Possible Exam Questions Plans Flashcards
To what extent does Plato’s view of the forms explain reality?
Introduction - Describe Plato’s theory of the forms
Describe Plato’s theory of reality
Mini conclusion that Plato’s view of the forms does not explain reality
Paragraph 1 - The one over many argument
COUNTER
Wittgenstein’s family resemblance theory
Paragraph 2 - John Locke and Bertrand Russell – not logical to say there is a world we cannot see
Paragraph 3 - Why shouldn’t we trust our senses?
Paragraph 4 - Plato lacks clarity – ideal of cancer?
Paragraph 5 - Logical positivists – no such values as ‘beauty’ as it is subjective
Conclusion - Infinite regression/third man
Conclude that to no extent does it explain reality
Evaluate Plato’s view on the hierarchy of the forms, including the form of the good
Introduction - Describe Plato’s theory of the forms
Describe Plato’s form of the good, linking to the analogy
Mini conclusion that Plato’s view on the hierarchy of the forms is weak and unsubstantiated
Paragraph 1 - Form of good strong, links to religion and analogy
Easy way to understand it
Paragraph 2 - Bryan Magee – encourages people to seek enlightenment
Paragraph 3 - Plato lacks clarity – ideal of cancer
Paragraph 4 - The material world changes, the world of forms doesn’t – has there always been a form of the iPad?
Paragraph 5 - Logical positivists – no such values as the forms say as they are subjective
Conclusion - Infinite regression/third man
Conclude that the theory of the forms is weak and flawed
Critically Discuss Plato’s Theory of Reality
Introduction - Describe Plato’s theory of reality
Mini conclusion that Plato’s theory of reality is weak and unsubstantiated
Paragraph 1 - The one over many argument
COUNTER
Wittgenstein’s family resemblance theory
Paragraph 2 - John Locke and Bertrand Russell – not logical to say there is a world we cannot see
Paragraph 3 - Why shouldn’t we trust our senses?
Paragraph 4 - Plato lacks clarity – ideal of cancer?
Paragraph 5 - Logical positivists – no such values as ‘beauty’ as it is subjective
Conclusion - Infinite regression/third man
Conclude that to no extent does it explain reality
Assess the effectiveness of Plato’s theory of the forms in explaining the world
Introduction - Describe Plato’s theory of the forms
Describe Plato’s theory of reality
Describe how Plato explains his ideas (analogy)
Mini conclusion that Plato explains the wrong thing but very effectively
Paragraph 1 - John Locke and Bertrand Russell – not logical to say there is a world we cannot see
Paragraph 2 - Why shouldn’t we trust our senses?
Paragraph 3 - Plato lacks clarity – ideal of cancer?
Paragraph 4 - Logical positivists – no such values as ‘beauty’ as it is subjective
Paragraph 5 - Infinite regression/third man
Conclusion - The analogy of the cave explains a difficult concept in a way that’s easier to understand
Conclude that Plato explains the wrong thing but very effectively through his analogy
‘Conversion experiences are the most convincing form of religious experience.’ Discuss
Introduction - Describe what a religious experience is
Describe what a conversion experience is
Conclude they are the most convincing form of religious experience, but that is still not very
Paragraph 1 - Davey Falcus, massive change in his life
Paragraph 2 - Davey Falcus, points against him
Paragraph 3 - St Paul, road to Damascus
Paragraph 4 - V.S. Ramachandran, temporal lobe epilepsy
Paragraph 5 - Corporate religious experience, happen to large crowds, all give same testimony
COUNTER
Crowd psychology, being in a group suscepts us to unusual behaviors – its all psychological
Conclusion - Sigmond Freud, conversion syndrome
Conclude that they are the most convincing, but are still not that convincing overall
How satisfactory are religious experiences as proof of the existence of God?
