AS Philosophy of Religion Specification

Category: PAST QUESTIONS and REVISION TIPS

Published on Wednesday, 03 October 2012 19:39

Hits: 616

G571: AS Philosophy of Religion

Ancient Greek influences on philosophy of religion

Candidates are expected to have a basic knowledge of the thinking of Plato and Aristotle; they will not be expected to have first-hand knowledge of the texts. They should be able to highlight the strengths and weaknesses in the thinking of Plato and Aristotle in the areas specified below.

Plato: the Analogy of the Cave

The Republic VII. 514A–521B
Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of what might be
represented in the Analogy of the Cave by the following:
 the prisoners, the shadows, the cave itself, the outside world, the sun, the journey out of the cave and the return to the prisoners.
Candidates should be able to discuss critically the validity of the points being made in this
analogy.

Plato: the concept of the Forms; the Form of the Good

Candidates should understand what Plato meant by ‘Forms’ and be able to demonstrate
knowledge and understanding of:
 the relation between concepts and
phenomena;
 the concept of ‘Ideals’;
 the relation between the Form of the Good and the other Forms.
Candidates should be able to discuss critically the validity of the above points.

Aristotle: ideas about cause and purpose in relation to God (Metaphysics Book 12) 

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:
 Aristotle’s understanding of material, efficient, formal and final cause;
 Aristotle’s concept of the Prime Mover.
Candidates should be able to discuss critically
the validity of the above points.

Judaeo-Christian influences on philosophy of religion

Candidates should be familiar with Biblical texts to exemplify the topics below. There are no prescribed texts.

The concept of God as Creator

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:
 the way the Bible presents God as involved with his creation;
 the imagery of God as a craftsman;
 the concepts of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence;
 the concept of ‘creatio ex nihilo’.
Candidates should be able to:
 compare this view with Aristotle’s Prime Mover;
 discuss whether, if God created the universe, God is therefore responsible for everything that happens in it.
Candidates should be able to discuss these areas in a critical manner.

The goodness of God

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:
 the ways in which the God of the Bible is seen as morally perfect and the source of human ethics;
 the concept of God as lawgiver and as judge.
Candidates should be able to:
 consider whether, in a Biblical context, God commands things because they are good or whether things are good because God commands them.
Candidates should be able to discuss these areas in a critical manner.

Traditional arguments for the existence of God

The Ontological argument from Anselm and Descartes; challenges from Gaunilo and Kant 
Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:
 the Ontological argument from Anselm and Descartes;
 challenges to it from Gaunilo and Kant;
 Anselm’s understanding of God – his understandor everything
that happens in it.
Candidates should be able to discuss these
areas in a critical manner.

The Cosmological argument from Aquinas and Copleston; challenges from Hume and Russell

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of: 

 the Cosmological argument from Aquinas and Copleston;
 the arguments put forward by Copleston in the 1948 radio debate with Russell and
Russell’s counter arguments;
 Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument.
Candidates should be able to discuss critically these views and their strengths and
weaknesses.

The Teleological argument from Aquinas and Paley; challenges from Hume, Mill and Darwin

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of: 
 the teleological argument from Aquinas and
Paley;
 the challenges to it from Hume, Mill and Darwinism.
Candidates should be able to discuss critically these views and their strengths and
weaknesses.

The Moral argument from Kant: psychological challenges from Freud

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:
 the moral argument from Kant, including his
concept of the ‘summum bonum’ and his
inferences about innate moral awareness;
 psychological challenges from Freud to the
moral argument, his view that moral awareness comes from sources other than
God.
Candidates should be able to discuss critically these views and their strengths and
weaknesses.
Challenges to religious belief

The problem of evil

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:
 the problem of evil: the classic theodicies of Augustine and Irenaeus;
 the nature of the problem of evil and the possible differences between natural and
moral evil;
 how each theodicy understands the responsibility of God for the existence of evil
in the world;
 the origins of evil and the role of human free will.
Candidates should be able to discuss critically these approaches and their strengths and
weaknesses.

Religion and science

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:
 scientific and philosophical views on the creation of the universe; particularly the
debate between Creationism and the Big Bang theory;
 Darwinism and various developments of evolutionary theory;
 ‘Intelligent Design’ and ‘Irreducible Complexity’;
 Religious responses to challenges posed by scientific views.
Candidates should be able to discuss critically these views and their strengths and
weaknesses. 

