A level religious studies -urgent need of guidance

Watch this thread
////////////
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#1
Hello can somebody please tell me how to evaluate for a 15 maker as my teacher has constantly told me that i lack evaluation in my answers meaning that i am capped at a level 3 if anybody can explain to me how to evaluate effectively in a 15 marker this would be greatly appreciated
0
reply
daisywatson253
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 4 months ago
#2
Hi - this might be a useful thread for you!

https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=5864958
1
reply
Joe312
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 4 months ago
#3
(Original post by ////////////)
Hello can somebody please tell me how to evaluate for a 15 maker as my teacher has constantly told me that i lack evaluation in my answers meaning that i am capped at a level 3 if anybody can explain to me how to evaluate effectively in a 15 marker this would be greatly appreciated
What are you currently doing?

Evaluation is when you give a reasoned judgment as to which side of a debate is right.

So you have to explain an argument either for or against, then a criticism of that, then give your judgement as to whether the criticism succeeds or whether it can be defended against. Then link back to the question.

Do 3 paragraphs like that and that's it!
0
reply
////////////
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#4
(Original post by Joe312)
What are you currently doing?

Evaluation is when you give a reasoned judgment as to which side of a debate is right.

So you have to explain an argument either for or against, then a criticism of that, then give your judgement as to whether the criticism succeeds or whether it can be defended against. Then link back to the question.

Do 3 paragraphs like that and that's it!
I am currently doing a level religious studies under the aqa exam board
0
reply
Joe312
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 4 months ago
#5
(Original post by ////////////)
I am currently doing a level religious studies under the aqa exam board
Yeah I know that, I mean what are you currently doing for your evaluation in your 15 mark questions. Did my explanation of how to do it make sense?
0
reply
////////////
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#6
(Original post by Joe312)
Yeah I know that, I mean what are you currently doing for your evaluation in your 15 mark questions. Did my explanation of how to do it make sense?
When I do my evaluation, I give my points for, explain it and then give my points against and explain it, then I say which point is more convincing all in the same paragraph but my teacher has claimed that i do no evaluation at all so i have never been to get the higher marks
0
reply
////////////
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#7
(Original post by Joe312)
Yeah I know that, I mean what are you currently doing for your evaluation in your 15 mark questions. Did my explanation of how to do it make sense?
It is impossible to verify relgious experiences evaluate this claim (15 marker)

A religious experience is an experience which is a phenomenon where the individual has an experience with the divine which theist use as evidence of the religious viewpoints against non theist views.

A religious experience can be verified according to Swinburne principle of credulity in this principle Swinburne characteristics in order to prove the existence of god the first point is that the if the individual is known for lying then the person is probably lying however if the individual isn't know for lying then the individual is “probably telling the truth” another point of thee principle of credulity is that if the person is the person makes an unreasonable claim for example of being able to read a text from 100 miles away if they claim that then they are probably not telling the truth.In this principle this logically speaking can be a logical way in order to verify the religious experience.This makes the argument successful because of the fact that it logical reasoning with the second point of if the persons claims are reasonable as well as the first point which looks at the persons track record which aligns with non theistic way of confirming things e.g patterns in order to predict” So here Richard Swinburne has given a good reason has to how you can verify a religious experience.However a philosopher by the name of Carl Davis rejected the idea of the principle of credulity because of the fact that what if the person is under the influence of drugs such as LSD or suffering from an illness such as tfl so even if the person is known for telling the truth it doesn't mean the person is immune to the disease moving on to the second point of having a reasonable claim this cannot always be the case e,g what if the recipient is to young to interpret the claim accurately?.This makes Richard Swimbunre point unsuccessful because of the fact Carl davis has completely counteracted swinburne 2 points because of the fact that if the person could be suffering from external factors then no matter how reliable a person can be this isn't strong enough as evidence,second of all if the experiencer is to young it isn't the recipients fault if he or she is to young to interpret the experience is this fair enough reason to not believe the individual


