Edexcel A2 Philosophy and Ethics, UNIT4: Implications

If you think you can with the time left, going over this can help:

Religious Language for Ayer
Religious Experience for Donovan
Tidbits of the Teleological & Cosmological arguments for Westphal

I think Death & The Aftrlife can help with making links for Westphal but I havent read Westphal enough to know. :redface:

Thank you! And we include those links in A01? And we use scholars that go against the passage in A02 right?

Original post by sfriday

PAH! just read 'the examiner does not want to make things difficult for you' er...they decided we should study Westphal?!? bitches!!

So true!

I think I'm going to have to blag this exam. Blag like I've never blagged before. And pray Ayer comes up. PLEASE GOD. DO YOU WANT ME TO GET INTO UEA?

*iz going to bed in half an hour and not even BOTHERING to wake up at 4 to revise*

Reply 141

Dark lugia 2

Original post by diamonddust

Thank you! And we include those links in A01? And we use scholars that go against the passage in A02 right?

Kind of!

Here's a structure in more detail...

For A01 You can summarise what the given passage says first. Then identify any key terms and explain what they mean. That will allow you to nicely flow into the older topics you revised that is needed for the author of the passage. e.g. for Ayer say that he is a logical positivist an you can refer to his verification principle and Flew's falsification principle and anything else that might be good to mention (analytical/synthetic statements, realists vs non-realists, univocal/equivocal language, cognitive and non-cognitive language - kind of blagging for the sake of mentioning these key terms, explaining them and relating them to the givn passage!)

A02's question asks for your own opinion on the passage firstly, you should use philosophers to back to what you think. For Ayer that could be Hick's eschatological vericfication. Then, explain the implications for religious believers and human experience (thats 2 seperate points) if what Ayer says is true.

You wont forget what to do for A02 in the exam because the questions directly asks for your opinion and the implications for religion and human experience... :biggrin:

And the above points are for Ayer only. Just replace the points for Ayer with points for Donovan or Westphal if they come up...

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 142

diamonddust

15

Original post by Dark lugia 2

Kind of!

Here's a structure in more detail...

For A01 You can summarise what the given passage says first. Then identify any key terms and explain what they mean. That will allow you to nicely flow into the older topics you revised that is needed for the author of the passage. e.g. for Ayer say that he is a logical positivist an you can refer to his verification principle and Flew's falsification principle and anything else that might be good to mention (analytical/synthetic statements, realists vs non-realists, univocal/equivocal language, cognitive and non-cognitive language - kind of blagging for the sake of mentioning these key terms!)

A02's question asks for your own opinion on the passage firstly, you should use philosophers to back to what you think. For Ayer that could be Hick's eschatological vericfication. Then, explain the implications for religious believers and human experience (thats 2 seperate points) if what Ayer says is true.

You wont forget what to do for A02 in the exam because the questions directly asks for your opinion and the implications for religion and human experience... :biggrin:

Thank you! *once again prays for Ayer*

I need to revise more but I think I'm going to go to bed and wake up early.
Night guys! Pray for Ayer!

Reply 143

Dark lugia 2

No problem! Good luck everyone for tomorrow, I'm off to read my revision notes more... I'll pray for Ayer too haha!

Reply 144

ella_bella

summary of key themes and ideas for Ayer...

IS GOD EVEN PROBABLE?

*The existence of a being with the attributes of God cannot be demmonstratively proved.
*Nor probably proved...
*Because if God were probable, then the proposition that he existed would be an empirical hypothesis
*From which we could deduce certain experiential propositions. But we cant...

METAPHYSICS

*To say 'God exists' is simply to say tthat certain phenomena have occured in a particular sequence.
*Believers say God is transcendant but known through empirical manifestations, yet cannot be defined by those manifestations.
*In which case, God is metaphysical and cannot be proved true or false.
*Therefore, we cannot talk meaningfully about him.

ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS

*Agnostic: God is a possibility and there is no reason to believe or disbelieve.
*Atheist: It is at least probable that God does not exist.
*The two are both nonsensical and therefore wrong.
*If God does not exist then atheists words are not a significant proposition.
*The agnostic has no way of knowing what the truth is, therefore he is ot expressing a significant proposition either.

GOD AND THE EMPIRICAL WORLD

*God is said to contro the empirical world and to be superior to the empirical world.
*Yet he exists outside it.
*If his essential attributes are non-empirical, then God is an unintelliagble notion.
*Since God is unverifiable, the word 'God' is simply a noun that fosters an illusion. It tells us nothing about him.

TRANSCENDANT TRUTHS

*'There cannot be any transcendant truths about religion'
*If we say that the nature of God is a mystery, this is unintelligable.
*Similarly, if we say God is an object of faith or mysticism.
*'It is impossible for a sentence to be both significant and to be about God'

THE MYSTIC GOD

*Mystics: God reveals truths, but these truths cannot be explained to others.
*intuition is not sufficient evidence.
*If the mystic had any facts he would reveal them.
*'Mysticism is not a genuine cognitivve state'.

CONCLUSION

*Religious Experience is not a valid proof of God's existence.
*It is only about the psychological state of the believer.
*'No act of intuition can be said to reveal a truth about a matter of fact unless it issues in verifiable propositions.'
*Therefore, science rules...?

hope this comes in useful for those of you doing last minute revision like me :smile:

Reply 145

Bluemonster3

Original post by ella_bella

summary of key themes and ideas for Ayer...

IS GOD EVEN PROBABLE?

*The existence of a being with the attributes of God cannot be demmonstratively proved.
*Nor probably proved...
*Because if God were probable, then the proposition that he existed would be an empirical hypothesis
*From which we could deduce certain experiential propositions. But we cant...

METAPHYSICS

*To say 'God exists' is simply to say tthat certain phenomena have occured in a particular sequence.
*Believers say God is transcendant but known through empirical manifestations, yet cannot be defined by those manifestations.
*In which case, God is metaphysical and cannot be proved true or false.
*Therefore, we cannot talk meaningfully about him.

ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS

*Agnostic: God is a possibility and there is no reason to believe or disbelieve.
*Atheist: It is at least probable that God does not exist.
*The two are both nonsensical and therefore wrong.
*If God does not exist then atheists words are not a significant proposition.
*The agnostic has no way of knowing what the truth is, therefore he is ot expressing a significant proposition either.

GOD AND THE EMPIRICAL WORLD

*God is said to contro the empirical world and to be superior to the empirical world.
*Yet he exists outside it.
*If his essential attributes are non-empirical, then God is an unintelliagble notion.
*Since God is unverifiable, the word 'God' is simply a noun that fosters an illusion. It tells us nothing about him.

TRANSCENDANT TRUTHS

*'There cannot be any transcendant truths about religion'
*If we say that the nature of God is a mystery, this is unintelligable.
*Similarly, if we say God is an object of faith or mysticism.
*'It is impossible for a sentence to be both significant and to be about God'

THE MYSTIC GOD

*Mystics: God reveals truths, but these truths cannot be explained to others.
*intuition is not sufficient evidence.
*If the mystic had any facts he would reveal them.
*'Mysticism is not a genuine cognitivve state'.

CONCLUSION

*Religious Experience is not a valid proof of God's existence.
*It is only about the psychological state of the believer.
*'No act of intuition can be said to reveal a truth about a matter of fact unless it issues in verifiable propositions.'
*Therefore, science rules...?

hope this comes in useful for those of you doing last minute revision like me :smile:

Thank you

and good luck everyone! I hope so much it is Ayer!

Reply 146

becca1192

Original post by cearajade

anyone know whats coming up? in my class we've done ayer, donovan + westphal.

one of those three i hope!

Reply 147

sfriday

Urgh, haven't been to bed. Too much coffee. Could now do an answer for Ayer, possibly a not very good answer for Westphal, but if it comes to Donovan I'm royally ****ed. Bring it on :|