Edexcel A2 Philosophy of Religion & Ethics June 2012

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

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

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
?

Ok thank you!! So basically youre saying dont evaluate in part i? it is definitely ok to be all factual? they wont say your 'being too descriptive'?

Yeah i personally wouldn't evaluate in part (i) unless they ask for it, e.g, the question may ask you to write about an argument and its strengths and weaknesses.

I remember last year in my essays, i would evaluate, and my teacher who is also an examiner said it was not needed, and you only need to do it in part (ii). Also i remember reading in the back of my AS textbook, it had tips on how to answer the questions and it said that you don't gain any more marks for repeating material that you used in part (i) in your part (ii), so i take it that rule applies for the A2 course aswell.

Here's the mark scheme to last years paper that you might want to have a look at, and they want you to write in detail and be 'descriptive' in your part (i), and evaluate in yuor part (ii)
http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocuments/QP%20GCE%20Curriculum%202000/June%202011%20-%20MS/6RS03_01_rms_20110817.pdf

yepp more than enough, im only doing 6 and some in my class are only doing 5 definitely fine

Hello,

Is anyone else struggling on the essay structure for unit 4? Does anyone have a good idea of how long each question should be? As in a) 30marks B) 20marks?
How many pages? How many points? I've gathered from this thread that 50% should be about the selected extract and the rest about the wider article?
This paper is the devil.

Anyone know if myth and symbol count as one type of religious language? Like if it asks for 2 types would myth and symbol count as one, so I should talk about myth, symbols and say, language games?

It depends on the question. I did a past paper question in class which said 'compare and contrast two types of religious language', and in that context myth and symbol were two separate beliefs. However, in the June 2010 paper in the question they bullet pointed 3 'types' of religious language, and said you had to 'examine the contributions that two of the following. . .'. Notice how they say 'contributions' and not 'types', it's because they put myth and symbol together, meaning if you pick that, you had to then pick either analogy or language games; and i think they know that if you picked myth and symbol and something else, you are in fact in that question analysisng three 'types' of RL.

I hope this post makes sense and helps, i'm not doing RL for the exam (although i have learnt it), but that's how i would answer it.

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
?

i dont want to panic you but we got told they can mix religion and morality in with an ethical theory question...so if youre only doing 1 ethics its best to revise all ethical theory and religion and morality. Your philopsohy seems covered though!

EDIT: just checked my past papers in june 2011 they mixed religion and morality with NML in a part b question

But there's 2 questions in that block and religion and morality won't be in both questions


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

As he said, if you only do revise one ethical theory, it's a good idea to do M&R too. If you do more than one, no need

i got told to revise the three ethical theories as well as religion and morality - it gives you a choice between the two blocks if one of the questions is really horrid, all im going on is what my teacher's have said really - combinations of the theories and religion and morality can throw some people - i wouldnt want that to happen in the exam. In last years paper virtue ethics didnt come up at all? isnt it a bit risky just revising one ethical theory?