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

Aqa RST3B A2 2016 Predictions Philosophy of Religion Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jehaan)
    I thought RL is non cognitive but it is the verification and fasification principles which mistake it as cognitive. Analogy and symbol both think of it as non cognitive I think
    They don't make the mistake of calling it cognitive. They are cognitivist theories and therefore believe that for a statement to have meaning, it must covey facts. They argue due the non-cognitive nature of religious language, it is unverifiable and thus making it meaningless.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jehaan)
    What exactly would the question be?
    I'm taking it as explain the problem of evil in regard to the logical and evidential problem
    I'd start off by explaining the nature of either
    Logical- a priori- true by definition- inconsistent triad
    Process Thought's response in that it solves the logical PoE
    Evidential- William Rowe- case of Baby Sue and the fawn Bambi
    Skeptical Theist's response
    End with the fact that no theodicy can deal with both as they are undefendable without compromising the idea of the God of classical theism
    Wait, can't you use theodicies to answer that question? Like Augustine's, FWD, Irenaeus and Hick?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arrow_h)
    Wait, can't you use theodicies to answer that question? Like Augustine's, FWD, Irenaeus and Hick?
    It depends on the question if it is something like how has religion responded to the logical and evidential problem of evil then you could include the theodicies but I just didn't see the question so I made one up
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anaesthetic)
    Is anyone able to point out which theories within religious language is cognitive and those that are not? Much appericated

    And also do we have to explicity know about religious language as myths? Or can I skip that ??
    Non- cognitive approaches would be coming from Tillich and Randall (symbols), Bultman and McQaurrie (Myths), Aquinas (Analogy) and Braithwaite.

    The opposing side is cognitivist theorists Ayer and Flew (Verification and Falsification). They do not argue Religious Language is cognitive, they argue it can not be cognitive as it is unverifiable and not able to be empirically tested, thus they concluded Religious Language is meaningless.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Haiych)
    Aquinas believed that greatness and perfection can always be added to, hence they were not meaningful when trying to understand God. The same way a number can always be added to. So can the idea of perfection.
    Ahhhh I get it!! Thanks so much
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Any final predictions for Ontological argument and Body, Soul and Personal Identity?

    Exam's tomorrow!!!!! I'm so nervous!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What are the objections to Norman Malcolm and Alvin Plantinga - OA
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jehaan)
    I thought RL is non cognitive but it is the verification and fasification principles which mistake it as cognitive. Analogy and symbol both think of it as non cognitive I think
    Thanks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nemmeros)
    Non- cognitive approaches would be coming from Tillich and Randall (symbols), Bultman and McQaurrie (Myths), Aquinas (Analogy) and Braithwaite.

    The opposing side is cognitivist theorists Ayer and Flew (Verification and Falsification). They do not argue Religious Language is cognitive, they argue it can not be cognitive as it is unverifiable and not able to be empirically tested, thus they concluded Religious Language is meaningless.
    Thanks a lot, this makes my life a lot more easier.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    This is a document containing objections along with responses to the Ontological Argument
    Attached Files
  1. File Type: docx Objection.docx (17.1 KB, 90 views)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nemmeros)
    This is a document containing objections along with responses to the Ontological Argument
    This is so helpful and clearly set out!!

    Thank you so much!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone please define personal identity!!!!!!!!!!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Is FWD and Process Thought worth revising?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hunnybeebee)
    Is FWD and Process Thought worth revising?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    To be honest I started revising process thought today, because of the paper withdrawal thing, so I'd just outline the theodicy and what Griffin said
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arrow_h)
    To be honest I started revising process thought today, because of the paper withdrawal thing, so I'd just outline the theodicy and what Griffin said
    I just too only done process thought but don't know it solidly

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hunnybeebee)
    Is FWD and Process Thought worth revising?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If I had to choose 2 I would choose Hick and Augustine as Hick hasn't come up in years and Augustine was quite a few years ago now whereas process thought I think was only 3 or so years ago. Plus fwd was last year so I'm not bothering with that
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jehaan)
    If I had to choose 2 I would choose Hick and Augustine as Hick hasn't come up in years and Augustine was quite a few years ago now whereas process thought I think was only 3 or so years ago. Plus fwd was last year so I'm not bothering with that
    Going to wake up at six to solidly know process thought again and hick and irenaeus, relax then hope to smash the exam.

    In all honesty tho, good luck everyone!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherrybanana)
    Can someone please define personal identity!!!!!!!!!!
    I can't really define it but I can try to explain it.
    Is there a part of you which define you and makes you, you? If so is this your soul or your body. Your soul is unidentifiable without your body whereas your body is simply a vessel for you soul. If ons of these were taken away would you still be you?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Can anyone help with the logical and moral errors in the Augistanian theodicy?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hunnybeebee)
    Can anyone help with the logical and moral errors in the Augistanian theodicy?Posted from TSR Mobile
    Logical:
    1) Logical contradiction in holding that a perfectly created world has gone wrong, since this would mean that evil has created itself out of nothing (ex nihilo), which is logically impossible. This means that either the world was not perfect to begin with, or God enabled it to go wrong.

    2) In a perfect world where there was no knowledge of good and evil, there could possibly be freedom to obey or disobey God, since good and evil would be unknown.This suggests there was already knowledge of evil, which could only have come from God.

    Moral:
    1) Hell is part of the design of the universe, God chose to create the world despite knowing that the Fall would happen.
    2) God’s selection of people for shows inconsistency rather than mercy.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
  • 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

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