rebecca12345
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#181
Report 9 years ago
#181
(Original post by SCheng)
I think that was the question paper for the old specification, i remember someone on here saying that for unit 3 they only did a january exam once which was for the last people doing a resit for the old spec.
they mixed onto with atheism recently too, and thats the new spec
0
reply
LeahCarmel
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#182
Report 9 years ago
#182
By atheism, do you mean like a whole topic on atheism such as religious language is a whole topic or are you referring to the 'discuss the implications of this view for atheism?' which came up in 2009?
0
reply
Joshai
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#183
Report 9 years ago
#183
(Original post by LeahCarmel)
By atheism, do you mean like a whole topic on atheism such as religious language is a whole topic or are you referring to the 'discuss the implications of this view for atheism?' which came up in 2009?
A whole topic. Lame I know.
0
reply
Sadsnail
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#184
Report 9 years ago
#184
How could they put onto with atheism??


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
0
reply
gl71994
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#185
Report 9 years ago
#185
For the two types of religious language question I did it in class and contrasted Symbol/Myth with Analogy, is that not right then? Which ones are cognitive and which are non-cognitive?

Stressed is not the word!!!

Edit- Am I right in thinking there is only two past papers on the edexcel site for our spec? June 2011 and June 2010? For some reason june 09 isn't on there.

Also today I did the June 2010 paper and the question about the strengths/weaknesses for using religious experience as evidence for God. I wrote about:
Inductive argument.. link to swinburne and his principles etc.
Cumulative argument.
and how these offer strengths basically.
then my weaknesses were just critiques of REs e.g Dawkins and Freud? but I wasn't really sure if this was right?

I'm really hoping for a straightforward Deontology question, then something like the language question in June 2010 (pick two and analyse) and basically not the june 2010 experience question!!
0
reply
12lightf
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#186
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#186
(Original post by gl71994)
For the two types of religious language question I did it in class and contrasted Symbol/Myth with Analogy, is that not right then? Which ones are cognitive and which are non-cognitive?

Stressed is not the word!!!

Edit- Am I right in thinking there is only two past papers on the edexcel site for our spec? June 2011 and June 2010? For some reason june 09 isn't on there.

Also today I did the June 2010 paper and the question about the strengths/weaknesses for using religious experience as evidence for God. I wrote about:
Inductive argument.. link to swinburne and his principles etc.
Cumulative argument.
and how these offer strengths basically.
then my weaknesses were just critiques of REs e.g Dawkins and Freud? but I wasn't really sure if this was right?

I'm really hoping for a straightforward Deontology question, then something like the language question in June 2010 (pick two and analyse) and basically not the june 2010 experience question!!
For me, Myth & Symbol and Analogy don't comtrast enough so when I did that paper, I chose Verificationism & Analogy as one is cognitive, the other non-cognitive, so there is some scope for contrast.

The paper & spec changed after the 2009 papers. Paper before June 2010 have a different mark scheme (questions were out of 40 and no separation between A & B).

Your RE essay plan is essentially mine. I just talk about how its really a priori because Swinburne etc make the assumption that God exists which is totally a priori. If you mention the Cumulative Case in part 1 then in part 2 its a good idea to use Anthony Flew 'Multiple leaky buckets (or arguments) do not make one strong one).'

EDIT: suggestions for RE are for part 2 not part 1.
0
reply
emilyandkate
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#187
Report 9 years ago
#187
(Original post by 12lightf)
I would agree with you, but it is worth noting that they are supposed to mark AO1 & 2 material regardless of whether its in part i or ii. From experience with Foundations it's definitely better not to mix tho.
thanks!!
0
reply
emilyandkate
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#188
Report 9 years ago
#188
(Original post by SCheng)
Yeah i personally wouldn't evaluate in part (i) unless they ask for it, e.g, the question may ask you to write about an argument and its strengths and weaknesses.

I remember last year in my essays, i would evaluate, and my teacher who is also an examiner said it was not needed, and you only need to do it in part (ii). Also i remember reading in the back of my AS textbook, it had tips on how to answer the questions and it said that you don't gain any more marks for repeating material that you used in part (i) in your part (ii), so i take it that rule applies for the A2 course aswell.

Here's the mark scheme to last years paper that you might want to have a look at, and they want you to write in detail and be 'descriptive' in your part (i), and evaluate in yuor part (ii)
http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocu...s_20110817.pdf
Ok thanks the mark scheme was sooo helpful i couldnt find it before!
0
reply
IDukem
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#189
Report 9 years ago
#189
I thought i'll start out my time here at student forums by helping people out with Virtue Ethics (i'm doing this course as well).

This came from one of my essay's based on Virtue ethics. It was done on a p.c as it was failry early on in the year but i hope it helps.

"The origin of virtue ethics came from a Greek philosopher called Aristotle who was very much interested in the idea of cause and purpose. Aristotle argued that an action a person performs is directed towards some purpose and that it tries to achieve something. He would go on to say that there are two different aims, superior and subordinate. A subordinate aim is something that we have to achieve first before achieving a superior aim. An example of this could that if you were hungry which your superior aim is; you need to make a sandwich in order to achieve that aim. Making the sandwich would be your subordinate aim. Aristotle would go on to argue that the superior aim of human life is to achieve something named eudaemonia which is a Greek word that translates to happiness. Aristotle believed that this is an aim that we must follow or in other words, a pursuit for happiness or pleasure. Eudaemonia can only be achieved when a person becomes virtuous and Aristotle argued that this is a process that we grow towards by practising virtues. However, Aristotle realised that everyone has a different view of happiness and so he distinguished happiness between threes types of pleasure/happiness:

Pleasure seekers - People who are driven by the basic desires in life and simply live from one pleasurable experience to the next e.g. eating good food and sexual intercourse.