Add a comment

ALL PAST A2 PHILOSOPHY QUESTIONS

Category: PAST QUESTIONS and REVISION TIPS

Published on Friday, 05 October 2012 10:52

Hits: 1562

To help you write brilliant essays we've written a book for you, click here for the first book that uses real answers from students written in the OCR exam, for both Philosophy of Religion and Ethics, AS and A2.

 

	Religious Language	Religious experience	Miracle	Attributes of God	Life and Death
Jan  09
June 09
Jan  10	Q4 Critically assess the views of Paul Tillich on religious language.		Q2 A belief in miracles leads to the concept of a God who favours some but not of all of his creation.  Discuss.	Q1 Critically assess the philosophical problems raised by belief that God is omniscient.	Q3 Evaluate the claim that there can be no disembodied existence after death.
June 10	Q1 Evaluate the claim that analogy can successfully be used to express the human understanding of God.	Q3 Critically assess, with reference to William James, the argument from religious experience.		Q2 Boethius was successful in his argument that God rewards and punishes justly. Discuss.	Q4 To what extent is belief in an afterlife necessary for resolving problems raised by the existence of evil?
Jan  11	Q1 To what extent can God reveal himself through sacred writings?  Q2 Critically compare the use of myth with the use of analogy to express the human  understanding of God.		Q4 Evaluate Hume’s claim that miracles are the least likely of events.		Q3 Resurrection is more likely to be true than reincarnation.’ Discuss.
June 11	Q1 Critically assess the claim that religious language is meaningless.	Q4 Visions are not caused by God but can be explained by science.’ Discuss		Q3 Critically assess the problems for believers who say that God is omniscient.	Q2 Evaluate the claim that the soul is distinct from the body.
Jan  12	Q3 The falsification principle presents no real challenge to religious belief.  Discuss	Q1 Corporate religious experiences prove the existence of God.  Discuss	Q2 Critically assess the view that the concept of miracle is inconsistent with belief in a benevolent God.	Q4 Assess the claim that the universe shows no evidence of the existence of a benevolent God.
June 12	Q1 Critically assess Wittgenstein’s belief that language games allow religious statements to have meaning.	Q2 Conversion experiences are the strongest evidence for the existence of God. Discuss.		Q3 Evaluate the philosophical problems raised by the belief that God is eternal.	Q4 Critically compare Aristotle’s and Richard Dawkins’ views on body and soul identity.

 

Add a comment

A2 Philosophy of Religion specification

Category: PAST QUESTIONS and REVISION TIPS

Published on Monday, 01 October 2012 13:04

Hits: 628

 

3.10 G581: A2 Philosophy of Religion OCR

 

Religious Language 

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:  

 religious language – uses and purpose; 

 the via negativa (Apophatic way); 

 the verification and falsification principles; 

 different views on the meaningfulness of religious language; 

 the uses of symbol, analogy and myth to express human understanding of God; 

 the views of the Vienna Circle, A. J. Ayer, Anthony Flew, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Paul 

Tillich on religious language. 

Candidates should be able to discuss these areas critically and their strengths and weaknesses. 

Religious Experience 

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the following in 

relation to God and religious belief: 

 arguments from religious experience from William James; 

 the aims and main conclusions drawn by William James in The Varieties of Religious 

Experience; 

 the following different forms of religious experience: visions, voices, ‘numinous’ 

experience, conversion experience, corporate religious experience; 

 the concept of revelation through sacred 

writings. 

Candidates should be able to discuss these areas critically and their strengths and 

weaknesses. 

 

Miracle

 

- a study of how God might interact with humanity, by looking at the concept of miracle 

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:  

 different definitions of miracle, including an understanding of Hume; 

 the biblical concept of miracle and the issues this raises about God’s activity in the world;  

 the concept of miracle, and criticisms made by Hume and Wiles; 

 the implications of the concept of miracle for the problem of evil.  

Candidates should be able to discuss whether modern people can be expected to believe in 

miracles, and whether miracles suggest an arbitrary or partisan God. Candidates should be 

able to discuss these areas critically and their strengths and weaknesses. 

