Edexcel A2 Philosophy of Religion & Ethics June 2012

OP

Well say Atheism did come up, I wouldn't do it lol Even though i know the parts of it needed for Westphal, i'd rather just do the Ontological Argument argument.

I've decided what i'm just going to revise, so i think i'll be prepared at whatever stupid questions Edexcel throw at me lol

Yeah, if it was pure Atheism I'd skip it in favour of Ethical Theory. Bring it Edexcel haha

Reply 61

12lightf

OP

1

Original post by ReeyaM

could someone please help me by breaking down the different topics for the different sections of the paper (for developments)
Im so confused on what topics to revise! many thanks!

Philosophy Block 1:

Religious Experience
Ontological Argument
Atheism

Philosophy Block 2:

Life after death
Religious Language

Ethics Block 1:

Ethical Theory (Kantian Deontology, Virtue Ethics, Natural Moral Law)
Critiques of the link between morality and religion.

Ethics Block 2:

Justice, Law and Punishment
Objectivity and Subjectivity
Ethical Language

Hope this helps :smile:

Reply 62

SCheng

Original post by JyotiGuron

hey guys im so stuck for revising for life after death, are there any resources or revision notes anyone could post? would be a great help... thanks xx

Yeah i could give you my notes, is there anything specific that you need in terms of the beliefs in life after death?

Reply 63

Coffeegirl

18

Original post by TalieAnn

It worries me that everyone is talking about Donovan and Ayer for the implications paper... My class is doing texts by Lafollete, Schneewind and Jamieson. Is anyone else doing texts from these three? I and my whole class are so stuck! We literally have no idea how to write the essay for it. We did a timed essay in class, we haven't got them back yet, but I spent the whole time literally just rewording the text ha! Our teachers arent even too sure how to teach us it! We're all fine on developments, it's just implications ahhh!!! How's everyone else finding it? Any tips? haha

hey we are doing these and i have no idea how i am going to answer the question :/ my teacher thinks it may be schneewind but i have a feeling it could be jamieson...

Reply 64

Coffeegirl

18

Would this be ok? please someone let me know :smile:

learning:

philosophy:
ontological argument
religious experience
religious language

ethics:
virtue ethics or NML?

is it possible that in ethics block 1 they can only talk about one of the 3 ethical theories.. ??

also nobody has said anything about the part b's ....what could they link them to? what topics are likely to come up as part b's??

Reply 65

12lightf

OP

1

Original post by Coffeegirl

Would this be ok? please someone let me know :smile:

learning:

philosophy:
ontological argument
religious experience
religious language

ethics:
virtue ethics or NML?

is it possible that in ethics block 1 they can only talk about one of the 3 ethical theories.. ??

also nobody has said anything about the part b's ....what could they link them to? what topics are likely to come up as part b's??

You should probably revise Deontology a little to make sure. It's not impossible for there to be, say, a question on morality & religion and then one ethical theory (could be deontology).
Part Bs are usually just analyse what you've talked about in part A?

Reply 66

301lw

Original post by Sadsnail

Anyone else doing

Religious Experience
Ontological Argument
Atheism
Religious language (verification,falsification,analogy,myth,symbol,language games)

Virtue ethics
natural moral law
the relationship between religion and morality
deontology

????

yeah i'm doing the same ones as you - and i'm learning two life after death theories just incase
also, what are you writing about if myth and symbol comes up?

Reply 67

Sadsnail

15

Original post by 301lw

yeah i'm doing the same ones as you - and i'm learning two life after death theories just incase
also, what are you writing about if myth and symbol comes up?

Okay

We haven't learnt life after death so not answering that one :smile:

And what do you mean??

Reply 68

301lw

Original post by Sadsnail

Okay

We haven't learnt life after death so not answering that one :smile:

And what do you mean??

well you're learning religious language right?
well my teacher hasn't taught us much on myth or symbol so i feel like i have nothing to say, what are you going to write about if you answer on myth or symbol? :smile:

Reply 69

Sadsnail

15

Original post by 301lw

well you're learning religious language right?
well my teacher hasn't taught us much on myth or symbol so i feel like i have nothing to say, what are you going to write about if you answer on myth or symbol? :smile:

Oohhh Hahahaa, ummmmmmmmm I have a lot to say but it's all bullet points and not like a big chunky topic? haha

Reply 70

CintiaMarina

2

Original post by TalieAnn

It worries me that everyone is talking about Donovan and Ayer for the implications paper... My class is doing texts by Lafollete, Schneewind and Jamieson. Is anyone else doing texts from these three? I and my whole class are so stuck! We literally have no idea how to write the essay for it. We did a timed essay in class, we haven't got them back yet, but I spent the whole time literally just rewording the text ha! Our teachers arent even too sure how to teach us it! We're all fine on developments, it's just implications ahhh!!! How's everyone else finding it? Any tips? haha

Im studying these extracts as well for the exam... Really dont know how to structure a perfect essay :/ and I want an A, just in case I flip the other paper :L
Ive got few essay plans and sample essays (B/C grades), if you want them, PM me :smile:

Have you got anything for Jaimeson?

