The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Group for those who do OCR A2 Philosophy & Ethics [Post Exam Discussion]

Scroll to see replies

Original post by philly.tidd
did anone ever explain what Flew's ten leaky buckets was? if not, can someone explain it briefly...


what topic does this come up in again?
Original post by goofy-blues
so.. is it fair to say meta ethics and virtue ethics will defs come up as each has only come up once?
personally i think they should give the applied ones a break - they come up EVERY time.


They will never give the applied ethics a break. Think how many combinations they could ask compared to the other three topics.
Original post by goofy-blues
what topic does this come up in again?


Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think it can be used to criticise Swinburne's cumulative argument which says that religious experience, taken with other evidence of God builds a strong case for his existence.
Original post by Ineluctable
It basically says that a group of weak arguments does not equate to a single strong argument, in the same way that lots of leaky buckets still don't hold water very well.


Is this in relation to falsification? Forgot. Or can it just be used anywhere?
A question: when you guys talk about Ayer and verificationism do you bother going into detail about all the distinctions he made between different types of verification? Obviously strong vs. weak is important, but what about practical vs. in principle, and direct vs. indirect?
Original post by philly.tidd
Is this in relation to falsification? Forgot. Or can it just be used anywhere?


You can use it to criticise Swinburne's view that religious experience + other proofs builds a strong case for God. But there is no reason why it can't be used elsewhere.
Original post by philly.tidd
I hate to say this, but it probably won't because that exact question was asked in June 2010... but lets all hope that I'm wrong.


I know, I know :frown:

Ahhh I'm so worried! Cannot do this exam!
Just want this exam to be over with, theres sooo much pressure on it. I need an A for Philosophy otherwise NO UNI!
Original post by No.1 Loner
Just want this exam to be over with, theres sooo much pressure on it. I need an A for Philosophy otherwise NO UNI!


yeah man. too much pressure generally as well.
Is there any chance that Corporate religious experience will come up?

If so has anyone got and ideas on how to answer: Evaluate the claim that corporate religious experience is no more than an illusion
I know that you have to mention Freud and the psychological explanation but im not sure what else needs to go in :frown:

Any help will be great, thanks :smile:
Original post by Charlotte_Bailey
Is there any chance that Corporate religious experience will come up?

If so has anyone got and ideas on how to answer: Evaluate the claim that corporate religious experience is no more than an illusion
I know that you have to mention Freud and the psychological explanation but im not sure what else needs to go in :frown:

Any help will be great, thanks :smile:


does corporate just mean bodily / physical? if so then I would probably just use the whole of religious experience, james, alston and all the rest.

that isn't really very helpful sorry lmao, just clarifying
Reply 551
Avatar for Ideal.
Ideal.
Can someone tell me what AS stuff we need to know for philosophy? Looking at the past questions nothing seems to have come up. Is it just Problem of Evil?
Original post by Wanttobeasucess
Thankyou, that is helpful :smile: reincarnation is a good one
I've had a think and thought about writing about predestination - Calvin - Hard determinism - the idea of free will -
Orthodox christinaity - idea that everyone gets what they deserve in afterlife -
idea of hell proves god is just - but it is punishment for punishment sake - no educative means so could say not a just god .. thinking thats okaay


Also, another one is Swinburne's theodicy
- The freewill defence is central to any theodicy
- Freedom gives us responsibility and our choices have real significance
- Just because God leaves us with the responsibility and doesn't interfere doesn't lessen him
- Death and hell do not add to evil and are logically necessary. If we were never to die we would have an infinite amount of time to put things right, nothing would really matter
- Hell is necessary as real freedom must include the possibility of damning ourselves.

:smile:
Original post by philly.tidd
does corporate just mean bodily / physical? if so then I would probably just use the whole of religious experience, james, alston and all the rest.

that isn't really very helpful sorry lmao, just clarifying


Corporate means a shared/public experience like to Toronto Blessing

I think you could use James but i dont know how you would put him into the essay?
Original post by Charlotte_Bailey
Is there any chance that Corporate religious experience will come up?