Introduction - Describe what a religious experience is and how they could be used as proof of God
Conclude that they aren’t as there are much more rational explanations for them
Paragraph 1 - William James, they happen to ‘normal’ people and have a profound effect, Davey Falcus
COUNTER
Evaluate the credulity of Falcus’ claim
Paragraph 2 - Corporate religious experience, happen to large crowds, all give same testimony
COUNTER
Crowd psychology, being in a group suscepts us to unusual behaviors – its all psychological
Paragraph 3 - Sigmund Freud, conversion syndrome, wish fulfillment, mental illness
Paragraph 4 - Michael Persinger, machine that induces religious experiences, temporal lobe epilepsy
Paragraph 5 - V.S. Ramachandran, temporal lobe epilepsy, for example Ellen White
Conclusion - Religious experiences are subjective, we cannot take one persons experience as proof
Conclude that they are not satisfactory as proof of the existence of God
‘Religious experiences are weak evidence for God because they happen to individuals not groups.’ Discuss
Introduction - Describe what a religious experience is and how they could be used as evidence for God
Conclude that all religious experiences, group or individual, are weak evidence
Paragraph 1 - William James, they happen to ‘normal’ people and have a profound effect, Davey Falcus
COUNTER
Evaluate the credulity of Falcus’ claim
Paragraph 2 - Corporate religious experience, happen to large crowds, all give same testimony
COUNTER
Crowd psychology, being in a group suscepts us to unusual behaviors – its all psychological
Paragraph 3 - Freud, conversion syndrome, wish fulfillment, mental illness
Paragraph 4 - Michael Persinger, machine that induces religious experiences, temporal lobe epilepsy
Paragraph 5 - V.S. Ramachandran, temporal lobe epilepsy, for example Ellen White
Conclusion - Religious experiences are subjective, we cannot take one persons experience as proof
Conclude they are weak evidence, not because they are individual, as groups also weak
‘Religious Experience provide a solid basis for belief in God or a higher power’ Discuss
Introduction - Describe what a religious experience is and how they could be used as basis for belief
Conclude that they don’t as there are much more rational explanations for them
Paragraph 1 - William James, they happen to ‘normal’ people and have a profound effect, Davey Falcus
COUNTER
Evaluate the credulity of Falcus’ claim
Paragraph 2 - Corporate religious experience, happen to large crowds, all give same testimony
COUNTER
Crowd psychology, being in a group suscepts us to unusual behaviors – its all psychological
Paragraph 3 - Freud, conversion syndrome, wish fulfillment, mental illness
Paragraph 4 - Michael Persinger, machine that induces religious experiences, temporal lobe epilepsy
Paragraph 5 - V.S. Ramachandran, temporal lobe epilepsy, for example Ellen White
Conclusion - Religious experiences are subjective, we cannot take one persons experience as proof
Conclude that they are do not provide a solid bases for belief in God or a higher power
‘Religious Experience shows that we can be united with something greater than ourselves.’ Discuss
Introduction - Describe what a religious experience is
Describe how it could unite us with something greater than ourselves
Conclude that religious experience does not unite us with something greater than ourselves
Paragraph 1 - Rudolf Otto, the numinous
Paragraph 2 - John Calvin, Sensus divinitatus, we sense God and are united with something greater
Paragraph 3 - St Paul, road to Damascus
COUNTER
V.S. Ramachandran, temporal lobe epilepsy
Paragraph 4 - AJ Ayer, dysfunctional mind
Paragraph 5 - Corporate religious experience, happen to large crowds, all give same testimony
COUNTER
Crowd psychology, being in a group suscepts us to unusual behaviors – its all psychological
Conclusion - Michael Persinger, machine that induces religious experiences, temporal lobe epilepsy
Conclude that religious experiences are likely untrue and so cannot unite us
‘Conversion experiences do not provide a basis for belief in God.’ Discuss
Introduction - Describe what a religious experience is
Describe what a conversion experience is
Conclude they do not provide a basis for belief in God
Paragraph 1 - Davey Falcus, massive change in his life
Paragraph 2 - Davey Falcus, points against him