Another philosopher which rejected the idea that religious experiences can be confirmed is a philosopher by the name of nicholas lash who had an anti realist view about god-this is the view that religious experiences cannot happens via the traditional sense and that god isn't a thing which you can experience but instead an object of religious people belief and william james view about separating the real world and the mystical world the idea of the experience being introvertive and extrovertive.This makes nicholas point successful because of the fact that this way of thinking makes it much easier to confirm the religious experience because of the fact that there is no distinct realities like in the idea of mystical experiences.However william james argues against this by talking about how extrotive experiences are where you cannot see reality in a traditional sense your sense of reality is all over the place an example of this is avila religious experience when she quoted “I wish i could explain it in the slights but i find it impossible” this here matches with william james idea of a mystical experience being introvertive because it was outside the traditional point of view.This makes nicholas lash point of view unsuccessful because of the fact that there is evidence which supports william james point of view of ineffability and introvertive as well as as this occurrence being completely unexplainable by nicholas lash logic because if there arent 2 states of consciousness why wasn't she able to explain the phenomenon.


Another philosopher who rejected the idea of being able to verify the religious experience is Immanuel kant -immmanual kant was a theist who believed in the idea that human beings are finite and God is infinite so how can human beings even have an experience with the infinite which is God.This shows the idea of being able to confirm the religious experience to be impossible because of the point that we finite beings cannot begin to understand or evil directly communicate with god so confirmation with the divine in unquestionable in kant case.This point is successful because of the fact that follows the traditional definition of god and because of that if god is infinite and we are finite then from a logical standpoint it would not make sense to be able to verify a religious experience.However swimbunre believes that there is a way to verify a religious experience this is by the principle of credulity a religious experience tends to influence a persons a major example of this is the ex theist called c.s lewis cs lewis was an atheist but after a religious experience he has changed his life and other people have witnessed this claim and according to the principle of testimony we have successfully verified the religious experience.This point makes immanuel point unsuccessful because it completely shows real life evidence that there was an experience in this world as as the finite beings were able to witness the effect of the religious experience according to kants logic this should be impossible thereofre i belive that the example of c.s lewis has successfully disproved immanuel kant argument

In conclusion i believe that religious expericnes are experinces which can be verifed to a certain extent because of the effect that it has on certain individuals live e.g lewis despite the grey area in being able to explain them from a schinetfic point of view.
1
reply
Joe312
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 4 months ago
#8
(Original post by ////////////)
It is impossible to verify relgious experiences evaluate this claim (15 marker)

A religious experience is an experience which is a phenomenon where the individual has an experience with the divine which theist use as evidence of the religious viewpoints against non theist views.

A religious experience can be verified according to Swinburne principle of credulity in this principle Swinburne characteristics in order to prove the existence of god the first point is that the if the individual is known for lying then the person is probably lying however if the individual isn't know for lying then the individual is “probably telling the truth” another point of thee principle of credulity is that if the person is the person makes an unreasonable claim for example of being able to read a text from 100 miles away if they claim that then they are probably not telling the truth.In this principle this logically speaking can be a logical way in order to verify the religious experience.This makes the argument successful because of the fact that it logical reasoning with the second point of if the persons claims are reasonable as well as the first point which looks at the persons track record which aligns with non theistic way of confirming things e.g patterns in order to predict” So here Richard Swinburne has given a good reason has to how you can verify a religious experience.However a philosopher by the name of Carl Davis rejected the idea of the principle of credulity because of the fact that what if the person is under the influence of drugs such as LSD or suffering from an illness such as tfl so even if the person is known for telling the truth it doesn't mean the person is immune to the disease moving on to the second point of having a reasonable claim this cannot always be the case e,g what if the recipient is to young to interpret the claim accurately?.This makes Richard Swimbunre point unsuccessful because of the fact Carl davis has completely counteracted swinburne 2 points because of the fact that if the person could be suffering from external factors then no matter how reliable a person can be this isn't strong enough as evidence,second of all if the experiencer is to young it isn't the recipients fault if he or she is to young to interpret the experience is this fair enough reason to not believe the individual
The problem with this paragraph is that it is junxtaposition rather than evaluation. Junxtaposition is when you put two scholars who disagree with each other against each other, without giving your own reason for thinking that one of them is correct.