 

Attributes 

Nature of God 

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:  

 God as eternal, omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent – and the philosophical 

problems arising from these concepts; 

 the views of Boethius in his discussion of eternity and God’s foreknowledge in Book 5 of 

The Consolations of Philosophy; 

 the question as to whether or not a good God should reward and punish. 

Candidates should be able to discuss these areas critically and their strengths and 

weaknesses. 

 

Life and Death; The Soul 

 

Life and death  

Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:  

 distinctions between body and soul, as expressed in the thinking of Plato, Aristotle, 

John Hick and Richard Dawkins; 

 other concepts of the body/soul distinction; 

 different views of life after death: resurrection and reincarnation;  

 questions surrounding the nature of disembodied existence; 

 the relationship between the afterlife and the problem of evil. 

Candidates should be able to discuss these areas critically and their strengths and 

weaknesses. 

Add a comment

A2 EXAMINERS REPORT Jan 2012

Category: PAST QUESTIONS and REVISION TIPS

Published on Friday, 05 October 2012 09:12

Hits: 562

Examiners’ Report January 2012 G581

General Comments

The overall standard of responses was slightly disappointing. Many answers were general in nature and failed to address the specific question set. A significant number of candidates seemed to be incapable of identifying which area of the specification was being assessed. It was not always that candidates’ material was completely irrelevant; rather that the relevance was not made clear. Paragraphs on new thinkers or ideas would appear in many responses suddenly and without explanation.

It continues to be the characteristic of many candidates to believe that just because a number of philosophers have criticised a theory, it must be wrong, and when evaluating a question, you simply need to count the philosophers who make points on each side of the argument and see which side has more in it.

Timing did not seem to be an issue for most candidates. Most candidates answered two
questions, the most popular of these were questions 1 and 2. A few weaker candidates thought that these questions required the same material, conflating miracles with religious experience and failed to see the different elements required.

Some candidates handicapped themselves by poor, and occasionally very poor, use of English: muddled expression too often points to muddled thought. Some still believe that there is a verb ‘to of’. A particular problem for many was inadequate grasp of the grammar of philosophy, with terms such as ‘prove’ used as a synonym for ‘argue’. Some would say of each thinker cited that he had ‘proved’ his view, even when it was controversial or opposed by other alleged ‘proofs’; ‘refute’ used to mean ‘deny’; a priori often mistakenly used for ‘innate’; a posteriori, ‘analytic’ and ‘metaphysical’ were commonly misunderstood.

This is an examination in philosophy of religion, and understanding the conventions of the subject is as significant as understanding correct notation in mathematics. Some candidates attempted, normally unsuccessfully, to answer philosophical questions with theological or scriptural assertions.

Q1 Corporate religious experiences prove the existence of God.  Discuss

 This question was attempted by many candidates with mixed results. The weakest answers were not able to identify what a corporate religious experience was or could notwrite more than one or two paragraphs on corporate experience, so migrated onto all other types of experience.

Answers were largely uncritical in their discussion which left them as general topic responses and basic in their analysis. Some responses went into life after death or near death experiences rather than addressing ‘corporate’. Analysis was often limited to superficial discussion of psychological explanations. The best answers were able to analyse the experiences critically, giving a variety of examples. Successful analysis employed good use of psychological evidence such as ‘mass hysteria’ to challenge whether these experiences were even veridical or plausible at best. There was good use of Feuerbach, Freud, James and Swinburne as well as awareness of modern scientific research such as the ‘God helmet.’

Often there was a suspicion that the question really being addressed was whether religious experiences were from God rather than whether they could be used as a proof of God. There were some very long responses where examiners suspect that, sadly, a candidate may think that they have done well when they have in fact simply produced a general response on religious experience.

There was some misunderstanding of James, who was sceptical about corporate experiences and certainly did not argue that religious experiences proved the existence of God. A few argued, unconvincingly, that the numbers involved in the Toronto Blessing increased the likelihood that this was from God.

Q2 Critically assess the view that the concept of miracle is inconsistent with belief in a benevolent God.