Paragraph 3 - St Paul, road to Damascus
Paragraph 4 - V.S. Ramachandran, temporal lobe epilepsy
Paragraph 5 - William James, they happen to ‘normal’ people and have a profound effect
Conclusion - Sigmond Freud, conversion syndrome
Conclude that they are the most convincing, but are still not that convincing overall
‘Corporate religious experiences are less reliable than individual religious experiences.’ Discuss
Introduction - Describe what a religious experience is and the difference between corporate and individual
Conclude that all religious experiences are unreliable, but corporate even more so
Paragraph 1 - William James, they happen to ‘normal’ people and have a profound effect, Davey Falcus
COUNTER
Evaluate the credulity of Falcus’ claim
Paragraph 2 - Corporate religious experience, happen to large crowds, all give same testimony
COUNTER
Crowd psychology, being in a group suscepts us to unusual behaviors – its all psychological
Paragraph 3 - Freud, conversion syndrome, wish fulfillment, mental illness
Paragraph 4 - Michael Persinger, machine that induces religious experiences, temporal lobe epilepsy
Paragraph 5 - V.S. Ramachandran, temporal lobe epilepsy, for example Ellen White
Conclusion - Swinburne, principle of credulity, shows individual to be more reliable
Conclude less reliable than individual, but religious experiences as a whole are unreliable
‘Conversion are not genuine examples of religious experience.’ Discuss
Introduction - Describe what a religious experience is and what a conversion is
Conclude conversions not examples religious experiences, religious experiences not real
Paragraph 1 - Davey Falcus, massive change in his life
Paragraph 2 - Davey Falcus, points against him
Paragraph 3 - St Paul, road to Damascus
Paragraph 4 - V.S. Ramachandran, temporal lobe epilepsy
Paragraph 5 - AJ Ayer, dysfunctional mind
Conclusion - Sigmond Freud, conversion syndrome
Conclude conversion experiences not genuine as religious experiences explained other ways
Assess the claim that natural evil has a purpose.
Introduction - Describe what natural evil is
Describe how this links to the problem of evil in terms of logical and evidential (examples)
Conclude that natural evil has no purpose
Paragraph 1 - John Hick – our response helps us grow spiritually into the likeness of God (free will)
Paragraph 2 - Gil Edwards – qualities like courage and trust can only come through suffering
Paragraph 3 - Richard Swinburne – God is like a parent, tough love helping us to mature
Paragraph 4 - The extent and severity of suffering – why 6 million Jews dying instead of 4 million?
Paragraph 5 - Challenges don’t always result in human growth – holocaust brough misery and suffering
Conclusion - Surely there are other ways for humans to develop, instead of evil
Conclude that natural evil has no purpose
Critically discuss the theodicy of Augustine.
Introduction - Describe in brief the theodicy of Augustine
Describe how Augustine’s theodicy challenges both logical and evidential evil
Conclude that the theodicy of Augustine is an ineffective solution to the problem of evil
Paragraph 1 - Brian Davies – agrees with Augustine’s idea of evil being a privation
Paragraph 2 - Science – Augustine believes we went from perfect to bad, evolution says were getting better
Paragraph 3 - Moral – how is it fair that we are punished for a crime committed by someone else?
Paragraph 4 - Moral – if God is omniscient and knew evil would come from the world, why did he create it?
Paragraph 5 - Science – the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, how can Augustine base his theodicy on it?
Conclusion - Friedrich Schleiermacher – logical error, how can a perfect world go wrong?
Conclude that the theodicy of Augustine is an ineffective solution to the problem of evil
Critically compare the logical and evidential aspects of the problem of evil as challenges to belief.
Introduction - Describe the logical and evidential aspects of the problem of evil as challenges to belief
Conclude that the evidential aspects of the problem of evil pose a larger challenge to belief
Paragraph 1 - Describe the logical problem of evil through John Mackie’s inconsistent triad
COUNTER
Fails to consider that Evil may be necessary in some way
Paragraph 2 - If God is omniscient and knew evil would come from the world, why did he create it?