In the part where you try to do that - where you say 'davis has completely counteracted swinburne's 2 points' - the reason you give isn't adding anything to what you already said about Davis.

You are basically just saying - here is swinburne's argument, here is Davis' counter-argument, Davis is successful because of his argument.

It would be better if you tried to defend swinburne from Davis' argument. For example, honestly Davis' counter is not that good. Swinburne can just agree that if a person has taken LSD or has some kind of mental issue - then we have a reason not to believe their religious experience. However what about experiences where we have no evidence that it is caused by some naturalistic cause? In those cases, we have no reason not to believe them as evidence for God.

If you want you could then still counter swinburne - for example you could then say that even if such religious experiences are evidence for God, they are insufficient evidence because extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence.

(Original post by ////////////)
Another philosopher which rejected the idea that religious experiences can be confirmed is a philosopher by the name of nicholas lash who had an anti realist view about god-this is the view that religious experiences cannot happens via the traditional sense and that god isn't a thing which you can experience but instead an object of religious people belief and william james view about separating the real world and the mystical world the idea of the experience being introvertive and extrovertive.This makes nicholas point successful because of the fact that this way of thinking makes it much easier to confirm the religious experience because of the fact that there is no distinct realities like in the idea of mystical experiences.However william james argues against this by talking about how extrotive experiences are where you cannot see reality in a traditional sense your sense of reality is all over the place an example of this is avila religious experience when she quoted “I wish i could explain it in the slights but i find it impossible” this here matches with william james idea of a mystical experience being introvertive because it was outside the traditional point of view.This makes nicholas lash point of view unsuccessful because of the fact that there is evidence which supports william james point of view of ineffability and introvertive as well as as this occurrence being completely unexplainable by nicholas lash logic because if there arent 2 states of consciousness why wasn't she able to explain the phenomenon.
I'm not really following the argument being made in this paragraph!

(Original post by ////////////)
Another philosopher who rejected the idea of being able to verify the religious experience is Immanuel kant -immmanual kant was a theist who believed in the idea that human beings are finite and God is infinite so how can human beings even have an experience with the infinite which is God.This shows the idea of being able to confirm the religious experience to be impossible because of the point that we finite beings cannot begin to understand or evil directly communicate with god so confirmation with the divine in unquestionable in kant case.This point is successful because of the fact that follows the traditional definition of god and because of that if god is infinite and we are finite then from a logical standpoint it would not make sense to be able to verify a religious experience.However swimbunre believes that there is a way to verify a religious experience this is by the principle of credulity a religious experience tends to influence a persons a major example of this is the ex theist called c.s lewis cs lewis was an atheist but after a religious experience he has changed his life and other people have witnessed this claim and according to the principle of testimony we have successfully verified the religious experience.This point makes immanuel point unsuccessful because it completely shows real life evidence that there was an experience in this world as as the finite beings were able to witness the effect of the religious experience according to kants logic this should be impossible thereofre i belive that the example of c.s lewis has successfully disproved immanuel kant argument.
It doesn't make sense to re-use the principle of testimony and credulity here since you have discredited it in the first paragraph.
1
reply
////////////
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#9
(Original post by Joe312)
The problem with this paragraph is that it is junxtaposition rather than evaluation. Junxtaposition is when you put two scholars who disagree with each other against each other, without giving your own reason for thinking that one of them is correct.

In the part where you try to do that - where you say 'davis has completely counteracted swinburne's 2 points' - the reason you give isn't adding anything to what you already said about Davis.

You are basically just saying - here is swinburne's argument, here is Davis' counter-argument, Davis is successful because of his argument.

It would be better if you tried to defend swinburne from Davis' argument. For example, honestly Davis' counter is not that good. Swinburne can just agree that if a person has taken LSD or has some kind of mental issue - then we have a reason not to believe their religious experience. However what about experiences where we have no evidence that it is caused by some naturalistic cause? In those cases, we have no reason not to believe them as evidence for God.

