Sentences with phrase «which ideas of nature»

In By Leafy Ways, artist Ivor Abrahams invites viewers into the strange world of the English suburban garden, in which ideas of nature and artifice are subtly opposed.

Not exact matches

Furthermore, the idea of self - existence is not merely inescapable but «rigorously inconceivable; and this holds true whatever be the nature of the object of which it is predicated».

Atheist reject the idea of a god and believe their view to be true or they would be agnostic unless they choose no stance at all of a god that of which would require unknowing of what the term «god» means so it would fall under a belief and since they can't prove that a god doesn't exist then by definition it requires faith for their view, meaning it would effect their view of the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe if a god was proven to be true.

He could categorically choose the way of antinomian libertinism (as did the Valentinians), in which case the pneumatic self acted as if it had «a positive injunction to perform every kind of action, with the idea of rendering to nature its own and thereby exhausting its powers.»

At the core of his system is the idea of the Unity - Law of Control and Direction which presents creation and salvation as the manifestation of a single, dynamic wisdom and purpose that shapes the fabric of every created nature.

Later the idea gained ground that we can not «speak of nature apart from human perception in the historical development of knowledge», that all knowledge is «a creative interaction between the known and the knower» and that therefore there is no System of scientific knowledge or of technology which does not have the subjective purposes and faith - presuppositions of humans built into it.

And the first idea that suggests itself to us is that the soul must be a centre of transformation at which, through all the channels of nature, corporeal energies come together in order to attain inwardness and be sublimated in beauty and in truth.

I am asking theologically about the relation of the ideas that seem now to constitute at least the beginning of a theology of nature to the ideas by which the church is accustomed to living.

They are secondary because historically and philosophically they have a different pedigree, being based upon a few preconceived ideas concerning the nature and processes of the universe, and of man, upon which the whole concatenation of objections hinge.

When, for example, at first in the 19th century down to Pius XII the Church adopted a very reserved attitude to any inclusion of the human bios in the idea of evolution, that was motivated, and rightly so, by a fundamental conception of the nature of man which for good reasons required to be defended.

In his idea of «dual transcendence,» which is later terminology for dipolarity, Hartshorne attempts to hold together the two aspects of his thought about the divine nature.

Study of Scripture through the filter of man's biases results in the type of man - centered ideas proferred by Baden, like «God learns to accept their inherently evil nature», and humans «are the only species that can give him what he wants — which, in the view of Genesis, is bloody, burned animal sacrifices», and «it is, rather, our job to make ourselves uncomfortable that he might be appeased.»

In the same spirit Santayana and Whitehead agree in objecting, like Nietzsche, to the idea that change in the natural world is controlled by «laws of nature,» viewing the laws rather as simply descriptions of what each unit to which they apply «decides» to do itself (RB 301 - 302).

It is this latter idea, that the nature of a particular thing consists wholly in the universals which it exemplifies (and therefore can not contain intrinsic reference to any other particular thing), which Whitehead sees as the ground for taking solipsism seriously.

However, it is possible to obtain some idea of the process from the nature of the Christian instruction impaired by the missionaries, the people involved, and the way in which Pulayas responded to particular aspects of Christian teaching.

After 1936, he no longer works at the elaboration of a metaphysical theory, confining to the second question: what is the nature of the way in which we know a priori ideas?

Thus it conceives the world of nature as something derived from and dependent upon something logical prior to itself, a world of immaterial ideas; but this is not a mental world or a world of mental activities or of things depending on mental activity although it is an intelligible world or a world in which mind, when mind comes into existence, finds itself completely at home.

I once cite «Realism and Idealism,» the passage about objective idealism in which Collingwood clearly states his conception of the world of nature: «Thus it conceives the world of nature as something derived from and dependent upon something logical prior to itself, a world of immaterial ideas; but this is not a mental world or a world of mental activities or of things depending on mental activity although it is an intelligible world or a world in which mind, when mind comes into existence, finds itself completely at home.

The first results of these metaphysical inquiries can be found in the five books of the manuscript «Notes towards a Metaphysic» (written from September 1933 till May 1934), in which he makes an endeavor to construct a cosmological - metaphysical system of his own, 5 following the example of Whitehead's and Alexander's description of reality as a process, but based on his method elaborated in An Essay on Philosophical Method, 6 and in «Sketch of a Cosmological Theory,» the first (never published) cosmology conclusion to The Idea of Nature.

