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

Aqa RST3B A2 2016 Predictions Philosophy of Religion Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    does anyone know what D.Z Philips said in response to language games.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    how do you guys revise for re??
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Haiych)
    how do you guys revise for re??
    I just started Lol
    whats your way?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Karan24H)
    I just started Lol
    whats your way?
    You give me hope . I memorise key arguments and then try to put it into practice by doing some past papers questions. Also reading sample answers is very helpful!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jehaan)
    I also hate religious language but I think the questions set on it are easiest as you don't have to learn as much as you can just insert parables
    i agree but i just hate revising for it and rather do problem of evil even though its a bigger topic and you have to learn more for it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Karan24H)
    does anyone know what D.Z Philips said in response to language games.
    he opposes this idea and argues that it prevents philophy of religion as it suggest that no one who s outisde the game can criticise the belief. he also develops wittgenstein's approach by arguing that some of the problems caused by RL exist ecause we take language literally.

    hope that helps.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KaurNav)
    he opposes this idea and argues that it prevents philophy of religion as it suggest that no one who s outisde the game can criticise the belief. he also develops wittgenstein's approach by arguing that some of the problems caused by RL exist ecause we take language literally.

    hope that helps.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Thank you so much !!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arrow_h)
    Hi guys, say it asked outline anselms ontological argument and the objections/ responses made to them which objections should I include and if it asked outline ontological argument (so including descartes) which responses and objections should I make?
    I have:
    Gaunilo
    Kant
    Aquinas
    Hume
    Gassendi
    Caterus
    Russell
    I've never heard of cater us or Gassendi so could you please explain these two?
    REMEMBER ANSELM DID NOT USE EXISTENCE AS A PREDICATE. Therefore you can't use Kant or Hume. Personally I would use Aquinas and a response to him I found fascinating was a weakness of the OA I think by Gasking which justifies God not existing using the OA. I would also use Guanilo as well as Malcolm and plantinga as they are both positive responses
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherrybanana)
    For the Ethics paper (RST4C Moral-Decision Making),is it possible that this question can come up:

    "Examine the ethical issues raised when using [telelogical/deontological/hybrid ethical systems] to make moral decisions"rather than asking about the ethical issues arising from areas of medical research?

    Or would this question be too alike to an A02 question?

    And if it were likely to come up what would we discuss?
    I would say that that's too close to AO2 and a more likely question would be examine the use of teleological ethics or explain how religious believers use distinguish between good and bad and right and wrong as that hasn't come up for ages
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jehaan)
    I've never heard of cater us or Gassendi so could you please explain these two?
    REMEMBER ANSELM DID NOT USE EXISTENCE AS A PREDICATE. Therefore you can't use Kant or Hume. Personally I would use Aquinas and a response to him I found fascinating was a weakness of the OA I think by Gasking which justifies God not existing using the OA. I would also use Guanilo as well as Malcolm and plantinga as they are both positive responses
    can you explain how malcolm and platinga are positive responses? what do you mean by this?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Haiych)
    can you explain how malcolm and platinga are positive responses? what do you mean by this?
    Plantinga's maximal excellence can either be treated as a development of the definition of God or can be a justification for deriving existence from a definition. Malcolm could be used for deriving a definition from an existential claim.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jehaan)
    I've never heard of cater us or Gassendi so could you please explain these two?
    REMEMBER ANSELM DID NOT USE EXISTENCE AS A PREDICATE. Therefore you can't use Kant or Hume. Personally I would use Aquinas and a response to him I found fascinating was a weakness of the OA I think by Gasking which justifies God not existing using the OA. I would also use Guanilo as well as Malcolm and plantinga as they are both positive responses
    Caterus and Gassendi were against Descrates
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jehaan)
    I've never heard of cater us or Gassendi so could you please explain these two?
    REMEMBER ANSELM DID NOT USE EXISTENCE AS A PREDICATE. Therefore you can't use Kant or Hume. Personally I would use Aquinas and a response to him I found fascinating was a weakness of the OA I think by Gasking which justifies God not existing using the OA. I would also use Guanilo as well as Malcolm and plantinga as they are both positive responses
    And what about Plantinga and Davis?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arrow_h)
    Caterus and Gassendi were against Descrates
    I have literally never heard either of those names before but neither has the rest of my class. Do you think they would be important to learn?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arrow_h)
    And what about Plantinga and Davis?
    Well this could represent either an extension of the definition of God or (and what Davies should be used for) deriving an existential claim from a definition. Davies is a response to a response which you can use
    i'll copy and paste from my notes:
      • Plantinga introduced the idea of “maximal excellence” which entails all the omnis and moral perfection Therefore:
        • There is a possible world in which there is a being that is maximally great
        • If it's maximally great this being must exist in our world
        • This being has maximal greatness so it must also have maximal excellence
        • Therefore the God of classical theism exists
      • Davies said that even if we accept that a being with maximal excellence is possible but it does not mean that such a being actually exists.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jehaan)
    I would say that that's too close to AO2 and a more likely question would be examine the use of teleological ethics or explain how religious believers use distinguish between good and bad and right and wrong as that hasn't come up for ages
    Ok Thanks!

    And I agree, for ethical systems I think its either gonna be teleological or ethical issues!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jehaan)
    Well this could represent either an extension of the definition of God or (and what Davies should be used for) deriving an existential claim from a definition. Davies is a response to a response which you can use
    i'll copy and paste from my notes:
    Wait, Kant and Russell talk about predicates, but who do they respond to Descartes or Anselm?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Karan24H)
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Thank you so much !!
    No problem.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arrow_h)
    Wait, Kant and Russell talk about predicates, but who do they respond to Descartes or Anselm?
    Descartes + Anselm for Kant

    As Kant states that Descartes was wrong calling existence a predicate. For example if you apply existence to 'x', and go on to say 'x exists' does not tell us anything about 'x'. If existence was a predicate, then it must tell us something and give us informations about 'x'.

    By placing God in a different category, both Anselm and Descartes commit the error of giving a synthetic proposition the status of an analytic proposition.

    And for Russell = Kant
    Existence is not a predicate. It is not a property of something, rather an idea of something. This is where you use his analogy of dragons.

    Hope this helps!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Karan24H)
    Descartes + Anselm for Kant

    As Kant states that Descartes was wrong calling existence a predicate. For example if you apply existence to 'x', and go on to say 'x exists' does not tell us anything about 'x'. If existence was a predicate, then it must tell us something and give us informations about 'x'.

    By placing God in a different category, both Anselm and Descartes commit the error of giving a synthetic proposition the status of an analytic proposition.

    And for Russell = Kant
    Existence is not a predicate. It is not a property of something, rather an idea of something. This is where you use his analogy of dragons.

    Hope this helps!
    I agree with all of this plus Hume=Kant
 
 
 
  • 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
    Break up or unrequited love?
  • 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.