Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

predictions for the AQA A2 SCLY3 exam on 22nd January for beliefs in society? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    you revise the night before and get full marks:O whoa what a genius, i've been revising for weeks and would be lucky to get a B on this paper!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Also, an essay on science and idology could possibly come up, we've done one. Something along the lines of "Assess science, idology and religion as belief systems."
    I mentioned things like science being an open belief system in that someone can always disprove what you've done. There are no absolute truths. Positive and negatives - nuclear advancement and advancement in medicine. Femenists see it as patriarchal (shocker!) Also that if we take a substantive-exclusivist definition of religion, then science doesn't stand up as a belief system as it doesn't contain a belief in a supernatural force. So it has to be functional-inclusivist. Talked about Popper and Kuhn.
    & Ideology has latent functions due to the two types of ideology- ideological thought working as a conservative force, and utopian thought as a force for social change (compared this to Marxism, obv.) Talk about Mannheim as these are his ideas. For ideology to work we have to reach the total worldview, the groups need to create a free-floating intelligentsia.
    And obviously the religion bit is easy and you can ramble for ages about closed belief systems, and alternatives to all three such as NRMs and NAMs.
    I then concluded that religion stands best as a belief system due to its 'get-out clauses' when someone disproves it (can't have this in science) and also touched on fundamentalism opposing science. Basically said religion offers help and support in times of need - it comforts the grieving, which science can't do.


    I have no idea if that helps you at all as obviously i've condensed it right down. (It helped me learn it by typing it out, though!!) But just saying be prepared and learn the science and ideology as thoroughly as you can
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by palringo0418)
    you revise the night before and get full marks:O whoa what a genius, i've been revising for weeks and would be lucky to get a B on this paper!

    Not a genius, I'm just lucky with exams, and have a great teacher who makes us a revision pack with everything in it!
    You'll definitely be fine! 2 weeks seems like plenty prep.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ahhhhh we barely did anything on what you've just written>! what textbook are you using? oh goddd, i'm gonna fail!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not a textbook it's from our revision pack. If it would be helpful I'll type out the section on Ideology, Science and Religion for anyone who would find it useful?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by betsybee)
    Not a textbook it's from our revision pack. If it would be helpful I'll type out the section on Ideology, Science and Religion for anyone who would find it useful?
    Yes please that would be wonderful
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Science, Religion & Ideology
    Feel free to use this if it helps!


    SCIENCE (Generally seen as an open belief system.
    It's rational, and has no absolute truths.


    Science has transformed society. It has eradicated many once fatal diseases. It also revolutionised transport, work and leisure. However, science has also caused some significant problems - or manufactured risks - such as pollution, global warming and weapons of mass destruction.

    Popper sees science as an open belief system where every scientist's theories are open to scrutiny, criticism and testing by others. Science is governed by the principle of falsification. Scientists set out to deliberately try and falsify existing theories, seeking evidence to disprove them. It is cumulative, scientific understanding of the world is always growing. Isaac Newton called this "standing on the shoulders of giants." According to Popper, there are no absolute truths in science.

    Science has grown in recent centuries due to a number of reasons. It can enhance the military power of a country, enhance economic development and capitalism (according to Marxists). Also, it converts products like medicine into profit, this is called technoscience.

    However some people see science as a closed belief system. This is because science operates within a particular structure or set of established rules and procedures. This is known as a paradigm. Anyone who challenges a paradigm is usually met with hostility (in this way science mirrors religion). The only exception to this is what Kuhn describes as a 'scientific revolution'. This is where an accumulation of anomolies over a period of time effectively topples a paradigm.

    RELIGION (Generally seen as a closed belief system.
    It is irrational and resistant to any criticism of its claims to the absolute truth.)

    While scientific knowledgw is provisional, open to challenge and potentially disprovable, religion claims to have a special, perfect knowledge of the absolute truth. Religion cannot be challenged. Whenever its fundamental beliefs are theatened, a closed belief system has a number of 'get out clauses' which reinforce the system and prevent it from being disproved (in the eyes of believers at least.) For intance, creationists reject the idea that humans have evolved, and were not created as we are.