Also in the face of the ecological disaster created by the modern ideas of total separation of humans from nature and of the unlimited technological exploitation of nature, it is proper for primal vision to demand, not an undifferentiated unity of God, humanity and nature or to go back to the traditional worship of nature - spirits, but to seek a spiritual framework of unity in which differentiation may go along with a relation of responsible participatory interaction between them, enabling the development of human community in accordance with the Divine purpose and with reverence for the community of life on earth and in harmony with nature's cycles to sustain and renew all life continuously.

Pietism in Wurttemberg took a politically passive turn because it was largely tolerated by the state church, which was somewhat independent of the king and capable through the involvement of the aristocracy of incorporating new ideas about the nature of the polity.

«35 We can not but hear the echo of this metaphysical theory in the final words of The Idea of Nature, in which Collingwood maps the distinction of two kinds of science (natural science versus history):

What emerged was a deistic philosophy in which the ideas of sin and God receded in favor of new social control mechanisms provided by law and legitimated by conceptions of the lawfulness of nature.

The real distinction between some philosophical ideas, which are nonbiblical in their implications, and the scriptural picture is exactly what I urged above: that between history read in terms of nature and nature read in terms of history.

Kaplan's idea of creativity, which can not be accounted for by the so - called laws of nature, echoes Whitehead's metaphysical concept of creativity, the nisus toward the endless production of new syntheses.

It first displaced the idea of a natural order to which humanity is subject and thereafter the very notion of human nature itself.

Aristotle, the scholastics, and Kant converted Plato's idea to inner substance and then into the secret noumenon, the inner heart which can only offer clues of its nature to the groping senses of inquirers who are by definition permanent outsiders.

Not just a tentative, relativistic ponderance on the nature of the divine but an actual, concrete, valid (logically, if perhaps not true) idea in which he has faith.

If change really involves self - transcendence even, in certain circumstances, to a new essence, even though only in virtue of the dynamism of absolute Being, which of course does not, let it be repeated, alter the fact that it is a question of self - transcendence; if matter and spirit are not simply disparate in nature but matter is in a certain way «solidified» spirit, the only significance of which is to serve to make actual spirit possible, then an evolutionary development of matter towards spirit is not an inconceivable idea.15 If there exists at all by virtue of the motion of absolute Being, a change in the material order whereby this rises above itself, then this self - transcendence can only occur in the direction of spirit, because the absolute Being is spirit.

Niebuhr's antipathy toward any form of inherited sin reflected his fear that it would mitigate responsibility; hence he writes: «the theory of an inherited second nature is as clearly destructive of the idea of responsibility for sin as rationalistic and dualistic theories which attribute human evil to the inertia of nature» (NDM 262).

Foster quotes two passages from the writings of Francis Bacon, which show how the idea of an all - powerful God allowed a transition from a concept of imperfectly realised forms, to one of forms which are open to scientific description and effectively given in nature (ibid.

«It is the Christian faith which, by setting the notion of the infinite being and our relationship with him at the centre of the whole revealed idea of God, makes us understand our nature, our destiny, the nature of the material world, of morality, and of the history of mankind.»

This world of ours is a new world, in which the unity of knowledge, the nature of human communities, the order of society, the order of ideas, the very notions of society and culture have changed and will not return to what they have been in the past.

In this view, when the primitive idea of God, which was based on the personification of powers of nature, vanishes gradually behind the infinitude of the causal sequence, the concept of God gains in coherence and consistency in proportion as it achieves a firm position in connection with the claims and needs of the human spirit, and becomes the «irreducible coefficient of the achievement of moral processes in self - consciousness.»

It involves, not belief in the sense of personal opinions, but rather a set of actions (saying certain things, going to services, doing good works, etc.) that can be done in the absence of belief — indeed the nature of a wager makes it such that you fully admit you don't know, which is actually an agnostic atti.tude toward the idea of God's existence.

Thus truly understood, the idea of revelation is perhaps less difficult to assimilate than it would otherwise be; but, even so, the view that it has occurred in a special and supreme sense in a particular set of historical occurrences involves the acceptance of discontinuities within nature and history which we find it next to impossible to contemplate.

a set of cosmological and anthropological views that owed not a little to the vast mélange of Hellenism and Orientalism flooding the world where he grew up, and providing him with the unique setting for still other ideas, of sin, Satan, death, of the sinful and therefore mortal nature of man — as «flesh» — of the «spiritual» forces arrayed against God and his Messiah and all the faithful, of the victory to be won by the Messiah when he should at last appear — all these ideas were shaped to the mold of certain half - Jewish, half - pagan ideas which Paul seems to have derived from the world about him.

