This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The new 'Imlications' exams...

Ooh yeah that's great! Thank you! :biggrin:

So I could do religious experience, life after death, and then then any of natural moral law, virtue ethics and deontology (sometimes they come in mixed together dont they?)

Reply 21

Lu-x

16

They might miss out religious experience in favour of the ontological argument and atheism & critiques of religion. Be careful when selecting what to revise.

Reply 22

LieDown

I know, thats the problem! Im only doing certain subjects, and I've learnt: religious experience, ontological argument, religious language, detonological/natural moral law etc, life after death....do you think I should do atheism just to be sure? Because i didnt have time to do that one! :redface:

Reply 23

katied1990

5

yes defenetly study atheism!! u may only need to study dawkins but do something just to be safe

Reply 24

sunburnt_note

2

We're going rather off topic here, but for the first ethics section, if I revise Religion and Morality and Deontology with a view to answering one of them, I'm pretty safe, right? Because I can't see how they'd combine Religion and Morality with something else, and if they missed it out altogether, I think they'd combine Virtue Ethics and Natural Moral Law. Any thoughts on this...?

Reply 25

sunburnt_note

2

LieDown

I know, thats the problem! Im only doing certain subjects, and I've learnt: religious experience, ontological argument, religious language, detonological/natural moral law etc, life after death....do you think I should do atheism just to be sure? Because i didnt have time to do that one! :redface:

And I don't know about this one....because on the R.S. conference, they did say they were likely to miss out atheism and stick it in with Religious Experience with like "Comment on its ability to convince an atheist", which isn't reaaaaaally the non-existence of God, because really you just have to evaluate religious experience and say well, it's ok for the believer, but not for the atheist. Does that make sense?

I reckon if you've learned 2 out of the 3 topics for that section - i.e. ontological argument and religious experience - you're safe.

Reply 26

LieDown

sunburnt_note

And I don't know about this one....because on the R.S. conference, they did say they were likely to miss out atheism and stick it in with Religious Experience with like "Comment on its ability to convince an atheist", which isn't reaaaaaally the non-existence of God, because really you just have to evaluate religious experience and say well, it's ok for the believer, but not for the atheist. Does that make sense?

I reckon if you've learned 2 out of the 3 topics for that section - i.e. ontological argument and religious experience - you're safe.

Yeah that would make sense. I dont mind learning atheism, I dont think its too big a topic to be impossible to do. So i think I might just tack atheism on to the end of my revision and hope that it doesnt come up! Its really hard to do it all with a teacher who doesnt actually teach you, particularly when they tell you not to do all the topics and just to concentrate on a select few!
Anyway thanks for the help guys :smile:

ANd I would LOVE a question like the one you mentioned above. I really hate that there are no past questions for this course, so Im praying they just give us the easy ones and then work from there in later years! !

Reply 27

yemil

I'm just revising..
Religious Experience (and atheism in a bit less detail)
Life After Death
Deontology, virtue ethics and NML.

Do you think this will be okay? Will I be safe just learning these?
Because I think RE will come up as it is a big topic, and so is ontological, and that they may be combined with atheism like 'how convincing is the argument to the atheist?'
And for Life After Death, I think they may combine it a bit with religious language, like 'how meaningful is LAD?' because they also said that at the conference.

Reply 28

Lu-x

16

I would revise Religious Language in there too. There might be a question on Religious Language and one on Religious Language combined with Life After Death.

Reply 29

eDDeboo

OP

14

I'm feeling more confident about this with my Developments revision, they slot in quite nicely

Reply 30

jeh_jeh

2

For the Philosophy of Religion group of articles for the Implicatons exam - Westphal?!?!

Praying, hoping, cosmic ordering - whatever floats your boat - that we get Ayer.

But, seriously, what could we be expected to put for the emergence of modern philosophy of religion if it came to it?

Reply 31

Liberties

Did anyone who went to the RS conference get a hint of which article might come up in the Ethics section?

I'm so unprepared for this. Seriously, all the classes we've had on this have just been talking vaguely about the articles with many digressions. Meh.

Reply 32

FireDeuce

14

I really quite like the implications paper. I don't like part B, as often there's not a lot to debate.. but part A is cool 'cos you can bring in AS stuff which is so much more interesting.

Reply 33

katied1990

5

i'm the opposite i find part b easy because you can just evaluate and aruge about everything you said in the first sectin but part a is sooo hard!!! i never have enough to say!! I NEED HELP!!

Reply 34

king4321

hello im a student using the edexcel exams board. Our teacher wasnt aware of any conferences concerning the new implications paper. We will be doing the question on the new testament. what was said about this section, any vibes what section the passage might come from. Damn this paper is going to be deadly :frown:

Reply 35

yemil

It wasn't about the implications paper, the conferences were about the developments paper.

Reply 36

zzzzzoe

11

it depends what extract we get and how broad it is i suppose

Reply 37

eDDeboo

OP

14

There was an implications conference that my teacher went too the other day, and the chief examiner kept hinting throughout that it would be the religious language (Ayer) extract that comes up..