    IDEOLOGY

    According to Mannheim, ideology is a biased and one-sided worldview. Its one sidedness results from being the viewpoint of one particular group or class and its interests.

    Mannheim distinguishes between two types of worldview:

    Ideological thought - justifies keeping things as they are. Reflects the position of the capitalist class.

    Utopian thought - justifies social change. It reflects the position of the underprivaleged. (See Marxism.)

    These worldviews only give a partial view, and need to arrive at a total worldview by combining their ideas into a free-floating intelligentsia.





    That's all I have, hope it helps!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks for the notes, had no idea about that topic!
    I don't think there's enough there for it to be any more than an 18 marker though.

    And yay for it being tomorrow afternoon!

    I just need to finish up secularisation now, then go over appeals of sects/cults etc etc. Then that stuff ^, then the en masse recaps. I may type up some of said recaps on here this evening and tomorrow morning if that would be helpful to any one. Would probably be quite note like though. Any takers? It'll make me do it thinking it's for someone!

    So tonight, good, tomorrow morning, good. Hopefully it will be OK but **** me I'm scared.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Got this tomorrow too!

    I hope we get a 'science as a belief system' 18-marker question cos I seem to remember all the sociologists for that one. They have such brilliant names. Kuhn, Popper, Heisenberg. How can you forget those?

    My teacher predicts and I quote "I'm not entirely sure as it's a new specification but as the science/ideology bit is completely new to the specification, they'd either go easy on us and give it as just a small question or go extra tough on it to show how important this new thing is and give it as a 33 mark essay... but I'd predict the former rather than the latter." LOL, she talks a lot

    Fingers crossed for some brilliant questions (like my AS education may exam last year!) and good luck everyone!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Whoa whoa whoa whoa wait a second. What exactly is a belief system in sociological terms?
    Is it just how subjective science is with its failings etc?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can anyone help me with Secularisation?
    Main people who say its happening and why..
    More importantly who say it isn't and why

    Good revision for those of you who know it to tell me :P
    it gets you thinking..
    And i need help! lol
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alecangeltess)
    Whoa whoa whoa whoa wait a second. What exactly is a belief system in sociological terms?
    Is it just how subjective science is with its failings etc?
    Well a belief is an opinion.
    A belief system is a group of opinions that come together to form one collective system. e.g. Christianity, Vegetarianism (do not eat meat etc etc) and....

    if you got confused by my 'science as a belief system' thing, some sociologists have argued that science isn't objective and empirical because of various reasons, mainly because of what is mentioned in the Science part of betsybee's post above.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    basically science can be seen as a belief system as it has a set of pre formed opinions that can cause it to resist or reject new theories that contradict the established opinions?

    whether or not the new theories have reasonable evidence to back them up.

    suppose it could also be said that science contains a variety of belief systems.

    . was that karl popper who said science is socially constructed, has its paradigms etc. or some1 else?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -CG-)
    Can anyone help me with Secularisation?
    Main people who say its happening and why..
    More importantly who say it isn't and why

    Good revision for those of you who know it to tell me :P
    it gets you thinking..
    And i need help! lol
    Lol doing this is the only way i can justify to myself that im "revising" . Before you start reading im terribly sorry for all of my typos and spelling mistakes, im very bad =/

    FIRST AND FORMOST- Religion is a hard concept to operrationalise, Do you count "bums on pews" do you look at the figures where people "practice" their religion or do you look at wether people "belive" as grace davie calls it. Wilson defines sec as "the process whereby relgious thinking, practice and institution become less significant" and Tylor gives the deffinition of religion as "The belife in supernatural beings" but both of these definitons can be critisied because ......... (think of something XD)

    -When comparing to old past stastics there are always room for error. For example, looking at church attendance back in say for example the 1800's might not give a true image of how "religious" they were. They might have only gone to church because it was the norm, not auctaly because they belived in christianity. Hamilton 2001, notion of an age of faith in the past is an illusion.

