Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Questions in OCR As Philosophy Exam 2016:
    1. a) Describe Anselm's Ontological Argument to prove the existence of God
    b) 'God's existence is logically necessary'-Discuss
    2. a) Explain how Kant used the existence of morality to postulate the existence of God
    b) 'morality is a psychological need, not a proof of God's existence.' Discuss.
    3.a) How does Iraneus' theodicy justify natural and moral evil in the world
    b) 'A good God doesn't exist as there is evil in the World'-Discuss
    4. a) Explain why the existence of Irreducible Complexity in some molecules implies an intelligent designer
    b) To what extent is irreducible complexity a creationist delusion


    It's quite funny I asked my teacher to mark two essays a couple of days before the exam on Kant's moral argument and the concept of irreducible complexity, though I did questions 1 and 3 in the exam lol. Do you reckon I will lose marks because I didn't leave 2 lines in between my answers? XD I did however write at the start of the paper 'Apologies for not leaving two lines in between my answers'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Ah never mind about the lines - I'm sure they'll understand! I think a lot of people will have been pleased to see Anselm and Irenaeus!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doctoroctagon)
    Ah never mind about the lines - I'm sure they'll understand! I think a lot of people will have been pleased to see Anselm and Irenaeus!
    Haha yes I definitely was
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I think Q4 was
    a) Explain why the existence of Irreducible Complexity in some molecules implies an intelligent designer
    b) To what extent is irreducible complexity a creationist delusion

    I only remember them because they were so ridiculous, I did Anselm and Irenaeus also
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thepurplerain)
    I think Q4 was
    a) Explain why the existence of Irreducible Complexity in some molecules implies an intelligent designer
    b) To what extent is irreducible complexity a creationist delusion

    I only remember them because they were so ridiculous, I did Anselm and Irenaeus also
    Thank you How did you find it?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maz A)
    Thank you How did you find it?
    Good thanks! I probably could have probably added in a few more details for both questions but on the whole it went quite well, what about you?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thepurplerain)
    Good thanks! I probably could have probably added in a few more details for both questions but on the whole it went quite well, what about you?
    Yeah I hope it went alright I got a couple of scholars in here and there. I also could have elaborated my part b on question 3 but hopefully the examiner doesn't mind too much.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Question 2a was something like "How does Kant's theory of morality postulate the existence of God?"
    2b was "Morality is a psychological idea and something like it disproves religion or tells us nothing about God"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maz A)
    Please let me know so I can update Questions:
    1. a) Describe Anselm's Ontological Argument to prove the existence of God
    b) 'God's existence isn't logically necessary'-Discuss
    2. a) Explaint Kants moral ...?
    b)
    3.a) How does Iraneus' theodicy justify natural and moral evil in the world#
    b) 'A good God doesn't exist as there is evil in the World'-Discuss
    4. a) Explain why the existence of Irreducible Complexity in some molecules implies an intelligent designer
    b) To what extent is irreducible complexity a creationist delusion


    It's quite funny I asked my teacher to mark two essays a couple of days before the exam on Kant's moral argument and the concept of irreducible complexity, though I did questions 1 and 3 in the exam lol. Do you reckon I will lose marks because I didn't leave 2 lines in between my answers? XD I did however write at the start of the paper 'Apologies for not leaving two lines in between my answers'.
    question 2 was:
    a) explain how kant used the existence of morality to postulate the existence of God
    b) 'morality is a psychological need, not a proof of God's existence.' Discuss.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I chose question 1 on Anselm and question 2 on Kant. I felt for the arguments for Irreducible Complexity there's not that much to write other than explaining the idea and linking it to how it disproves evolution etc. And I didn't like the A question for 3 the wording was annoying and I didn't really want to think to much about how to answer since I was concerned with timing.
    For question 1a I explained Anselm's argument and how he believed existence was a predicate and the arguments against by Malcolm, Kant and Gaunilo whilst supporting Anselm with Plantinga and Hartshorne. Didn't mention Descartes since it only used to explain Anselm's argument. Question 1b caught me off guard. I realised after the exam that logical necessity was more so to do with the deductive, analytic form of Anselm's argument and how through logic God must exist. Instead I can't remember my for logical necessity but countered it with the idea of factual necessity.
    For question 2a it was focused on Kant's moral argument and not Freud, since Freud was who you needed to talk about in the B question. For Kant I mentioned the idea of to be autonomous is to be moral, doing duty, categorical imperative, the three postulates; God, freedom and immortality and the Summum Bonum. The B question was basically Freud and his idea of Neuroses and religion being an Obsessive neurose can't remember if I mentioned Id, ego and superego.
    Apart from that it wasn't that bad, would have preferred anything on the cosmological argument.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I chose 1 and 3, for 1a i talked about what anselm was trying to do, his 1st argument, Gaunilo's response and how that prompted his 2nd argument and how it responded to Gaunilo's criticism, forgot to mention a priori though which sucked but i put some quotes and terms like reductio ad absurdum and mutatis mutandis, so hopefully they won't be too fussy xD. 1b i just spoke about Kant's 'existence is not a predicate' and 'to posit a triangle and yet reject its three angles is self-contradictory, but to reject the triangle with its three angles'.

