Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Group for those who do OCR A2 Philosophy & Ethics [Post Exam Discussion] watch

Announcements
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ineluctable)
    Does anyone else feel that it is hard to write a whole essay on some of the nature of God issues e.g. omnibenevolence? Other topics areas like religious experience seem to be too big to write an essay on!
    I think the opposite, omnibenevolence is huge..
    The ways Gods goodness shown in the Bible (Creation and sustaining of world, God performs miracles for our good, God is compassionate eg Hannah, God sends Jesus to die for us and show us morality, God cares about more than being worshipped and wants us to be moral), Give evidence to these but then argue back with counter evidence, which there's loads of (Mill saying nature is cruel, evidence God is transcendent, some of the Bible suggest and a jealous God "I the Lord and a jealous God", Wiles/Humes arguments against miracles) Then go through the main issues such as 1)Should a good God reward and punish (Could bring in theodicies, view of Swinburne on free will and punishment) 2)Is the concept of hell compatible with a good God 3)The euthyphro dilemma 4)If God HAS to do good actions, does this compromise the goodness of his actions? 5)Should a good God have created such weak willed creatures as humans and given us the ability to do bad things

    So yeah I'd say theres plentyyyy to write about there!

    Omniscience is harder I'd say...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ineluctable)
    Yes Ayer has non-cognitivist views on religious language and ethics
    I thought as much, so I'm right in thinking that with regards to religious language;
    Verification, Falsification and the via negativa are NON cognitive
    Myth, symbol, analogy are cognitive?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilylikeeee)
    I thought as much, so I'm right in thinking that with regards to religious language;
    Verification, Falsification and the via negativa are NON cognitive
    Myth, symbol, analogy are cognitive?
    Yes you are right, except some regard religious language as non-cognitivist. For example it is possible to regard symbols as cognitivist (Tillich) or non-cognitivist (J.H. Randall), and some like Braithwaite regard religious language as being language of ethical intent, so are non-cognitivist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilylikeeee)
    I think the opposite, omnibenevolence is huge..
    The ways Gods goodness shown in the Bible (Creation and sustaining of world, God performs miracles for our good, God is compassionate eg Hannah, God sends Jesus to die for us and show us morality, God cares about more than being worshipped and wants us to be moral), Give evidence to these but then argue back with counter evidence, which there's loads of (Mill saying nature is cruel, evidence God is transcendent, some of the Bible suggest and a jealous God "I the Lord and a jealous God", Wiles/Humes arguments against miracles) Then go through the main issues such as 1)Should a good God reward and punish (Could bring in theodicies, view of Swinburne on free will and punishment) 2)Is the concept of hell compatible with a good God 3)The euthyphro dilemma 4)If God HAS to do good actions, does this compromise the goodness of his actions? 5)Should a good God have created such weak willed creatures as humans and given us the ability to do bad things

    So yeah I'd say theres plentyyyy to write about there!

    Omniscience is harder I'd say...
    Ah it is all coming back to me now! I don't find omniscience that bad. You can link it with God's eternity, because obviously the difference between an everlasting and eternal God makes a difference in how God knows. Boethius could be brought in, and the debate about free will. Not loads to talk about but still something
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ineluctable)
    Ah it is all coming back to me now! I don't find omniscience that bad. You can link it with God's eternity, because obviously the difference between an everlasting and eternal God makes a difference in how God knows. Boethius could be brought in, and the debate about free will. Not loads to talk about but still something
    Yeah I guess ahhh I hope omnibenevolence comes up, never has before though ...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilylikeeee)
    Yeah I guess ahhh I hope omnibenevolence comes up, never has before though ...
    I am almost certain that a nature of God question will come up. The only ones so far have been an omniscience one in Jan 2010, and a Boethius one in June 2010. So I don't think we will see an omniscience one again.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    Verification, falsification and via negativa

    (Original post by emilylikeeee)
    Sorry if I'm being dumb...
    But wouldn't verification and falsification be non cognitive approaches to religious language as they say we that we don't know what we mean, and discussion of it is meaningless... Religious statements aren't open to validity or falsity...
    Symbol, analogy and myth on the other hand might see religious language as cognitive as we can discuss them and know what we mean...

    (Original post by Ineluctable)
    Yes Ayer has non-cognitivist views on religious language and ethics

    Think there is confusion here depending on how you interpreted the original question.

    What Noodlzzz is saying is that the methods of 'falification' etc. are all cognitive with regards to our world and thus rel. lang is non-cog
    What you two are saying is the non-cognitive theories (analogy etc.) relating to our world are actually cognitive when related to God.

    all of you are saying the same thing, just placing different emphases on different prepositions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by purplefrog)
    Think there is confusion here depending on how you interpreted the original question.