COUNTER
John Hicks vale of soul making as an explanation for logical
Paragraph 3 - Challenges don’t always result in human growth, holocaust, Hick doesn’t solve evidential
Paragraph 4 - Augustine’s fall as an explanation for logical and evidential
COUNTER
Cruel to be punished for a sin not committed by us
Conclusion - The extent and severity of suffering – why 6 million Jews dying instead of 4 million?
Conclude that the evidential aspects of the problem of evil pose a larger challenge to belief
‘Augustine’s interpretation of the fall successfully explains the problem of evil’ Discuss.
Introduction - Describe in brief Augustine’s interpretation of the fall and resulting theodicy
Describe how Augustine’s theodicy challenges both logical and evidential evil
Conclude that Augustine’s interpretation of the fall does not successfully explain the PoE
Paragraph 1 - Brian Davies – agrees with Augustine’s idea of evil being a privation
Paragraph 2 - Science – Augustine believes we went from perfect to bad, evolution says opposite
Paragraph 3 - Moral – how is it fair that we are punished for a crime committed by someone else?
Paragraph 4 - Moral – if God is omniscient and knew evil would come from the world, why did he create it?
Paragraph 5 - Science – the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, how can Augustine base his theodicy on it?
Conclusion - Friedrich Schleiermacher – logical error, how can a perfect world go wrong?
Conclude that Augustine’s interpretation of the fall does not successfully explain the PoE
Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Augustine’s theodicy.
Introduction - Describe Augustine’s theodicy
Describe how Augustine’s theodicy challenges both logical and evidential evil
Conclude that Augustine’s theodicy not successfully solve the PoE
Paragraph 1 - Brian Davies – agrees with Augustine’s idea of evil being a privation
Paragraph 2 - Science – Augustine believes we went from perfect to bad, evolution says opposite
Paragraph 3 - Moral – how is it fair that we are punished for a crime committed by someone else?
Paragraph 4 - Moral – if God is omniscient and knew evil would come from the world, why did he create it?
Paragraph 5 - Science – the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, how can Augustine base his theodicy on it?
Conclusion - Friedrich Schleiermacher – logical error, how can a perfect world go wrong?
Conclude that Augustine’s theodicy not successfully solve the PoE
Can Augustine’s view of the origins of moral and natural evils spare God from blame for evils in the world?
Introduction - Describe Augustine’s theodicy
Describe how Augustine’s theodicy challenges both logical and evidential evil
Conclude that Augustine’s theodicy does not spare God from blame for evils in the world
Paragraph 1 - Brian Davies – agrees with Augustine’s idea of evil being a privation
Paragraph 2 - Science – Augustine believes we went from perfect to bad, evolution says opposite
Paragraph 3 - Moral – how is it fair that we are punished for a crime committed by someone else?
Paragraph 4 - Friedrich Schleiermacher – logical error, how can a perfect world go wrong?
Paragraph 5 - Science – the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, how can Augustine base his theodicy on it?
Conclusion - Moral – if God is omniscient and knew evil would come from the world, why did he create it?
Conclude that Augustine’s theodicy does not spare God from blame for evils in the world
Can the ‘vale of soul-making’ theodicy justify the existence or extent of evils?
Introduction - Describe Hick’s vale of soul making theodicy
Conclude his ‘vale of soul-making’ theodicy does not justify the existence or extent of evils
Paragraph 1 - Gil Edwards – qualities like courage and trust can only come through suffering
Paragraph 2 - DZ Phillips – allowing suffering can never be regarded as loving
Paragraph 3 - Richard Swinburne – God is like a parent, tough love helping us to mature
Paragraph 4 - The extent and severity of suffering – why 6 million Jews dying instead of 4 million?