In September, Time magazine organized a debate between Collins and Dawkins which touched on all the crucial issues: the false idea that science and faith should be held as not overlapping; the place of Darwinian evolution in the plan of God; the fine - tuning of the physical constants of nature; the literal interpretation of Genesis; the place of miracles including the incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus; and the origin of the moral law within the human heart.

The direct evidence consists of what Whitehead himself tells us, first, about how his books are meant to be read and understood, about the genesis of his ideas, and about modifications in his views; and second, about the nature of his thinking, about his difficulties in translating his thoughts into words, about the sources of his philosophical terminology, and about the peculiar manner in which he composed his books.

This paper will examine the arguments on each side, indicate what the societal view implies about the nature of God, and suggest an additional argument for the societal view based on the idea of God's freedom and faithfulness which this view implies.

«This world of ours is a new world,» wrote Robert Oppenheimer in 1963, «in which the unity of knowledge, the nature of human communities, the order of society, the order of ideas, the very notions of society and culture have changed and will not return to what they have been in the past» (Saturday Review of Literature, June 29, 1963, p. 11).

The «Law» part only applies to the mathematics of gravity's effects... not it's nature (which we still have no real idea about).

An essential element of Hall's novel vision of the future is the idea that once technology has been fully established as a self - governing, self - sustaining system, a sort of «automatic rationality» with which we need no longer concern ourselves, we will be free to turn away from «actions over against nature,» to turn our attention «inward» to the sort of «actions» which enhance the aesthetic value of experience.

Finally, the doctrine of divine omnipotence runs counter to the idea of the lawfulness of nature which arose with the development of the scientific outlook.

In his first book, entitled The Philosophy and Psychology of Sensation, Hartshorne announces his agreement with the Whiteheadian idea that the materials of all nature are events composed of aesthetic feeling,» claiming the additional support of modern physics for the contention; and he has never wavered in this conviction.17 Moreover, he also expounds in this work the further Whiteheadian notion, which he tirelessly repeats in his later works, that what the Constituent experiences or feelings of the universe experience are other experiences.

And I think some understanding of dualistic mythology, philosophy and psychology may help explain the caesura of which Stace is speaking and the divorce of mind from nature that gives Klemke's ideas their essential structure.

A first point seems to me to be this: to overcome [the] false idea of man's autonomy as an «I» complete in himself, whereas the «I» is fulfilled in the encounter with the «you» and «we»... It is fundamental to recover a true concept of Nature as the Creation of God that speaks to us... and also of Revelation: recognising that the book of Creation, in which God gives us our fundamental orientation, is deciphered in Revelation, which is endorsed in cultural and religious history, not without mistakes, but in a substantially valid manner, to be further developed and purified anew -LSB-... fostering] openness of the «I» to the «you», to the «we» and to the «You» of God.

He did not merely copy Democritus» physics, as was commonly thought, but introduced the idea of spontaneity into the movement of the atoms, and to the Democritus world of inanimate nature ruled by mechanical laws he added a world of animate nature in which the human will operated.9 Marx thus favours the views of Epicurus for two reasons: firstly, his emphasis on absolute autonomy of the human spirit has freed human beings from all superstitions of transcendent objects; secondly, the emphasis on «free individual self - consciousness» shows one way of going beyond the system of a «total philosophy».

The very cardinal nature of our faith is paradoxical — «Semper simul peccartor et justus» — we are simultaneously justified and sinner (Luther)-- but that truth must be expelled or certainly hushed when the construction of checks and balances which morally fence us from the bane of «the world» (dangerous ideas) become the goal for the «common good».

The implications of this idea for a theology of nature are not, of course, worked out in the New Testament itself, but, obscure as the thought - forms undoubtedly are to us, there does shine through them a conviction that the whole universe, could we but see it, is in its essential nature in harmony not merely with some unknown divine power but specifically with God as revealed in Jesus, and that therefore there must be some modus vivendi between humans and nature which, even if not yet attained, is in keeping with all that is best in both.