If so has anyone got and ideas on how to answer: Evaluate the claim that corporate religious experience is no more than an illusion
I know that you have to mention Freud and the psychological explanation but im not sure what else needs to go in :frown:

Any help will be great, thanks :smile:


Some ideas:

1. Talk about how corporate experience is often found in evangelical and charismatic worship, where atmosphere was built up
2. In the Toronto Blessing people believe they were speaking in tongues, when they were really speaking nonsense
3. Why would God take over a believer's autonomy to make them behave strangely as a group, if freedom is so important?
4. Why would God do this instead of helping the poor and persecuted? Would this God be worthy of worship?
5. Group hysteria and fear of being ostracised may compel everyone to join in
6. A group can't experience the same thing-each person in the group is experiencing a different thing
Does anyone happen to have a model answer for any business/environmental/sexual ethics questions?

If a question like "To what extent are ethical theories helpful when considering the issues surrounding homosexuality?" were to come up, I wouldn't know anything more I could say than:

-Traditional Christianity disapproves
-Modern protestantism approves
-Catholicism disapproves
-Christian approaches are therefore contradictory

For instance, what "ethical theories" do they mean? The only A2 ones I can think of are virtue ethics and Christian ethics, so do they want the student to just mention those two, or rely on the ethical theories taught at AS (Kant, Utilitarianism, etc)?

Please help - I desperately need an A in this subject!

Kieran
Original post by xbabycakes
The synoptic element refers to including information we learnt at AS as well as A2. Like a question I looked at today. It was about Dawkins and his views on life after death, but the mark scheme put heavy emphasis on Michael Behe who spoke to irreducible complexity and an intelligent designer (I studied him when looking at William Paley and the design argument in AS). There's many more examples, especially in Nature of God and link with evil and suffering ectect.


okay thank you :smile: so if you don't include things learnt from as would this mean we can't hit the a* band ?

and i'm guessing stating that, in the topic of life after death, the fact that plato believed the 'goal' of the sole was to re-call what it previously knew about the 'world of the forms', prior to being incarnated within a body, is including this synoptic element ?

i've also seen john hick's eschatological aspect mentioned within this topic, think this was about how 'good' people went to heaven- a form of reward, and 'wicked' to hell and a state of separation from god- a form of punishment, which falls in line with the christians belief about life after death.. please correct me if i'm wrong !

so yeahh if i mentioned things like this would this be hitting the synoptic element of paper ? sorry if i'm coming across thick :tongue: i just really want to keep my a* !
Its really odd how we all kinda know the same stuff but all have little extra bits of knowledge haha :smile:
I love TSR!
Original post by Ineluctable
Some ideas:

1. Talk about how corporate experience is often found in evangelical and charismatic worship, where atmosphere was built up
2. In the Toronto Blessing people believe they were speaking in tongues, when they were really speaking nonsense
3. Why would God take over a believer's autonomy to make them behave strangely as a group, if freedom is so important?
4. Why would God do this instead of helping the poor and persecuted? Would this God be worthy of worship?
5. Group hysteria and fear of being ostracised may compel everyone to join in
6. A group can't experience the same thing-each person in the group is experiencing a different thing


Thank you, thats really helpful :smile:

I will try and write this essay now!

Sorry for all the questions, but do you think omnipotence is likely to come up?:confused:
Anyone got a concise list of criticisms of virtue ethics?

It occurs to me that it is not applicable to the modern world (arguably) as people are easily tempted and decieved about what will make them a better person (I don't actually agree with this)

Another stems from this - it is ambiguous and can be misinterpreted

Golden Mean promotes mediocrity (arguably just a misunderstanding of Aristotle)

This is my problem I think, every criticism I think of seems to just be from a misunderstanding of the theory itself and therefore no real threat.

Help would be appreciated, ta

EDIT: I suppose also we can be confused about who is our role model - i.e. in tyrannical regimes such as those in the Middle East or North Korea
(edited 12 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you