Paragraph 5 - Challenges don’t always result in human growth – holocaust brough misery and suffering
Conclusion - Surely there are other ways for humans to develop, instead of evil
Conclude that natural evil has no purpose
Assess the view that the Bible is a comprehensive moral guide for Christians.
Introduction - Describe what the Bible is
Describe what makes a comprehensive moral guide for Christians
Conclude that the Bible is not a comprehensive moral guide for Christians
Paragraph 1 - Bible is dictated by God and as a result infallible
Paragraph 2 - Bible contains a rich source of moral commandments such as the ten commandments
Paragraph 3 - Contradictions within Bible, Exodus 20:13 against Exodus 32:27
Paragraph 4 - Karl Barth – Bibliolatry, bible not to be worshiped as the truth, just a witness to the truth
Paragraph 5 - Bible contains the direct teachings of Jesus, son of God, teachings should be followed
Conclusion - Joseph Fletcher – sola scriptura too rigid, use of agape, Jesus as example
Conclude that the Bible is not a comprehensive moral guide for Christians
‘Christian Ethics are distinctive’ Discuss.
Introduction - Describe what Christian Ethics are
Describe what it means for something to be distinctive
Conclude that Christian ethics are not distinctive
Paragraph 1 - Augustine – human reason is corrupt (the fall) and we need the Bible for revelation
Paragraph 2 - Catholic Church – faith ethic, Christian ethics cannot be discovered by unaided reason
Paragraph 3 - Fundamentalists – Sola Scriptura shows that as Bible is the word of God it is distinctive
Paragraph 4 - Bentham – ethics overall should not be Christian based, all governed by two masters (P+P)
Paragraph 5 - Aquinas – natural law is a universal recognition of morality
Conclusion - Joseph Fletcher – ‘love is the only universal’
Conclude that Christian ethics are not distinctive
‘Christian Ethics are personal’ Discuss.
Introduction - Describe what Christian Ethics are
Describe what it means for something to be personal
Conclude that Christian ethics are personal
Paragraph 1 - Catholics – must be part of community so can see tradition and wisdom of community
Paragraph 2 - Anglican Church – interpretations have changed over time with different communities
Paragraph 3 - Jesus spoke to groups, such as the sermon on the mount – Hauerwas
COUNTER
Jesus spoke to individual circumstances e.g. the woman with the bleeding
Paragraph 4 - The community focus is worship and prayer, rather than ethics – that is up to the individual
Paragraph 5 - Biblicist – everyone interprets biblical stories in their own way
Conclusion - Joseph Fletcher – personalism, everyone’s circumstances are so different
Conclude that Christian ethics are personal
Is the principle of love sufficient to live a good life?
Introduction - Describe the principle of love
Describe how this relates to morality (autonomous ethics)
Conclude that love is sufficient to live a good life
Paragraph 1 - Flexible and as a result practical – not constrained by absolutes
Paragraph 2 - Highly impractical and provides, wrongly, justification for breaking religious and civil laws
Paragraph 3 - The end will always justify the means, as the most loving outcome will always appear
Paragraph 4 - Catholics believe we need revelation from God to live a good life
Paragraph 5 - Responds to cultural change – Fletcher aware the approach benefits modern people
Conclusion - Fletcher – Jesus applied it, prevented a women from being stoned to death after adultery
Conclude that love is sufficient to live a good life
‘The most important source for Christian ethics is Church teaching.’ Discuss.
Introduction - Describe this type of approach and who follows it
Conclude that it is not the most important source of Christian ethics
Paragraph 1 - Papal infallibility, apostolic succession
COUNTER
Removes authority from God
Paragraph 2 - Unifies Christians as there is a core set of beliefs
Paragraph 3 - Corruption in the Catholic Church, this suggests that its apostolic tradition is flawed
Paragraph 4 - It allows Christians to gain further advice on issues that are not covered by the Bible e.g. IVF
Conclusion - Joseph Fletcher – autonomous ethics provides flexibility and personalism
Conclude that Church teaching is not the most important source of Christian ethics
To what extent does Aquinas’ cosmological argument successfully reach the conclusion that there is a transcendent creator?
