Edexcel A2 Philosophy of Religion & Ethics June 2012

I think that was the question paper for the old specification, i remember someone on here saying that for unit 3 they only did a january exam once which was for the last people doing a resit for the old spec.

By atheism, do you mean like a whole topic on atheism such as religious language is a whole topic or are you referring to the 'discuss the implications of this view for atheism?' which came up in 2009?

For the two types of religious language question I did it in class and contrasted Symbol/Myth with Analogy, is that not right then? Which ones are cognitive and which are non-cognitive?

Stressed is not the word!!!

Edit- Am I right in thinking there is only two past papers on the edexcel site for our spec? June 2011 and June 2010? For some reason june 09 isn't on there.

Also today I did the June 2010 paper and the question about the strengths/weaknesses for using religious experience as evidence for God. I wrote about:
Inductive argument.. link to swinburne and his principles etc.
Cumulative argument.
and how these offer strengths basically.
then my weaknesses were just critiques of REs e.g Dawkins and Freud? but I wasn't really sure if this was right?

I'm really hoping for a straightforward Deontology question, then something like the language question in June 2010 (pick two and analyse) and basically not the june 2010 experience question!!

I would agree with you, but it is worth noting that they are supposed to mark AO1 & 2 material regardless of whether its in part i or ii. From experience with Foundations it's definitely better not to mix tho.

Yeah i personally wouldn't evaluate in part (i) unless they ask for it, e.g, the question may ask you to write about an argument and its strengths and weaknesses.

I remember last year in my essays, i would evaluate, and my teacher who is also an examiner said it was not needed, and you only need to do it in part (ii). Also i remember reading in the back of my AS textbook, it had tips on how to answer the questions and it said that you don't gain any more marks for repeating material that you used in part (i) in your part (ii), so i take it that rule applies for the A2 course aswell.

Here's the mark scheme to last years paper that you might want to have a look at, and they want you to write in detail and be 'descriptive' in your part (i), and evaluate in yuor part (ii)
http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocuments/QP%20GCE%20Curriculum%202000/June%202011%20-%20MS/6RS03_01_rms_20110817.pdf

1) Anselm's starting premise (definition of God as 'that than which . . .') could be true and accepted by both the believer and atheist.
2) Since the arguments are deductive if the premises could be accepted then the conclusion must be true.

What do you mean by the reformulations?

Phoned Edexcel to enquire about athiesm in the part 1. The guy was pretty brief, but I asked him if it could come up as a separate question etc. because different people have said different things. He replied that if it's on the specification as a separate point then it could.
Also, in terms of Myth and Symbol, in the specification they are one topic, so they will never come up separately. And, the specific block for religious language says: "Note that over a cycle of a few years all these topics will be examined."
That being true, so far from June 2010, Myth and Symbol, Language Games, Analogy, and then two types of religious language (cognitive and non-cognitive?) have come up, so it could be possible that verificationism/falsificationism will come up, as long as they aren't total asswipes.
I myself am doing Ontological, Religious Language and Justice, Law and punishment. Starting to worry about whether Atheism will come up though!

A whole topic. Lame I know.

Sorry I'm a bit confused, when you said there are two types of religious language why would you say cognitive and non cognitive?
I would interpret it to mean like analogy, myth, symbol ect?

For the religious experience question in part (i) do people think its best to talk about the types of religious experiences like conversion, revelatory ect or the arguments for it instead like swinburne and cumulative argument? But then what are you left to talk about for the evaluation in part (ii)!?

Analogy, myth and symbol are examples of non-cognitive language I think.

In (i), I plan to write a definition, the nature of the argument, differenty types, philosopher's interpretations such as swinburne's types, hard position, soft positions, issues and solutions (principles of testimony/credulity).

In (ii), I plan to write why RE aren't normally accepted as a proof e..g subjective and other explanations are available and then develop this with wittgensteins theory of seeing-as, vicious circle challenge, caroline frank-davies' challenges, psychological challenge and then conclude with how it is a cumulative argument but people find RE too subject thus hick's idea of eschatological verification is a good place to settle it.

Part one is description and part two is evaluation.
I hope this helps

Ah right I see, but then what is cognitive religious language?

The verification principle because verificationists believe "if a statement is not conclusively verfied, it cannot be verified at all. It is simply devoid of any meaning."