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my ST18i

Reply 71

Delirium Trigger

Time for that one week of revision.

Philosophy:

Atheism
Religious Experiences
Ontological Argument
Religious Language

Ethics:

Ethical Theory (Deontology, Virtue ethics, Nartual moral law)
Religion and Morality

Is this all I need to learn or do I need to throw in Ethical Language too?

Thanks in advance.

Reply 72

headbands,

11

Original post by Coffeegirl

Would this be ok? please someone let me know :smile:

learning:

philosophy:
ontological argument
religious experience
religious language

ethics:
virtue ethics or NML?

is it possible that in ethics block 1 they can only talk about one of the 3 ethical theories.. ??

also nobody has said anything about the part b's ....what could they link them to? what topics are likely to come up as part b's??

Yes it is possible but for ao2 they might combine and ask for similarities / differences / to compare two theories :smile:

Reply 73

headbands,

11

Original post by Delirium Trigger

Time for that one week of revision.

Is this all I need to learn or do I need to throw in Ethical Language too?

Thanks in advance.

I think that would be fine, I am learning
- Religious Experience
- Ontological Argument
- Atheism
- Religious Language
- Virtue Ethics
- Natural Moral Law
- Kantian Deontology

Reply 74

savvy100

okay im freaking out here - for unit 1 i got 76 (i was going to resit however i was told not to because i could boost it up in my unit 2, wish i hadnt of taken that advice now though!) and for unit 2 i got 87. So 163 all together, with 160 being an A - does that mean i have to get A's in these two units to get an A overall?

Reply 75

12lightf

OP

1

Original post by savvy100

okay im freaking out here - for unit 1 i got 76 (i was going to resit however i was told not to because i could boost it up in my unit 2, wish i hadnt of taken that advice now though!) and for unit 2 i got 87. So 163 all together, with 160 being an A - does that mean i have to get A's in these two units to get an A overall?

You can get top Bs in both and get an A overall. 320 is an A, you have 163 and you need 157. 79 + 78 (two high Bs) would equal 157. You don't need an A in either for an A overall :smile:

Reply 76

savvy100

Original post by 12lightf

You can get top Bs in both and get an A overall. 320 is an A, you have 163 and you need 157. 79 + 78 (two high Bs) would equal 157. You don't need an A in either for an A overall :smile:

thank you so much!!! Less stressed now! :smile:

Reply 77

emilyandkate

Hi I need some help;

Im on to get an A but have one dilemma; I have different teachers for RS and they are all telling me different things.
Even though the evaulation is in part ii) some teachers say I have to show it in part i) to, but to me this seems silly because there is hardly any time to evaluate in both.
For example a question like 'Examine the key principles of...' I would just describe and compare the different principles of the arguments, however some teachers have maintained I need to put in some criticisms here to show that I can 'evaluate throughout'. What would you suggest?

Thanks!

Reply 78

SCheng

Original post by emilyandkate

Hi I need some help;

Im on to get an A but have one dilemma; I have different teachers for RS and they are all telling me different things.
Even though the evaulation is in part ii) some teachers say I have to show it in part i) to, but to me this seems silly because there is hardly any time to evaluate in both.
For example a question like 'Examine the key principles of...' I would just describe and compare the different principles of the arguments, however some teachers have maintained I need to put in some criticisms here to show that I can 'evaluate throughout'. What would you suggest?

Thanks!

Yes the evaluative part of the question is usually in part (ii) where you have to put the strenghts/weaknesses, and then maybe conclude with your own opinion.

Personally i don't evaluate in part (i) unless the question asks for it. For example, in the June 2011 paper the question for the ontological argument was 'examine the ways the ontological argument attempts to prove to the atheist that God exists'. So i would restate the claim (to show that my answer explicitly answers the questions), and then i would write about all of the key content, and now and again i would put a strength in there to highlight how it may prove to an atheist that God exists through the argument.

I think when i did this question in class, after i wrote about how the argument is analytic, i wrote the strength that Anselm's definition of God could be understood and accepted by both the beliver and the atheist, and then i jsut wrote about everything else.

Sorry this post is so long, but i hope it helps in some way :smile:

Reply 79

headbands,

11

Okay now I'm starting to worry is this enough to know / revise?

- Religious Experience
- Ontological Argument
- Atheism
- Religious Language
- Virtue Ethics
- Natural Moral Law
- Kantian Deontology
?

Edexcel A2 Philosophy of Religion & Ethics June 2012

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you