    3a i spoke about it being a test and us being in the image of God etc, along with little references to how Hick sums things up here and there, wasn't sure on the natural evil thing so i used Hick's thing that it is perfectly suited to moral development and that natural disasters etc bring us closer together, and that without evil, including natural, we'd never increase in virtue or advance in any way.
    3b i was running out of time, so just said that if either Augustine's or Iranaeus' theodicies failed, then a good God doesn't exist, used Phillips' criticism of Iranaeus that it led to the counter-intuitive notion that suffering is good as it helps people develop, as well as acting virtuously as it brings us closer to God, if both are good then it undermines our entire sense of morality, also mentioned that suffering in the holocaust caused people to turn away from God rather than to him, so the argument doesn't make sense, also talked about Schleiermacher for Augustine and that it's illogical to claim a perfect system went wrong, and that evil is not a privation, referencing the holocaust again as evil being a very active thing rather than just failing to meet standards set for us. Hopefully i don't do too badly
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fw431)
    I chose 1 and 3, for 1a i talked about what anselm was trying to do, his 1st argument, Gaunilo's response and how that prompted his 2nd argument and how it responded to Gaunilo's criticism, forgot to mention a priori though which sucked but i put some quotes and terms like reductio ad absurdum and mutatis mutandis, so hopefully they won't be too fussy xD. 1b i just spoke about Kant's 'existence is not a predicate' and 'to posit a triangle and yet reject its three angles is self-contradictory, but to reject the triangle with its three angles'.

    3a i spoke about it being a test and us being in the image of God etc, along with little references to how Hick sums things up here and there, wasn't sure on the natural evil thing so i used Hick's thing that it is perfectly suited to moral development and that natural disasters etc bring us closer together, and that without evil, including natural, we'd never increase in virtue or advance in any way.
    3b i was running out of time, so just said that if either Augustine's or Iranaeus' theodicies failed, then a good God doesn't exist, used Phillips' criticism of Iranaeus that it led to the counter-intuitive notion that suffering is good as it helps people develop, as well as acting virtuously as it brings us closer to God, if both are good then it undermines our entire sense of morality, also mentioned that suffering in the holocaust caused people to turn away from God rather than to him, so the argument doesn't make sense, also talked about Schleiermacher for Augustine and that it's illogical to claim a perfect system went wrong, and that evil is not a privation, referencing the holocaust again as evil being a very active thing rather than just failing to meet standards set for us. Hopefully i don't do too badly
    I didn't mention a priori, I focused more so on the the deductive and analytic side just as a way of opening his argument. With question 3a, I was fairly confident with the problem of evil but the didn't think I could successful justify moral and nature evil. I properly would have talked about epicurus and then link theodicy with natural and moral evil and then talk about evil allows us to grow that's about it. Thinking about the question you properly could literally have explained Irenaeus' theodicy but keep linking it back to the question.
    I honestly didn't like the wording for these questions, expect question 1 which was a more typical question. Before my exam I was talking about there being a 25 mark question on Irreducible Complexity and I cannot really write much and no-one knew what it was and that If problem of evil came up I would find it easier if it was as focused on one theodicy, but this was more focused on the types of evil.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    By the way in case you're are wondering similar questions came up in the June 2010 paper. Expect question 1 which was on Prime Mover and God the rest were the following:

    2a) Explain Anselm's Ontological Argument.
    2b) 'It is pointless to deny the logical necessity of the existence of God.' Discuss
    ^ I got 4/10 last time on 2b but didn't know what to write, still through me off guard ^

    3a) Explain the concept of Irreducible Complexity.
    3b) 'There is no evidence for Intelligent Design in the universe.' Discuss

    4a) Explain Freud's view that moral awareness comes from sources other than God.
    4b) 'God is the only explanation of moral awareness.' Discuss
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Question 1 and Question 2 were by far the easiest!

    Q1) All you had to do was basically explain Anselm's Ontological Argument. Make sure you mentioned Guanilo and then afterwards, Plantinga and Anselm in response. For the second part, just evaluate your points in A01.
    Q2) All you had to do was explain Kant's Moral Argument w/ the 3 postulates and how they link to God's existence. For the second part, all you had to do was talk about Freud's argument that morality was psychological; use analogy of the baby developing, getting an ego. Go on to talk about the concept of the superego and how we have the choice to use it or not. Mention the 'id' before this; the part of the mind responsible for our desires.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by natchapers)
    question 2 was:
    a) explain how kant used the existence of morality to postulate the existence of God
    b) 'morality is a psychological need, not a proof of God's existence.' Discuss.
    thank you
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Malo_Bo)
    I chose question 1 on Anselm and question 2 on Kant. I felt for the arguments for Irreducible Complexity there's not that much to write other than explaining the idea and linking it to how it disproves evolution etc. And I didn't like the A question for 3 the wording was annoying and I didn't really want to think to much about how to answer since I was concerned with timing.
    For question 1a I explained Anselm's argument and how he believed existence was a predicate and the arguments against by Malcolm, Kant and Gaunilo whilst supporting Anselm with Plantinga and Hartshorne. Didn't mention Descartes since it only used to explain Anselm's argument. Question 1b caught me off guard. I realised after the exam that logical necessity was more so to do with the deductive, analytic form of Anselm's argument and how through logic God must exist. Instead I can't remember my for logical necessity but countered it with the idea of factual necessity.
    For question 2a it was focused on Kant's moral argument and not Freud, since Freud was who you needed to talk about in the B question. For Kant I mentioned the idea of to be autonomous is to be moral, doing duty, categorical imperative, the three postulates; God, freedom and immortality and the Summum Bonum. The B question was basically Freud and his idea of Neuroses and religion being an Obsessive neurose can't remember if I mentioned Id, ego and superego.
    Apart from that it wasn't that bad, would have preferred anything on the cosmological argument.
    I'm sure you have done very well, I learnt all of these scholars but did not include all of them in the exam. If you don't mind answering, how did you revise all of the scholars quotes for each topic, did you do it by scholar or perhaps create a sheet with all the criticisms/evidence on the topics. I would love to know prior to the ethics exam.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fw431)
    I chose 1 and 3, for 1a i talked about what anselm was trying to do, his 1st argument, Gaunilo's response and how that prompted his 2nd argument and how it responded to Gaunilo's criticism, forgot to mention a priori though which sucked but i put some quotes and terms like reductio ad absurdum and mutatis mutandis, so hopefully they won't be too fussy xD. 1b i just spoke about Kant's 'existence is not a predicate' and 'to posit a triangle and yet reject its three angles is self-contradictory, but to reject the triangle with its three angles'.