This was a very popular question with a variety of successful answers. Weaker answersused this as an opportunity to shoehorn in Hume’s reasons for rejecting miracles at anypoint largely ignoring the omnibenevolent section of the question. Often, candidates tended to cover all possible thinkers on the topic, with reference to Wiles being purely coincidental. This meant that any attempt to move towards an answer to the question wasassessed as simple assertion.

Better candidates were able to identify that this was a question on Wiles, or at least the issues raised by him, and so made good use of examples accordingly. A thorough discussion of biblical miracles usually followed, although most candidates failed to recognise the major assumptions about the accuracy of the biblical stories in theirargument. This was linked well to the problem of evil and a partisan or arbitrary God.

Some candidates were then able to address the problem of evil by successfully deploying
material from the theodicies. A number of candidates made good use of Swinburne’s analogy about the role of a parent and argued that a benevolent God may occasionally bend the laws of the universe to benefit his children. The best candidates were able to take the discussion to a greater depth by providing a structured approach to the question.

Some, for example, explored how different definitions of miracles might still support the omnibenevolence of God (Aquinas or Holland). Others used the likes of Bultmann to highlight the significance or symbolism of the events rather than the actual events themselves. Good answers were also able to demonstrate thinking about different models of God, in a focused manner, to address whether miracles would pose a threat to God’s omnibenevolence.

Q3 The falsification principle presents no real challenge to religious belief.  Discuss

A less popular question, although relatively straight forward. Some candidates used the question as a platform to relate everything they knew about Religious Language without specifically directing the argument at either Falsification or the challenge to religious belief.

It was clear that few candidates had read the University Debate. Had the debate been
read, many errors of understanding could have been avoided. The debate is readily available on the Internet and in anthologies, and is almost entirely ordinary language.

Very few candidates were closely aware of Flew’s introduction to the debate, in which he
does not assert that believers do not permit evidence to count against their beliefs. He says that it sometimes appears as if they do not. He asks a question of his fellow symposiasts – he wants to know what they would say constituted a disproof. The grammar of his introduction is central to accurate understanding.

A significant minority of candidates assumed that falsification meant that a sentence was
true until proven false. This is a misunderstanding, as is the equation of falsification with
via negativa. It was refreshing to note that increasing numbers of candidates were aware that falsification is the demarcation between scientific and non-scientific, not between the meaningful and the meaningless. Many, however, misunderstood Hare’s concept of bliks, and too many still think that Mitchell argues that faith pays no attention to disconfirming instances. His argument is exactly the opposite. If it does not see the weight of the
contrary evidence, faith becomes vacuous.

A number of candidates could not resist dipping their toes into the waters of verification in
the course of their answers. However, many did show a sound understanding of the
approach of Flew, based on Popper’s scientific understanding, and were able to use the
gardener parable and the quote “the death of a thousand qualifications”, to argue for or
against its challenge to religious belief. Some made good use of Wittgenstein’s language
games and a significant number also skilfully noted that not all religious language is
propositional.

Q4 Assess the claim that the universe shows no evidence of the existence of a omnipotent God.

This was a popular question, but produced some responses which were attempts to use
pre-prepared answers. For some candidates it was the opportunity to write at length about
Boethius or to use general Problem of Evil essays.

Many candidates wrote about thealleged dilemma of an omnipotent God creating a stone too heavy to lift, sometimes paying scant attention to the part of the question about evidence from the universe rather than logical puzzles. Some candidates simply wrote out proofs for the existence of God,ignoring ‘omnipotent’ in the title. Some candidates suffered because they did not knowwhat omnipotence meant, confusing it with omniscience, benevolence or omnipresence.

Many candidates were able to go through the variety of different views on omnipotence
with critical success. Useful discussion of ‘where’ God may be situated in relation to the
spacio-temporal universe gave candidates a deeper basis for discussion in some cases
although not all candidates were able to establish relevance.

Most candidates were able to identify that this question could require a discussion of the problem of evil and so wereable to provide a variety of levels of discussion on this front. A few weaker answers endedup discussing some of the classical arguments in a very shallow way making the essay ahybrid between the problem of evil and the classical arguments for the existence of God.

Few candidates identified the difficulty of providing evidence of a non-physical being through the universe. Hick’s notion of epistemic distance or the religiously ambiguous nature of the universe were rarely discussed.  

Add a comment