    Fuctionalists belive society isnt becomming secularized,

    -Religion is just another part of the body and society needs it to function so its unable to "disapear"

    - Durkheim, "The elementary forms of religion" Compared toterism, (worshipped by Australian aborigines) to society, saying how that by worshipping the totem (which represented societys shard norms and values) they were in fact worshipping society. Thus as long as society exists so will religion.

    -Grace Davie - Just because the stastics show a decline in church attendance, people still "belive". Can use exams of tragic accidents to show that people use religion to deal with the stress (examples such as 9/11) Malwaski said that peopel use religion to relive stress so you can link this in

    -Bellah 1987, Institutionalised religion is just one form of religion. There are many other forms which are hard to record. Such as NAM's and NRM's where the members arnt counted as much.

    -Parsons argued that Securalisation is auctaly good for religion as it will help them concentrate on their "core" purpose. That is to create a value concenus and create moral codes for society, e.g 10 commandments.

    Postmodernism- Argue for sec, kind of

    -Wilson, Bruce, Wallis. Argue that sec is a development rooted in modernity and focus on three ket processes, rationalization, disengagment and religious pluralism.

    -Ever since "The age of enlightment" religious thinking has decreased, with a society demanding both logic and rational thinking. The "sacred" as dukheim defined it no longer has any place in western society. Berger (1973) Christanity has ultimately been its own gravedigger, Protestanitism docused attention on this life, work and the pursuit of prosperity rather than on the domain of god and the afterlife. <----- i love that one :')

    -Disengagement. The seperation of the church from wider society. With the churches/religions reduced "sphear of influence" it has less chance to get involved with the every day life of modern socity and thus is having less of an impact on socity itself. (Examples such as how the church no longer controls the education institution, or how R.E is no longer a compulsary subject. Also look at the house of lords reform and how position of many bishops in the house of looks is being looked down apon (yes i take gov and politics Whhhhy is my teacher teaching me religion instead of the politics unit, i do not know )

    -Religious pluralism. Bruce argues thatinustrialization has gramneted society into a marketplace of religious and other cummunity organizations. Wilson says that because of this the church / religion is no longer "one" force but many and because of this has less of an impact. He points out the ecumenical movement as an attempt to reverse securarization ( When differnt religions communicate to each to each other in order to try and "join forces" as it were to make their norms and shared values cover a wider range of society.)

    -However it can also be seen that the grown in sects and NAM's/NRM's show the complete opposite to secularizaion as it gives people more choice and shows a wider varity of belifs, "variety is the spice of life?" XD

    -Stark and Bainbridge, (The secularization cycle) I remember it as S.I.R.D (close to surd, "maths term", anyhow) It goes, Seculatization, innovation, revival, decline.

    -Some socilogists say that we are in a state of "innovation" because of the grown of NAM's and NRM's "hint the new", others argue we are in a state of secularization as can be seen with stastics.Nelson says we are undergoing revial and that sec realy happened around the time of enlightment and we are now past this.but

    -Heelas et al, said that the grown in New age beliefs also called a "holistic mullieu" show a rejection of science and modernity in the postmodern age. (Also look at the Kendal project which show an increase in these kind of religions)

    Ramdom other stuff

    -Raise in fundermentalism can show that secularisation is false, also might agree with stark and bainbrige theory. For example Iran, after becomming to westernizied the county demanded security and core values and so reverted back to "old religion" or fundermentalism. This can show that the cycle is Correct.

    -Kendal project in kendal (no surprise) shows a raise in NAM's and NRM's

    Terroism might be also scaring of some from religion, as they see it as "extreme" and might because of this give caution to it. (P.s this wasnt in the book i just made it up on the spot but its a good argument yes? :P )

    -Insert conclusion

    Tada? Well that would be my essay, just have to switch some of the paragraphs around to make it look better though :') mix them up and link them up ect ect ect
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snapshot13)
    Lol doing this is the only way i can justify to myself that im "revising" . Before you start reading im terribly sorry for all of my typos and spelling mistakes, im very bad =/

    FIRST AND FORMOST- Religion is a hard concept to operrationalise, Do you count "bums on pews" do you look at the figures where people "practice" their religion or do you look at wether people "belive" as grace davie calls it. Wilson defines sec as "the process whereby relgious thinking, practice and institution become less significant" and Tylor gives the deffinition of religion as "The belife in supernatural beings" but both of these definitons can be critisied because ......... (think of something XD)

    -When comparing to old past stastics there are always room for error. For example, looking at church attendance back in say for example the 1800's might not give a true image of how "religious" they were. They might have only gone to church because it was the norm, not auctaly because they belived in christianity. Hamilton 2001, notion of an age of faith in the past is an illusion.