Seeker of honour: These are people who try to find a solution to important problems and get a sense of honour form doing that.

Those who love contemplation: These are philosophers and thinkers.

For Aristotle, happiness is an activity of the soul. In other words, the correct and full use of the soul can help us to discover happiness. Aristotle would also divide the soul into two parts, the rational part and irrational part. The rational part consists of the scientific part which holds types of knowledge and not up for debate. This is a priori knowledge. It also would include a calculative part which weighs up knowledge and helps in decisions. On the other hand, the irrational part of the soul contains the desiderative part which helps humans distinguish between needs and wants and a vegetative part that is concerned with basic needs that keeps us alive and is our survival instinct."

This is only the section on eudaemonia and superior and subordinate aims. I got a high A for this essay so i hope this part helps you out.
1
reply
headbands,
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#190
Report 9 years ago
#190
(Original post by SCheng)



1) Anselm's starting premise (definition of God as 'that than which . . .') could be true and accepted by both the believer and atheist.
2) Since the arguments are deductive if the premises could be accepted then the conclusion must be true.

What do you mean by the reformulations?

1) Descartes
- malcom
- plantinga ect
0
reply
headbands,
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#191
Report 9 years ago
#191
(Original post by Joshai)
Phoned Edexcel to enquire about athiesm in the part 1. The guy was pretty brief, but I asked him if it could come up as a separate question etc. because different people have said different things. He replied that if it's on the specification as a separate point then it could.
Also, in terms of Myth and Symbol, in the specification they are one topic, so they will never come up separately. And, the specific block for religious language says: "Note that over a cycle of a few years all these topics will be examined."
That being true, so far from June 2010, Myth and Symbol, Language Games, Analogy, and then two types of religious language (cognitive and non-cognitive?) have come up, so it could be possible that verificationism/falsificationism will come up, as long as they aren't total asswipes.
I myself am doing Ontological, Religious Language and Justice, Law and punishment. Starting to worry about whether Atheism will come up though!
Sorry I'm a bit confused, when you said there are two types of religious language why would you say cognitive and non cognitive?
I would interpret it to mean like analogy, myth, symbol ect?
0
reply
LeahCarmel
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#192
Report 9 years ago
#192
(Original post by Joshai)
A whole topic. Lame I know.
We haven't been taught atheism so I'm screwed if it's combined! Hopefully they'll be nice to use and give us straightfoward questions.
0
reply
LeahCarmel
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#193
Report 9 years ago
#193
(Original post by headbands,)
Sorry I'm a bit confused, when you said there are two types of religious language why would you say cognitive and non cognitive?
I would interpret it to mean like analogy, myth, symbol ect?
Analogy, myth and symbol are examples of non-cognitive language I think.
0
reply
Rose957
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#194
Report 9 years ago
#194
For the religious experience question in part (i) do people think its best to talk about the types of religious experiences like conversion, revelatory ect or the arguments for it instead like swinburne and cumulative argument? But then what are you left to talk about for the evaluation in part (ii)!?
0
reply
LeahCarmel
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#195
Report 9 years ago
#195
(Original post by Rose957)
For the religious experience question in part (i) do people think its best to talk about the types of religious experiences like conversion, revelatory ect or the arguments for it instead like swinburne and cumulative argument? But then what are you left to talk about for the evaluation in part (ii)!?
In (i), I plan to write a definition, the nature of the argument, differenty types, philosopher's interpretations such as swinburne's types, hard position, soft positions, issues and solutions (principles of testimony/credulity).

In (ii), I plan to write why RE aren't normally accepted as a proof e..g subjective and other explanations are available and then develop this with wittgensteins theory of seeing-as, vicious circle challenge, caroline frank-davies' challenges, psychological challenge and then conclude with how it is a cumulative argument but people find RE too subject thus hick's idea of eschatological verification is a good place to settle it.

Part one is description and part two is evaluation.
I hope this helps
0
reply
301lw
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#196
Report 9 years ago
#196
strengths of religious experience? struggling loads with this one!
0
reply
headbands,
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#197
Report 9 years ago
#197
(Original post by LeahCarmel)
Analogy, myth and symbol are examples of non-cognitive language I think.
Ah right I see, but then what is cognitive religious language?
0
reply
headbands,
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#198
Report 9 years ago
#198
(Original post by LeahCarmel)
In (i), I plan to write a definition, the nature of the argument, differenty types, philosopher's interpretations such as swinburne's types, hard position, soft positions, issues and solutions (principles of testimony/credulity).

In (ii), I plan to write why RE aren't normally accepted as a proof e..g subjective and other explanations are available and then develop this with wittgensteins theory of seeing-as, vicious circle challenge, caroline frank-davies' challenges, psychological challenge and then conclude with how it is a cumulative argument but people find RE too subject thus hick's idea of eschatological verification is a good place to settle it.

Part one is description and part two is evaluation.
I hope this helps
swinburnes types?
0
reply
LeahCarmel
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#199
Report 9 years ago
#199
(Original post by headbands,)
Ah right I see, but then what is cognitive religious language?
The verification principle because verificationists believe "if a statement is not conclusively verfied, it cannot be verified at all. It is simply devoid of any meaning."
0
reply
headbands,
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#200
Report 9 years ago
#200
(Original post by LeahCarmel)
The verification principle because verificationists believe "if a statement is not conclusively verfied, it cannot be verified at all. It is simply devoid of any meaning."
But still I don't understand how this is a type of language? It is just a critique of religious language?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Should the school day be extended to help students catch up?

Yes (96)
27.51%
No (253)
72.49%

Watched Threads

View All