law - with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.

We hear so much, especially in the New Testament, of the inexhaustible riches and the unsearchable nature of the religious or mythical revelation, and that makes us ask whether it is not a hopeless task to try to define it in the concepts of science, which after all are only human.

One's relations to others also imply characteristic conceptions of human nature, whether or not they are consciously formulated.

Although this is not the place to discuss at greater length the nature of evil, human sin, suffering, death and the relationship between them, they must find mention here for they constitute the chief problems which continually confront man and make him question whether there is any justice or meaning to be found in life.

He assumed the whole of human nature, and now there is no humanity other than the one which Christ took on — our humanity, in which all human beings participate, whether or not they believe in Christ, whether or not they recognize the nature of their humanity.

With respect to the problem of power in relation to human sexual differentiation, I am not concerned to defend either traditional or modern versions of the roles of men and women, or to deny or affirm their distinctive natures, regardless of whether these differences are understood to be inherent or culturally derived.

While Paul's thought is by no means always clear, and perhaps from letter to letter not always exactly the same, it is nevertheless certain that his concept of resurrection can be clearly distinguished from that of the traditional «bodily resurrection».27 Paul does not speak in terms of the «same body» but rather in terms of a new body, whether it be a «spiritual body», 28 «the likeness of the heavenly man», 29 «a house not made by human hands, eternal and in heaven», 30 or, a «new body put on» over the old.31 In using various figures of speech to distinguish between the present body of flesh and blood and the future resurrection body, he seems to be thinking of both bodies as the externals which clothe the spirit and without which we should «find ourselves naked».32 But he freely confesses that the «earthly frame that houses us today ’33 may, like the seed, and man of dust, be destroyed, but the «heavenly habitation», which the believer longs to put on, is already waiting in the heavenly realm, for it is eternal by nature.

Whether this impulse is a trace of some particularly vicious strain humans inherited from simian ancestors or whether it is the worst blight of original sin, we seem to be stuck with it as a part of human Whether this impulse is a trace of some particularly vicious strain humans inherited from simian ancestors or whether it is the worst blight of original sin, we seem to be stuck with it as a part of human whether it is the worst blight of original sin, we seem to be stuck with it as a part of human nature.

But, he said, «the latter history of this culture is not so much a debate between these two schools of thought as a rebellion of romanticism, materialism and psychoanalytic psychology against the errors of rationalism, whether idealistic or naturalistic, in its interpretation of human nature.

The question of whether such structures exist and what they are is always an empirical question, but whatever they may be, in their transcendence of what man shares with the animal they may be thought of as part of human nature.

Such intimations of the divine, whether in nature, in personal human intercourse, or elsewhere, can be unmistakably genuine, wonderfully vivid, and inestimably significant, but we are mistaken if we suppose that the God of Christian faith could be known through these alone.

Religious humanism questions whether we can shed our human nature and escape the human condition to view reality from an extrahuman or superior perspective.

Whether we are Christians, Jews or Muslims by nature humans are self centered and very selfish.

It's rough out there in nature, whether in the wilds of a rain forest or an urban jungle, partly because the earth is jammed with devout human predators unlike all others: we not only kill for food, we kill each other along with the natural forces nourishing life on this planet.

Conversely, one who feels a strong bond with all other human beings usually has a sense of connection with nature and with all of life, whether or not it is expressed in conventional religious forms.

The fulfillment of personality is thus a form of communion, whether it be with the God a man worships; or with nature under some aspect; or through intimate communication with ideal things, the inexhaustible quality of beauty or truth that pervades the universe; or with some cause that calls into action all one's powers; or even with things of lesser significance so long as they satisfy the human craving for union.

We debate endlessly about Peace, Democracy, the Rights of Man, the conditions of racial and individual eugenics, the value and morality of scientific research pushed to the uttermost limit, and the true nature of the Kingdom of God; but here again, how can we fail to see that each of these inescapable questions has two aspects, and therefore two answers, according to whether we regard the human species as culminating in the individual or as pursuing a collective course towards higher levels of complexity and consciousness?

The central issue in the early debates between Fundamentalists and Modernists was on the question whether the gospel should emphasize as the essence of the gospel, deliverance of the humans from sinfulness or affirmation of the human vocation to creativity and cooperation with God in recreating nature and society according to the purpose of God.

Political correctness has many forms, but they are united in a shared repudiation of anything solid and substantial in public life, whether in the form of nationalism or strong affirmations of constraints that human nature places on any healthy society, constraints that get articulated by all forms of traditional morality.

Lynn Wbite, in raising the question of whether compassion should be extended to nature, says that scripture warrants any of three human attitudes to nature.

Whether we are teetering on the brink of a grand mistake, or quickening in our rush toward rock bottom, human nature knows all too well the feeling of loss of control.

As to whether intelligent alien life exists, certainly Holloway found that idea «thrilling» but there is already more than enough to consider concerning terrestrial life, its evolution and the nature of the human self to warrant its discussion here.

And in light of liberalism's faltering, we might ask whether Berlin's vision of autonomy really reflects what is essential to human nature.

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

But the more I studied Augustine, and began to cut my teeth on Aquinas, the more I wondered whether Christian theology could afford a metaphysically lean grammatical approach to truths about divine and human nature.

It is whether such accounts, revisable as they are, require changes in traditional theological interpretations of human «nature» and activity.

And out of this concern there has developed the question we have been discussing, whether nature itself, in its sub-human as well as in its human dimensions manifests any caring, providential influence.

Whether humans can transcend their animal nature and recognize this is another matter.

The results, slow or sudden, or great or small, of the combined optimism and expectancy, the regenerative phenomena which ensue on the abandonment of effort, remain firm facts of human nature, no matter whether we adopt a theistic, a pantheistic - idealistic, or a medical - materialistic view of their ultimate causal explanation.

In spite of the fact that Socrates studied with all diligence to acquire a knowledge of human nature and to understand himself, and in spite of the fame accorded him through the centuries as one who beyond all other men had an insight into the human heart, he has himself admitted that the reason for his shrinking from reflection upon the nature of such beings as Pegasus and the Gorgons was that he, the life - long student of human nature, had not yet been able to make up his mind whether he was a stranger monster than Typhon, or a creature of a gentler and simpler sort, partaking of something divine (Phaedrus, 229 E).