    3a i spoke about it being a test and us being in the image of God etc, along with little references to how Hick sums things up here and there, wasn't sure on the natural evil thing so i used Hick's thing that it is perfectly suited to moral development and that natural disasters etc bring us closer together, and that without evil, including natural, we'd never increase in virtue or advance in any way.
    3b i was running out of time, so just said that if either Augustine's or Iranaeus' theodicies failed, then a good God doesn't exist, used Phillips' criticism of Iranaeus that it led to the counter-intuitive notion that suffering is good as it helps people develop, as well as acting virtuously as it brings us closer to God, if both are good then it undermines our entire sense of morality, also mentioned that suffering in the holocaust caused people to turn away from God rather than to him, so the argument doesn't make sense, also talked about Schleiermacher for Augustine and that it's illogical to claim a perfect system went wrong, and that evil is not a privation, referencing the holocaust again as evil being a very active thing rather than just failing to meet standards set for us. Hopefully i don't do too badly
    I put literally the same as you for Anselm's question. What sort of grade are you expecting from it? I dont know if i put enough detail :/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maz A)
    I'm sure you have done very well, I learnt all of these scholars but did not include all of them in the exam. If you don't mind answering, how did you revise all of the scholars quotes for each topic, did you do it by scholar or perhaps create a sheet with all the criticisms/evidence on the topics. I would love to know prior to the ethics exam.
    When I revising the way I learn all the scholars is by trying to learn and an essay structure with simple cues then was I've learnt it well enough I try verbally saying the argument.For example for the Ontological Argument I my revision card literally said:
    -Define ( explain deduction, analytic and a priori)
    -Psalm 14:1
    -Argument 1
    - existence is predicate
    -Hartshorne
    -Kant and Malcolm
    -Argument 2
    -Gaunilo
    -Plantinga
    Then if needed use Descartes
    -Gassendi
    -Invisible gardener

    From that I would know what each person said and be able to explain the argument like so:
    Anselm's argument is deductive support with an example and define the rest.
    Psalm would be supported with an example as I explain what he meant.
    Argument 1 is straightforward.
    Existence being a predicate I would use an example of a widow and related it to God.
    Kant would use any example and just say it doesn't change you concept or understanding.
    Malcolm would support Kant and I would use the example of 'My future child' which states that when I have my child, I'll teach them to be honest and then they would be greater however if I said to someone my future child would be great it they exist it wouldn't make any sense.
    Malcolm did suggest that if God was necessary then this wouldn't be a problem which is when I link it to his second argument.
    Gaunilo would be the island.
    Plantinga would state the island was no intrinsic maxim.
    Descartes argument about perfection.
    Gassendi was only concerned with whether things existed and support with the invisible gardener.

    I was revising ethics yesterday and I think you better off learning some quotes and keywords because each theory is stems from them like deontological and teleological, from there I'm going to plan essays like I did with philosophy and use keywords to cue me, even for weaknesses I could summarise them so for the strengths for Natural Law I put :
    -clear cut
    -common ( for murder is wrong in most societies )
    -flexible
    -happiness ( good thing lead to morality )
    -reason ( doesn't just rely on it )
    I'm more worried about the later content so christian ethics, medical ethics and just war because we were running out of time before we broke up for exams so rushed it all. Christian ethics isn't that hard but I would say I need to learn a lot more quotes, Abortion and euthanasia I literally the same argument, genetic engineering is straightforward and just war looks long but I condense all my notes a lot.
    For just war I came up with mnemonics with Jus ad Bellum, Just in Bello and Jus post bellum. They might help.
    Jus ad bellum are came up with two ways
    SCAPIL; S=success(chance), C=cause(just), A=authority, P=proportionality, I=intention and L=last resort or
    Some People Cause Accidents Like Iraq
    Jus in Bello wasn't the best but I got Please Don't Oppress/Take More Revenge.
    P=proportionality, D=discrimination, O=obey laws, T=treatment of prisoners, M=means (so don't use people as means to the end ) and R=reprisal (no reprisal)
    Jus post Bellum was Please Don't Violate Rights Concerning People.
    P=Proportionality, D=discrimination, V=vindication, R=rehabilitation, C=compensation and P=punishment.
    I hope this helps.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by burga015)
    I put literally the same as you for Anselm's question. What sort of grade are you expecting from it? I dont know if i put enough detail :/
    I did that exact essay but included the word a priori when i did it in class and got a 24/25 on A and 10/10 on part B, so under exam stress on both and forgetting a priori i'd say 22/25 and 8/10
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fw431)
    I did that exact essay but included the word a priori when i did it in class and got a 24/25 on A and 10/10 on part B, so under exam stress on both and forgetting a priori i'd say 22/25 and 8/10
    Ah okay, thats great. Thankyou
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?

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.