Implications paper Religious Studies edexcel A2 which Philosopher??

did ur teacher go 2 dat examiners conference 4 dis year? if ur teacher went 2 an examiners conference and they were mainly talkin about Ayer then that probably means Ayer is gonna com up.

thank u soo much 4 dat info bout Ayer. i'm doin for the philosophy part ontological, life after death and for the ethics deontology, virtue ethics and natural moral law. its soo loong tho. hw r u revisin 4 the developments?

My philosophy teacher reckons it'll be Ayer, my Ethics teacher thinks Westphal. They're both pretty sure it won't be Donovan, as he came up in June 10 and June 09 (apparently).
I'd be happy with either of them, you could really bring in many of the same links to either of them. I'm just praying that it won't be Donovan.

I found a good way to revise the Developments was to read over the notes of a topic and try and write a timed essay in 35 minutes - it's really difficult to get it all down and it makes you more realistic about what to revise (after all there's no point over-revising what is a short question compared to the implications).

My teacher thinks it will be Ayer as well

westphal is not likely 2 com up cz it came up in jan 2011 and it actually came up in june 09, so im praying itz ayer dat coms up.

I'm not a big fan of Donovan either :/ there's just so much of it!

thank u soo much 4 dat info bout Ayer. i'm doin for the philosophy part ontological, life after death and for the ethics deontology, virtue ethics and natural moral law. its soo loong tho. hw r u revisin 4 the developments?

I am seriously hoping it's Ayer... I know so much more about him.
If it's Westphal I might actually debate walking out of the exam. We didn't even learn about 'The Emergence of modern philosophy of religion' this year so it's all the essays content is entirely new to us! (Is this the same for anyone else?)

Also, does anyone have any idea as to what to focus on writing in part (b)? I don't really understand what they want me to write as 'Implications for religion and human experience'. It's all a bit confusing.

PS: I'm fast-tracking this subect this year and so i've just come out of the AS exams. The workload is far too much with revising Developments on-top. (And my other two subjects!) Especially when I have terrible procrastination and concentration issues at the moment.

im abit stuck on life after death
my teacher basically went over the mind body problem

however the spec says we need to know
immortality,rebirth, ressurection, reincarnation lol
so im stumped as i dont want to do religious lang!

Okay I take back what I said about Donovan being hard...Westphal is just



I've got a chapter on life after death (I think it's from edexcel but not entirely sure) which includes those things on the spec, if you like I can try and scan it for you

My Philosophy teacher is the one who wrote that sample answer posted by miss_boyes ! And yeah she told us that Ayer has never come up before?! If Ayer has, does anyone have the paper?
She also went to that conference and said that they went into real detail about Ayer and not so much with the other two.
Ayer is deffo my best, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed it comes up! Still going to revise the other two (probably not as much) but just pray they don't come up!!

XD
Ayer came up in 2008
a. clarify the argument and/or interpretation in the passage (24)
b. Do you agree with the idea(s) expressed? Justify your point of view and discuss its implications for understanding religion and human experience. (16)

and the paragraph was the 5th paragraph (excluding the first sentence):
"For we are often told that the nature of God is a mystery which transcends the human understanding. But to say that something transcends the human understanding is to say that it is unintelligible. And what is unintelligible cannot significantly be described. Again, we are told that God is not an object of reason but an object of faith. This may be nothing more than an admission that the existence of God must be taken on trust, since it cannot be proved. But it may also be an assertion that God is the object of a purely mystical intuition, and cannot therefore be defined in terms which are intelligible to the reason. And I think there are many theists who would assert this. But if one allows that it is impossible to define God in intelligible terms, then one is allowing that it is impossible for a sentence both to be significant and to be about God. If a mystic admits that the object of his vision is something which cannot be described, then he must also admit that he is bound to talk nonsense when he describes it." (I didn't type it btw :P)

http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocuments/GCE%20New%20GCE/Philosophy%20of%20Religion.pdf

This is quite an interesting booklet, most of the stuff in there should be familiar from classwork but it is quite helpful when consolidating information/ making your own revision notes - its kinda like a checklist of things that might be worth mentioning

Omg I thought I was the only one who did AS and A2 in the same year! The workload was actually terrible!
I'll make a post later, I'm on my iPhone right now.