    Fuctionalists belive society isnt becomming secularized,

    -Religion is just another part of the body and society needs it to function so its unable to "disapear"

    - Durkheim, "The elementary forms of religion" Compared toterism, (worshipped by Australian aborigines) to society, saying how that by worshipping the totem (which represented societys shard norms and values) they were in fact worshipping society. Thus as long as society exists so will religion.

    -Grace Davie - Just because the stastics show a decline in church attendance, people still "belive". Can use exams of tragic accidents to show that people use religion to deal with the stress (examples such as 9/11) Malwaski said that peopel use religion to relive stress so you can link this in

    -Bellah 1987, Institutionalised religion is just one form of religion. There are many other forms which are hard to record. Such as NAM's and NRM's where the members arnt counted as much.

    -Parsons argued that Securalisation is auctaly good for religion as it will help them concentrate on their "core" purpose. That is to create a value concenus and create moral codes for society, e.g 10 commandments.

    Postmodernism- Argue for sec, kind of

    -Wilson, Bruce, Wallis. Argue that sec is a development rooted in modernity and focus on three ket processes, rationalization, disengagment and religious pluralism.

    -Ever since "The age of enlightment" religious thinking has decreased, with a society demanding both logic and rational thinking. The "sacred" as dukheim defined it no longer has any place in western society. Berger (1973) Christanity has ultimately been its own gravedigger, Protestanitism docused attention on this life, work and the pursuit of prosperity rather than on the domain of god and the afterlife. <----- i love that one :')

    -Disengagement. The seperation of the church from wider society. With the churches/religions reduced "sphear of influence" it has less chance to get involved with the every day life of modern socity and thus is having less of an impact on socity itself. (Examples such as how the church no longer controls the education institution, or how R.E is no longer a compulsary subject. Also look at the house of lords reform and how position of many bishops in the house of looks is being looked down apon (yes i take gov and politics Whhhhy is my teacher teaching me religion instead of the politics unit, i do not know )

    -Religious pluralism. Bruce argues thatinustrialization has gramneted society into a marketplace of religious and other cummunity organizations. Wilson says that because of this the church / religion is no longer "one" force but many and because of this has less of an impact. He points out the ecumenical movement as an attempt to reverse securarization ( When differnt religions communicate to each to each other in order to try and "join forces" as it were to make their norms and shared values cover a wider range of society.)

    -However it can also be seen that the grown in sects and NAM's/NRM's show the complete opposite to secularizaion as it gives people more choice and shows a wider varity of belifs, "variety is the spice of life?" XD

    -Stark and Bainbridge, (The secularization cycle) I remember it as S.I.R.D (close to surd, "maths term", anyhow) It goes, Seculatization, innovation, revival, decline.

    -Some socilogists say that we are in a state of "innovation" because of the grown of NAM's and NRM's "hint the new", others argue we are in a state of secularization as can be seen with stastics.Nelson says we are undergoing revial and that sec realy happened around the time of enlightment and we are now past this.but

    -Heelas et al, said that the grown in New age beliefs also called a "holistic mullieu" show a rejection of science and modernity in the postmodern age. (Also look at the Kendal project which show an increase in these kind of religions)

    Ramdom other stuff

    -Raise in fundermentalism can show that secularisation is false, also might agree with stark and bainbrige theory. For example Iran, after becomming to westernizied the county demanded security and core values and so reverted back to "old religion" or fundermentalism. This can show that the cycle is Correct.

