Aqa RST3B A2 2016 Predictions Philosophy of Religion

I just wanted to ask! :smile:

Kant's criticises the OA by stating that existence cannot be an analytic proposition as it is a synthetic one... Which category of cricisisms does this fall under:
1) definition of God
2) existence as a predicate
3) deriving existential claims from definition?

Also, what is Hume's criticisms of the OA?

Please help! :biggrin:

Reply 163

KaurNav

9

Original post by cherrybanana

I just wanted to ask! :smile:

Kant's criticises the OA by stating that existence cannot be an analytic proposition as it is a synthetic one... Which category of cricisisms does this fall under:
1) definition of God
2) existence as a predicate
3) deriving existential claims from definition?

Also, what is Hume's criticisms of the OA?

Please help! :biggrin:

It's objection based on the use of existence as a predicate.

Huna is an empiricist and said knowledge must be provable using scientific methods and that evidenc needed to back up claims.
No such thing as ' necessary' existence- everything that exists is contingent.
He also said that existence is not a predicate.

Reply 164

Wish we could just get the questions! it so hard, you need have your focus on all the 3 topics, and the harsh reality is, you have to choose 2.
But you have to revise for 3, or like what happened to me last year, such an easy question cam up for cosmological argument, and did not revise it. Now its so frustrating.
Does anyone have any actual predictions for

Religious Language
Ontological Argument
Theodicies

What have you teachers said about these topics, if you are doing them.
revision is driving me mad

Reply 165

Just quickly guys, if it says explain the views of religious language is non-congivitve, what theories am i looking to put in

- Hare
- Wittgenstein
- Eschatological Verification
- Swinburne

what that be enough

Reply 166

Original post by Karan24H

Wish we could just get the questions! it so hard, you need have your focus on all the 3 topics, and the harsh reality is, you have to choose 2.
But you have to revise for 3, or like what happened to me last year, such an easy question cam up for cosmological argument, and did not revise it. Now its so frustrating.
Does anyone have any actual predictions for

Religious Language
Ontological Argument
Theodicies

What have you teachers said about these topics, if you are doing them.
revision is driving me mad

There's no point predicting as the paper was leaked so it's a replacement paper so will not follow any patterns

Reply 167

Original post by Karan24H

Just quickly guys, if it says explain the views of religious language is non-congivitve, what theories am i looking to put in

- Hare
- Wittgenstein
- Eschatological Verification
- Swinburne

what that be enough

If I got a question about RL being non cognitive I'd focus more on Braithwaite RL as moral discourse, evocative ect but those seem fine as well

Reply 168

Yes. I think it actually says in the level descriptors that you should include scholarly opinion but I often forget the name of scholars so I just put it in as my opinions as it can ask what do you think

Original post by arrow_h

Hahaha, btw you know for A02's, you can talk about theodices and philosophers right but you give your opinion too?

Reply 169

Original post by Jehaan

If I got a question about RL being non cognitive I'd focus more on Braithwaite RL as moral discourse, evocative ect but those seem fine as well

just to make sure, this question is therefore open, as you are able to put those theories which talk about religious language being non cognitive.

But obviously you cannot put all of them.
Is that correct

Reply 170

Original post by KaurNav

It's objection based on the use of existence as a predicate.

Huna is an empiricist and said knowledge must be provable using scientific methods and that evidenc needed to back up claims.
No such thing as ' necessary' existence- everything that exists is contingent.
He also said that existence is not a predicate.

Okayy thank you!!!! :biggrin:

Reply 171

Do you think it's possible for a question to come up asking to "Examine the similarities and differences between Anselm and Descartes version of the OA"

Reply 172

Original post by Jehaan

There's no point predicting as the paper was leaked so it's a replacement paper so will not follow any patterns

How do you know the paper was leaked?

Reply 173

Original post by Karan24H

just to make sure, this question is therefore open, as you are able to put those theories which talk about religious language being non cognitive.

But obviously you cannot put all of them.
Is that correct

Well generally questions about non cognitive language is one of those bullet points ones so if you had to choose something to talk about is focus more on Braithwaite and then maybe mention the others in passing as they are non cognitive but do not fall under "what is meant by non cognitive in the form of RL?" If you get what I mean as its still relevant but there's more relevant stuff

Reply 174

Well um this is a bit embarrassing but the first hint was that someone mentioned it a few pages back but also I'm in a RS Facebook group for teachers and they were discussing it. I think they said Rst4b was also leaked

Original post by Karan24H

How do you know the paper was leaked?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 175

Original post by Jehaan

Well generally questions about non cognitive language is one of those bullet points ones so if you had to choose something to talk about is focus more on Braithwaite and then maybe mention the others in passing as they are non cognitive but do not fall under "what is meant by non cognitive in the form of RL?" If you get what I mean as its still relevant but there's more relevant stuff

I think you have more to talk about with the others. I think it would be the other way round to be honest. Maybe include R.B Braithwaite in the conclusion.

As Hare agreed with Swinburne that religious language is non-cognitive, however it can still gain meaning if it has an influence on the way we perceive the world...

Thats how i would approach it

But hopefully its a question just on Language Games, as thats not come up as an AO1

Reply 176