Edexcel A2 Religious Studies - Unit 4: Implications - Donovan/Ayer/Westphal 17th June

June 2008 - Ayer
June 2009 - Westphal
Jan 2010 - Ayer
June 2010 - Donovan
June 2011- Westphal
June 2012 - Donovan
June 2013 - Ayer
June 2014 - Westphal

These are the past papers I have found does anyone have any predictions
I really hate Westphal...how likely is it that it will come up??

Anyone else not revising Westphal?

how do you access these resources on the intranet.wellingtoncollege.org.uk site? do you have to have a student login it just comes up with link not found?
I'm desperate for some easy summaries of each article as they don't even seem to be in English to me, wouldn't have a clue where to start for either question

I can't help with the Wellington College intranet but from what I've heard they've made it so only their own students can access it...

Here are some (simplified) summaries of each philosopher that are hopefully of some use?

AYER: It is not even probable that God exists, as the phrase 'God exists' cannot be empirically proven (cannot be tested to see if it is true or not). As this is the case, even talking about God is nonsense. So there.
This applies to the atheist, the agnostic as well as the theist as they have a stance on the existence of God, which we have already concluded is nonsense. Someone had to put Dawkins in his place.
Some say that the beauty and order of the universe show that God exists (the teleological argument), however, this is just saying that God is the order and regularity in nature, not the creator of it. (and somehow, not sure that's what the religious man has in mind when he says God).
But, where people say that thunder shows God is angry for example, this may be qualified as they are literally saying that what they mean by God is what they mean by the phrase 'there is thunder' (so 'God' means thunder, not the god of classical theism). Again, not sure thats what Aquinas had in mind.
If this is the case, and the argument used by theists that the nature of God is a mystery, this then means that a mystic who tries to talk of his experience or of God is automatically talking nonsense. He suggests it reveals nothing more to us than his mental condition.
some philosophers argue that it is wrong to accept that someone has seen a yellow patch for example, but not that they have experienced God. Ayer rebuts this, saying that whilst this would be fine if someone just said they had a sensation that caused them to think they were experiencing God (as this is empirical), they are saying that a transcendent God exists, which is nonsense as this suggestion is not empirically verifiable (testable). Basically, I can go check a yellow patch exists if someone tells me it does (as if I didn't have enough ways to procrastinate A level revision already), but you can't do that with God. Funny that.
Therefore, there is no such thing as religious knowledge.

DONOVAN: some theists argue that they just know that God exists, which seems ridiculous but sometimes in other circumstances in life we feel like doing the same. This in intuition, but is it a valid basis of knowledge? (he's a bit indecisive).
Owen said that it is, and used the analogy of the insight of another person's inner self to show this: 1) people reveal their inner selves through outer acts, and God does this through regularity in nature; 2) we have special moments where someone challenges out attention, God did this with his revelation in Jesus Christ 3) we see both a person's existence and their character at the same time, we can do this with God in nature and 4) we know others to have both physical and spiritual qualities, and the same applies for God.
Baillie basically points out that there are lots of different types of religious experiences and ways to find God.
Farmer says that the knowledge revealed in a religious experience are not general truths like you'd get from science or philosophy, but insight into God's character, which result in a decision to have a faith. (basically, religious experience leads to faith. who knew.)
Donovan points out that you can feel certain about something, but that doesn't mean you're right. For example, if you feel certain the time is 4 and your watch telling you it's 4, whilst what your watch says supports your intuition, your intuition cannot support what the watch states. Memory and intuition are both highly unreliable, even if they're sometimes right.
Russell argues that just as people are wrong about other people, e.g. we think we know someone we love but they betray us, so our intuition when it comes to God is unreliable. There are some acceptable cases of using intuition, but one has to be careful when it is used.
Buber described people having two types of relationship: 'I-it' which is knowledge reasoning etc, and 'I-you' which is a deep, profound understanding of a person and the thing that makes us 'truly human'. We can have these two types of relationships with God too.
Three criticisms of intuition: 1) senses can be mistaken, we can be wrong about intuition 2) you have to have experience of something before you can have knowledge about something, so I-you and I-it are not that separated, 3) experience isn't a source of knowledge, using a pregnancy analogy.
Intuition is vital to religion, and even if it fails in the end to count as knowledge of God, it still is useful to study.

WESTPHAL: Over time, philosophical theology (talking about whether or not God exists) have changed into the philosophy of religion (talking about how a belief in God is characterised). This is why it happened:
scholastics, (people who believe that the core of religion, theology, and the extra, revelation, work together well) were overtaken by deists (people who believe that the core isn't compatible with the extra bit and the extra bits are irrelevant) during the enlightenment era.
Deists wanted to take power away from organised religion, make reason a driving force and encourage religious tolerance. It encourages empiricism (scientific rigour, and testing everything basically). Two main philosophers did this: Hume and Kant.
Kant said there is no a priori knowledge of God, and reason and morality are the way to approach religion. Everything else is 'fetish faith' (a brilliant phrase especially out of context), and basically unnecessary.
Schleiermacher wanted experience of God and being unified to be the core of religion, as opposed to dogma. He didn't reject extra stuff, but didn't think it was of particular importance.
Hegel was a grumpy pants who complained when things didn't go his way, and basically said that talking about God and talking about the effects of God (philosophical theology and philosophy of religion) should be considered together.
Spinoza said that jesus is a symbol of the enlightenment all people can reach, and religion's core is all about unity with God. Think pantheism.
Hume said that rejecting extra religious stuff and changing what the core of religion is isn't enough, religion itself needs the boot. He said it was 'a flattering of the gods grounded in selfish hopes and fears'. Touche.
Marx said that religion suppressed the masses and stopped them rising and rebelling against the bourgoise (think Les Miserables).
Nietzsche said that religion made being average acceptable, and idolised the negative things people were stuck with so they didn't reach their full potential, or 'ubermensch'. (think uber=good taxis, mensch=men. Superpeople.)
Kierkegaard didn't like christianity either, as it was part of system of control.

I hope this helps!