    What Noodlzzz is saying is that the methods of 'falification' etc. are all cognitive with regards to our world and thus rel. lang is non-cog
    What you two are saying is the non-cognitive theories (analogy etc.) relating to our world are actually cognitive when related to God.

    all of you are saying the same thing, just placing different emphases on different prepositions.
    Yes I was trying to make that clear, it seems that I didn't. They are cognitive theories so long as their criteria are met, and so they view religious language as non-cognitivist. Similarly Tillich and Aquinas believe that symbol and analogy are cognitive because they are making a propositional and factual statement about God.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp)
    Do you mean the Kuznet curve? My teacher has mentioned it in Economics
    I believe that is what it is.

    Just done a quick google, and there is an 'Environmental Kuznet Curve', where a hypothesis suggests that environmental damage decreases when a certain level of economic growth is reached.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    Afraid I don't know, but let me know when you do? Sounds very similar to Adam Smith however, who argued that capitalism made people more virtuous, to be a synoptic with virtue ethics
    Someone below suggested the Kuznet Curve, which sounds about right.

    Another question here. On Free Will and Determinism, and i remember my teacher saying a quote along the lines of -
    "a man who believes he is free does but dream with his eyes open'.

    Ive googled but can't find anything, anyone know who it was?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Torrresss)
    Someone below suggested the Kuznet Curve, which sounds about right.

    Another question here. On Free Will and Determinism, and i remember my teacher saying a quote along the lines of -
    "a man who believes he is free does but dream with his eyes open'.

    Ive googled but can't find anything, anyone know who it was?
    Are you sure it wasn't your teacher being poetic :p:? I can't recall anything, when I talk about free will being an illusion I normally mention Locke.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Torrresss)
    Someone below suggested the Kuznet Curve, which sounds about right.

    Another question here. On Free Will and Determinism, and i remember my teacher saying a quote along the lines of -
    "a man who believes he is free does but dream with his eyes open'.

    Ive googled but can't find anything, anyone know who it was?

    Spinoza

    “Those who believe that they speak or are silent, or do anything else from a free decree of the mind dream with their eyes open”
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilylikeeee)
    I know a philosophy examiner who is absolutely dead set convinced that Hume and miracles will be up in June
    :O that's exciting...how comes? surely is that q was on jan they won't put it in june?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    As much as I love Religious Language, I really doubt its going to come up again, i'm revising it but not as much as my other topics.

    Hows revision going for everyone? I'm only just properly revising now (stupid amount of exams -__) and luckily have a weekend off work to revise too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Bit of a no-brainer here.. but I just wanted to ask your advice.

    We didn't finish the nature of God section at school, and I've consequently forgotten to revise it. But there's a very strong possibility it might come up next week. So do I attempt to learn it, or just concentrate on the other sections? I probably should just concentrate on the other sections, but I hate going into exams underprepared.

    waaah but anyway, back to some religious experience revision.. can't wait till these exams are over!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nayberay)
    As much as I love Religious Language, I really doubt its going to come up again, i'm revising it but not as much as my other topics.

    Hows revision going for everyone? I'm only just properly revising now (stupid amount of exams -__) and luckily have a weekend off work to revise too.
    I have a history exam before RS so RS is taking second priority ATM. I think religious language is too big for them not to set a question on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What is everybody's exam technique here? I (try to):
    1. Put a point of view/idea
    2. Criticise that idea
    3. Evaluate the criticism
    4. Conclude the point
    5. Repeat steps above
    6. In the final conclusions, draw all the points together
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xbabycakes)
    Bit of a no-brainer here.. but I just wanted to ask your advice.

    We didn't finish the nature of God section at school, and I've consequently forgotten to revise it. But there's a very strong possibility it might come up next week. So do I attempt to learn it, or just concentrate on the other sections? I probably should just concentrate on the other sections, but I hate going into exams underprepared.

    waaah but anyway, back to some religious experience revision.. can't wait till these exams are over!
    I'd learn it, only because it's probably one of the easiest topics The last two questions have been about God being eternal and omniscient, so it may be wise to just look over God's omnipotence and benevolence?

    They are quite straight forward, so I'd recommend looking over them.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ineluctable)
    What is everybody's exam technique here? I (try to):
    1. Put a point of view/idea
    2. Criticise that idea
    3. Evaluate the criticism
    4. Conclude the point
    5. Repeat steps above
    6. In the final conclusions, draw all the points together
    My exam technique? Rant.
    Gets 92% with some examiners and 64% with others haha
    Yours looks gooood though
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp)
    I'd learn it, only because it's probably one of the easiest topics The last two questions have been about God being eternal and omniscient, so it may be wise to just look over God's omnipotence and benevolence?

    They are quite straight forward, so I'd recommend looking over them.
    There is hardly anything to say about omnipotence. You could go through the paradoxes, and point out the different view of God doing logically impossible things (Descartes) vs. logically possible things, and possibly link to Epicurean triad and problem of evil. Apart from that there seems little else.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: May 23, 2012
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?

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.