If you want you could then still counter swinburne - for example you could then say that even if such religious experiences are evidence for God, they are insufficient evidence because extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence.



I'm not really following the argument being made in this paragraph!



It doesn't make sense to re-use the principle of testimony and credulity here since you have discredited it in the first paragraph.
i see i find it really hard to find the difference between Juxtaposition and evaluation another issue my teacher said is that you dont rlly explain for evaluation as much is this true
0
reply
Joe312
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 4 months ago
#10
(Original post by ////////////)
i see i find it really hard to find the difference between Juxtaposition and evaluation another issue my teacher said is that you dont rlly explain for evaluation as much is this true
I think the easiest way to upgrade your current paragraphs is to start putting in defences which don't come from scholars - that you pass off as your own judgement - against the criticisms.

Yes the 15 mark questions are all AO2 - evaluation. You don't get marks for knowledge - that's for the 10 mark AO1 questions.
0
reply
////////////
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#11
(Original post by Joe312)
I think the easiest way to upgrade your current paragraphs is to start putting in defences which don't come from scholars - that you pass off as your own judgement - against the criticisms.

Yes the 15 mark questions are all AO2 - evaluation. You don't get marks for knowledge - that's for the 10 mark AO1 questions.
Thanks for the response regarding the first paragraph or any paragraph would it be possible for you to show me what a good a02 paragrpah would look like that has good evaluation i am sure others can benefit from this and not only me

Thanks !
Last edited by ////////////; 4 months ago
0
reply
////////////
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#12
(Original post by Joe312)
I think the easiest way to upgrade your current paragraphs is to start putting in defences which don't come from scholars - that you pass off as your own judgement - against the criticisms.

Yes the 15 mark questions are all AO2 - evaluation. You don't get marks for knowledge - that's for the 10 mark AO1 questions.
but if i just give my personal opinions wont i get marked down for lack evidence?
0
reply
Joe312
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 4 months ago
#13
(Original post by ////////////)
but if i just give my personal opinions wont i get marked down for lack evidence?
If you don't back up your judgement with evidence then yes! When defending a theory against a criticism you have to give a logical reason for why the criticism fails.

This doesn't have to be your personal opinion - it can be, but the main thing is to come to your own reasoned judgement, whether it happens to coinscide with your personal opinion is irrelevant regarding getting marks.
0
reply
Joe312
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 4 months ago
#14
Here's two examples:


First, a brief explanation of Paley's design argument
William Paley’s design qua Purpose:Since complexity and purpose in a watch tells us there must have been a watch maker, similarly the complexity and purpose in the universe tells us that there must have been a universe maker: God.

Then the criticism:

Hume argues that it doesn’t follow from the similarity of two effects that they must have had similar causes. The smoke produced by fire and dry ice is very similar, but their causes not similar. So, just because the effect of the watch and the effect of the universe are like each other in that they both have complexity and purpose, it doesn’t follow that the cause of the watch (a watchmaker) must be like the cause of a universe. Two effects which are alike (analogous) might in fact have very different causes.

Hume argues further that any analogy between artefacts (man-made things) and natural things in the universe is faulty. He gave the example of a house but it applies to Paley’s watch too. This is because the universe is not like a machine (whereas a watch or house is) at all since it is composed of living things, it is more organic than it is mechanical.

Then your judgement, which is a defence of Paley against Hume:

However, Hume's critique of the design argument is unsuccessful because Paley’s argument is not based on an analogy. Paley’s argument is not based on an analogy between artefacts and the universe. His argument is that there is a property which requires a designer; the property of complexity and purpose – parts fitted together in a complex way to perform a purpose. When a complex of individually complex parts are fitted together in a meticulous way so as to achieve an overall function/purpose, it seems almost impossible for that to have come about by pure chance. A better explanation is a designing mind. Man-made things have this property but so too do natural things like the eye. Therefore, nature requires a designer because it has this property, not because of any analogy to man-made things. The watch is merely an illustration. We know the universe is designed because it has complexity and purpose.