Introduction - Describe Aquinas’ cosmological argument
Describe what is meant by transcendent creator
Conclude Aquinas’ cosmological argument does not successfully reach the conclusion that there is a transcendent creator
Paragraph 1 - Swinburne – strong inductive, uses Ockham’s razor
Paragraph 2 - ‘a posteriori’ – based on empirical evidence, everyone has experience of cause and effect
Paragraph 3 Science – the universe is either eternal or cause of a spontaneous random event
Paragraph 4 Contradiction – Aquinas says God is infinite yet infinity is impossible
Paragraph 5 Kierkegaard – Paradox not contradiction, it makes sense but we don’t understand God so can’t understand it
Conclusion Russell – Fallacy of composition
Conclude Aquinas’ cosmological argument does not successfully reach the conclusion that there is a transcendent creator
To what extent does Hume successfully argue that observation does not prove the existence of God?
Introduction Describe the two arguments for God which are based on observation (teleo and cosmo)
State that Hume believes that neither of these prove the existence of God
Conclude Hume successfully argues that observation does not prove the existence of God
Paragraph 1 Cosmological – empirical evidence, everyone has experience of cause and effect
HOWEVER, doesn’t prove the existence of God, just need of a first cause
Paragraph 2 Teleological – empirical evidence, everyone can see the intricacies of the world
HOWEVER, doesn’t prove the existence of God, just need of a designer
Paragraph 3 Hume – order does not prove design
Paragraph 4 Hume – why prove God? Why couldn’t there be more than one God?
Paragraph 5 Hume – why the Christian God? It could prove the Hindu’s are right
Conclusion Hume – cannot see the first cause or design, and cannot go outside universe to establish relationship between itself and its cause
Conclude Hume successfully argues that observation does not prove the existence of God
‘Aquinas’ fifth way does not demonstrate the existence of God’ Discuss.
Introduction Describe Aquinas’ fifth way (teleo)
Conclude that Aquinas’ fifth way does not demonstrate the existence of God
Paragraph 1 ‘a posteriori’ – empirical evidence, everyone can see the intricacies of the world
Paragraph 2 Hume – order does not prove design
Paragraph 3 Hume – why prove God? Why couldn’t there be more than one God?
Paragraph 4 Hume – why the Christian God? It could prove the Hindu’s are right
Paragraph 5 Science – evolution (Dawkins)
COUNTER
Science and religion are compatible (Darwin quote)
Conclusion Problem of evil – evil shows the world is not perfect, no designer or they were cruel
Conclude that Aquinas’ fifth way does not demonstrate the existence of God
To what extent does Kant successfully criticize the ontological argument?
Introduction Describe the ontological argument
Conclude that Kant does successfully criticize the ontological argument
Paragraph 1 ‘a priori’ – deductive and reaches a logical conclusion
Paragraph 2 Kant – existence is not a predicate and so the ontological argument is based on a mistake
Paragraph 3 Descartes – the term ‘perfect’ includes within it the notion of existence
Paragraph 4 Stephen Davis – Kant is not able to prove conclusively that ‘exists’ is not a real predicate
Conclusion Kant – the triangle argument (can’t reject 3 sides but can reject whole triangle)
Conclude that Kant does successfully criticize the ontological argument
‘The world was created by chance, not by God’s design’ Discuss.
