[sunny103]

Hi guys- Thought I would create this thread for everyone doing this exam.
How's revision going? Does anyone have any useful revision site etc?
Thanks

x

[Lizzie23]

I'm avoiding it right now! I hate this exam

[sunny103]

Me too, I have hardly done any revision.
Which topics are you going to do??

Does anyone have any notes on freewill and determinism?

[fishfan01]

Is this for OT!? Please say yes?

[DeterminedDreamer]

I've revised all of Religious Language, most of the Ontological Argument and I've re-started my revision on the Problem of Evil. Also why oh why does this one have to be first? Seriously I am never again going to need Philosophy of Religion, apart from the overall grade I get from A level Religious Studies.

[007dunlop]

Hey everyone - I'm doing this exam too, and not looking forward to it!! I have decided that I am only revising Body/Soul/Personal Identity & Problem of Evil, as it means I don't have to worry about revising the massive amout of content that all 4 of the topics demand.

This means I'll have to answer these 2 topic questions, no matter what they are. But my reasoning behind it is that if I've revised them to hell and back, I should be fine - right?

As for predicitions, of course I'm only predicting what will come up on the 2 topics I'm doing :P

I think for Body/Soul it will be something like 'Outline how different philosophers have understood the concept of the soul' with an evaluation of 'Evaluate how coherent life after death as a concept is' - because both of these questions have never come up.

For Problem of Evil, I'm guessing either Augustinian theodicy or process thought - both have never come up. Then for the evaluation, either an evaluation of the theodicy specified in the first question, or 'What do you think is the greater threat to the belief in God: natural or moral evil?'

Would be ace to hear what everyone else's predicitions/ideas are

[rhadow]

Agreed for Prob of evil - Process thought and Augustine's theodicy (independently) have not previously been used, with an evaluation question between natural and moral evil. For Onto argument, Descartes argument and the responses to the objections are possible questions.

[rhadow]

Possible questions:

A. Examine the logical and evidential problem of evil, with particular reference to moral evil.
B. "Moral evil presents the greatest challenge to belief in God". Evaluate this claim.

A. Explain how process thought responds to the presence of evil in the world.
B. How far is process thought successful as a response to the problem of evil?

[aislingh14]

It's all so annoying because there's no past examiners comments to study from /: am now doing last minute cramming & hoping I can bang out a high grade because the next exam is the harder one (I think?)

Ontological and problem of evil = fine. Religious Language can bugger off!

Any tips on revising?

[DeterminedDreamer]

My tips at this late stage are Past Paper Questions, as my history teacher would say, past questions are bound to be on the paper, only worded differently.

Anyway I have a feeling there's gonna be some good quesitons tomorrow morning (fingers crossed). I asked my teacher what might come up and he said he's not even playing that game.

Well let's see what comes up...

[sullivane]

Just wondered if anyone understood this question for body,soul and personal identity:

Is the notion of personal post mortem existence coherent?

Any help would be great

[LHaygen]

Our college doesn't teach Body, Soul and Personal Identity. We only do Problem of Evil, Religious Language and Ontological Argument. Really glad though far too much to revise I doubt I'll get an A like I did in AS :/. Anyone else nervous. Good luck everyone

[ambrin ox]

(Original post by LHaygen)
Our college doesn't teach Body, Soul and Personal Identity. We only do Problem of Evil, Religious Language and Ontological Argument. Really glad though far too much to revise I doubt I'll get an A like I did in AS :/. Anyone else nervous. Good luck everyone

good luck to you too, im well scared, praying the questions arent too complicated, i just fee like we have really less time, i mean how long is everyone planning to spend on each question,

[LHaygen]

(Original post by ambrin ox)
good luck to you too, im well scared, praying the questions arent too complicated, i just fee like we have really less time, i mean how long is everyone planning to spend on each question,

Fingers crossed The exam lasts for an hour and a half and we have to answer 2 questions and each question contains 2 parts (01 and 02)

[007dunlop]

(Original post by sullivane)
Just wondered if anyone understood this question for body,soul and personal identity:

Is the notion of personal post mortem existence coherent?

Any help would be great

You're looking at how plausible it is that personal identity can continue after death.

Content includes:

-ideas of the soul
-theories of consciousness
-possibly bodily resurrection/replication
-living on through genes/organs/life's work etc.

Could argue against the coherence of personal post mortem existence and say that materialism maintains we are simply a brain attached to a body and therefore we cannot continue to exist post mortem, unless we live on in our genes as Dawkins said.

[JustCharley]

Only revised ontological argument and religious language, but college covered all four. But I literally have no general knowledge of the other two topics, and I feel most comfortable with the other two.

Good luck everyone! Fingers crossed the questions are simple ... like is RL meaningful and is the ontological argument successful would be PERFECT.

[sullivane]

(Original post by 007dunlop)
You're looking at how plausible it is that personal identity can continue after death.

Content includes:

-ideas of the soul
-theories of consciousness
-possibly bodily resurrection/replication
-living on through genes/organs/life's work etc.

Could argue against the coherence of personal post mortem existence and say that materialism maintains we are simply a brain attached to a body and therefore we cannot continue to exist post mortem, unless we live on in our genes as Dawkins said.

Thank you!

[The jaberwocky]

I've been revising Religious language and Body/soul/personal identity. So worried! Earlier this week I gave my teacher a practice essay in which I tried to claim Aristotle was a dualist :P

My teacher seems to think the falsification principle will come up for Religious Lang. But even though it's in the textbook I don't think it's important enough in the course to get a whole qu. on because it's not mentioned on the questions for each topic sheet from the specification. I'm thinking for part A maybe Wittgenstein, maybe aquinas' analogys, they could even go back to the Verification Principle because that was done 2 years ago now. For part B again maybe success of the VP as it was 2 years ago that they used it, but probably the success of the various explanations of the nature of religious language because that's never come up. For Body and Soul probably a part a on different views about body/soul relationship (maybe dualism vs materialism?) because that's never come up. And then what someone else said about the coherence of personal post mortem for part B. Just wondering, could you include rebirth/reincarnation for that kind of question?

Just my thoughts, probably wrong, but we shall see tomorrow! Good luck everybody

[MorganLeFay]

I agree. I think the Augustinian theodicy or Process Thought/theodicy will come up for the first part, then maybe an evaluation of that theodicy. 

The Logical and Evidential Problem of Evil could also come up as a question. 
For Religious Language, I would guess that it would be the logical positivists approach since it was non-cognitive last year. 

[007dunlop]

(Original post by The jaberwocky)
I've been revising Religious language and Body/soul/personal identity. So worried! Earlier this week I gave my teacher a practice essay in which I tried to claim Aristotle was a dualist :P

My teacher seems to think the falsification principle will come up for Religious Lang. But even though it's in the textbook I don't think it's important enough in the course to get a whole qu. on because it's not mentioned on the questions for each topic sheet from the specification. I'm thinking for part A maybe Wittgenstein, maybe aquinas' analogys, they could even go back to the Verification Principle because that was done 2 years ago now. For part B again maybe success of the VP as it was 2 years ago that they used it, but probably the success of the various explanations of the nature of religious language because that's never come up. For Body and Soul probably a part a on different views about body/soul relationship (maybe dualism vs materialism?) because that's never come up. And then what someone else said about the coherence of personal post mortem for part B. Just wondering, could you include rebirth/reincarnation for that kind of question?

Just my thoughts, probably wrong, but we shall see tomorrow! Good luck everybody

Aristotle IS a dualist. Not all dualists believe in life after death.