Here's an example of a religious experience paragraph about swinburne:

First, Swinburne's argument:

Swinburne argued that religious experiences are evidence for God because if you experience something, that is evidence it exists. Whenever we gain some new evidence, we can’t dismiss it for no reason – that would be irrational. It is only if we have other better-established evidence which contradicts that new evidence that we may rationally dismiss it. Experiencing God is evidence for God, unless we have some other evidence to justify dismissing that experience.

Criticism of Swinburne:

Naturalistic explanations are always a reason not to believe. Any religious experience could be explained by mental illness, epilepsy, random brain hallucinations, fasting, drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, etc. So we will always have a reason not to believe any religious experience.

Your judgement: a Defence of Swinburne:

However, this criticism of Swinburne is unsuccessful because we could check for the presence of physiological and psychological causes of hallucinations. If none are present in a particular case, then we have no reason not to believe the experience in that case. In such cases, although we cannot rule out random brain hallucinations or unknown medical causes of religious experiences, we have no evidence for those explanations. Therefore we have no reason to dismiss those religious experiences as evidence for God.
1
reply
////////////
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#15
(Original post by Joe312)
Here's two examples:


First, a brief explanation of Paley's design argument
William Paley’s design qua Purpose: Since complexity and purpose in a watch tells us there must have been a watch maker, similarly the complexity and purpose in the universe tells us that there must have been a universe maker: God.

Then the criticism:

Hume argues that it doesn’t follow from the similarity of two effects that they must have had similar causes. The smoke produced by fire and dry ice is very similar, but their causes not similar. So, just because the effect of the watch and the effect of the universe are like each other in that they both have complexity and purpose, it doesn’t follow that the cause of the watch (a watchmaker) must be like the cause of a universe. Two effects which are alike (analogous) might in fact have very different causes.

Hume argues further that any analogy between artefacts (man-made things) and natural things in the universe is faulty. He gave the example of a house but it applies to Paley’s watch too. This is because the universe is not like a machine (whereas a watch or house is) at all since it is composed of living things, it is more organic than it is mechanical.

Then your judgement, which is a defence of Paley against Hume:

However, Hume's critique of the design argument is unsuccessful because Paley’s argument is not based on an analogy. Paley’s argument is not based on an analogy between artefacts and the universe. His argument is that there is a property which requires a designer; the property of complexity and purpose – parts fitted together in a complex way to perform a purpose. When a complex of individually complex parts are fitted together in a meticulous way so as to achieve an overall function/purpose, it seems almost impossible for that to have come about by pure chance. A better explanation is a designing mind. Man-made things have this property but so too do natural things like the eye. Therefore, nature requires a designer because it has this property, not because of any analogy to man-made things. The watch is merely an illustration. We know the universe is designed because it has complexity and purpose.






Here's an example of a religious experience paragraph about swinburne:

First, Swinburne's argument:

Swinburne argued that religious experiences are evidence for God because if you experience something, that is evidence it exists. Whenever we gain some new evidence, we can’t dismiss it for no reason – that would be irrational. It is only if we have other better-established evidence which contradicts that new evidence that we may rationally dismiss it. Experiencing God is evidence for God, unless we have some other evidence to justify dismissing that experience.

Criticism of Swinburne:

Naturalistic explanations are always a reason not to believe. Any religious experience could be explained by mental illness, epilepsy, random brain hallucinations, fasting, drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, etc. So we will always have a reason not to believe any religious experience.

Your judgement: a Defence of Swinburne:

However, this criticism of Swinburne is unsuccessful because we could check for the presence of physiological and psychological causes of hallucinations. If none are present in a particular case, then we have no reason not to believe the experience in that case. In such cases, although we cannot rule out random brain hallucinations or unknown medical causes of religious experiences, we have no evidence for those explanations. Therefore we have no reason to dismiss those religious experiences as evidence for God.
Okay i think i am ready to attempt my own paragraph now thanks
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

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

Y13s: How will you be receiving your A-level results?

In person (73)
67.59%
In the post (5)
4.63%
Text (15)
13.89%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (15)
13.89%

Watched Threads

View All