    -Kendal project in kendal (no surprise) shows a raise in NAM's and NRM's

    Terroism might be also scaring of some from religion, as they see it as "extreme" and might because of this give caution to it. (P.s this wasnt in the book i just made it up on the spot but its a good argument yes? :P )

    -Insert conclusion

    Tada? Well that would be my essay, just have to switch some of the paragraphs around to make it look better though :') mix them up and link them up ect ect ect

    oh..my...god (haha god..and we're doing religion!..funnier in my head!)

    I think I may just actually love you!!
    Thank you soo much!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well thats secularisation done..
    If only SOMEONE..
    Would think of covering..Religious organisations (typologies etc)
    And Religion in relation to social groups lol
    No its not fair...I can't ask that of Snapshot lol..anyone have any little hints or tips to help? Bearing in mind Ive got about an hour to cover it :/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -CG-)
    oh..my...god (haha god..and we're doing religion!..funnier in my head!)

    I think I may just actually love you!!
    Thank you soo much!!
    No problem, i kind of have sec condensed into 4 sheets of paper which are stuck to my wall. Its the only section that iv auctaly made notes on though =/

    Wow i realy hope sec comes up in the exam, but i know it most likley wont as it came up in the mock

    Lucky im realy good at the "social change" essay ready Halevy thesis, Liberation theory by Italian neo marxist Gramsci, Protestant work ethnic by weber. Differnt things that define wether the religion is a force for social change or not, e.g belifes of that religion, culture, social location and internal and externial organization.

    Im realy bad at the social group stuff and tpologies ect. I can only remember

    Wallis defined NRMs as

    -World rejecting
    -World affirming
    -World accommodating

    And Bruce defined NAM's as
    -Client cults
    -Auidence cults.

    Names kind of give away which each is about
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Now i'm quite confident with sec lol thanks to you! (I won't tell my soc teacher though..)
    Would I be ok to just leave out R Organisations..?
    its risky..
    But i know nothing about them..we spent so long on them AGES ago i just cant remember and my notes arent helping!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Lols my soc teacher can be just as useless sometimes, >.<.
    She spent at least 3 weeks (15 hours of lessons) teaching 2 pages inside of the book!

    But i would still give R organisations a quick read over tomorrow morning maybe? Iv got triple socilogy in the morning tomorrow so ill have a good 3 hours to revise then (y) And during that time ill be reading about cults/sects/denominations/nrms/nams and the whole science stuff that iv never even seen before! =/!

    Ahhh i also just rememberd, Linda WoodHEAD headed/leaded the Kendal project, well she was one of the main socilogists

    This is for the social change essay Thompson 1986, argues why some religions encourage social change and why others dont.
    HINT: The "Social location" part can also be mixed into the sec debate

    Belifes: Religions that emphasize strong moral codes are more likly to produce members who will be critical of and challange social injustice. The reverend Martin luther king and the southern baptist church were at the forefront of the black civil rights campaign in the 1960's. Buddhism focuses on self improvement rather than society improvment and thus is less likly to cause social change.


    Culture: Where religion is central to the culture of a society then anyone wishing to change society is more likly to use religion as means for this. Gandhi used the hindu concept of sarvodaya (welfare for all) to attack british colonial rule.


    Social location: Where a religious organizaion plays a major role in political or economic life, there is a wide scope for it to influence social change.E.g when the Ayatollah overthew the Shah of Irans pro western regime in 1979 "wow i never knew iran was very western only 30 years ago =/" (WHERE THE CHURCH IS DISENGAGED FROM THE STATE/GOVERMENT, IT HAS LESS IMPORTANCE TO CHANGING SOCIETY AND THUS LESS IMPORTANT IN GENERAL)

    Internal and external organization: Religions with a strong centralized source of authority have more chance of affecting events. Roman catholic church overthrew communism in Poland (well it helped greatly i would argue)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Waow thats very good stuff..
    Ill never remember the more 'exotic' examples but its very useful!

    i feel bad..
    I want to return the favour..youve helped me so much tonight!
    I better do well in this exam or i'll have to enlist your help come June :P
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.