Introduction Describe the design argument (teleo)
Conclude that the world was created by God’s design, not by chance
Paragraph 1 ‘a posteriori’ – empirical evidence, everyone can see the intricacies of the world
Paragraph 2 Problem of evil – evil shows the world is not perfect, no designer
Paragraph 3 Problem of evil – John Hick’s vale of soul making, God designed it with evil in mind
Paragraph 4 Hume – no one was there to witness the event of design
Paragraph 5 Science – evolution (Dawkins)
Conclusion Science and religion are compatible (Darwin quote)
Conclude that the world was created by God’s design, not be chance
Evaluate Aquinas’ cosmological argument for God’s existence
Introduction Describe Aquinas’ cosmological argument
Conclude Aquinas’ cosmological argument is weak when used to prove God’s existence
Paragraph 1 Swinburne – strong inductive, uses Ockham’s razor
Paragraph 2 ‘a posteriori’ – based on empirical evidence, everyone has experience of cause and effect
Paragraph 3 Science – the universe is either eternal or cause of a spontaneous random event
Paragraph 4 Contradiction – Aquinas says God is infinite yet infinity is impossible
Paragraph 5 Kierkegaard – Paradox not contradiction, it makes sense but we don’t understand God so can’t understand it
Conclusion Russell – Fallacy of composition
Conclude Aquinas’ cosmological argument is weak when used to prove God’s existence
‘Paley’s teleological argument successfully defends the existence of God’ Discuss.
Introduction Describe Paley’s teleological argument
Conclude that Paley’s teleological argument doesn’t successfully defend existence of God
Paragraph 1 ‘a posteriori’ – empirical evidence, everyone can see the intricacies of the world
Paragraph 2 Problem of evil – evil shows the world is not perfect, no designer
Paragraph 3 Problem of evil – John Hick’s vale of soul making, God designed it with evil in mind
Paragraph 4 Hume – weak analogy (Paley’s watch)
Paragraph 5 Science – evolution (Dawkins)
Conclusion Hume – no one was there to witness the event of design
Conclude that Paley’s teleological argument doesn’t successfully defend existence of God
‘There is no design in the universe’ Discuss.
Introduction Describe the design argument (teleo)
Conclude that there is design in the universe
Paragraph 1 ‘a posteriori’ – empirical evidence, everyone can see the intricacies of the world
Paragraph 2 Problem of evil – evil shows the world is not perfect, no designer
Paragraph 3 Problem of evil – John Hick’s vale of soul making, God designed it with evil in mind
Paragraph 4 Hume – no one was there to witness the event of design
Paragraph 5 Science – evolution (Dawkins)
Conclusion Science and religion are compatible (Darwin quote)
Conclude that there is design in the universe
To what extent is Aquinas’ cosmological argument successful in proving that God exists?
Introduction Describe Aquinas’ cosmological argument
Conclude Aquinas’ cosmological argument is unsuccessful in proving that God exists
Paragraph 1 Swinburne – strong inductive, uses Ockham’s razor
Paragraph 2 ‘a posteriori’ – based on empirical evidence, everyone has experience of cause and effect
Paragraph 3 Science – the universe is either eternal or cause of a spontaneous random event
Paragraph 4 Contradiction – Aquinas says God is infinite yet infinity is impossible
Paragraph 5 Kierkegaard – Paradox not contradiction, it makes sense but we don’t understand God so can’t understand it
Conclusion Russell – Fallacy of composition
Conclude Aquinas’ cosmological argument is unsuccessful in proving that God exists
‘The universe is just there: it neither has nor needs an explanation’ Discuss.
Introduction Describe the two arguments for the universe which give an explanation (teleo and cosmo)
Conclude the universe is just there: it neither has nor needs an explanation
Paragraph 1 Swinburne (cosmological) – strong inductive, uses Ockham’s razor
Paragraph 2 ‘a posteriori’ (both) – based on empirical evidence, everyone’s experienced the precepts
Paragraph 3 Problem of evil – evil shows the world is not perfect, no designer
Paragraph 4 Problem of evil – John Hick’s vale of soul making, God designed it with evil in mind
Paragraph 5 Hume – even if universe did begin, doesn’t mean anything caused it to come into existence
Conclusion Hume – order does not prove design
Conclude the universe is just there: it neither has nor needs an explanation
To what extent does St. Anselm’s ontological argument prove the necessary existence of God?
Introduction Describe the ontological argument put forward by St Anselm
Conclude St. Anselm’s ontological argument doesn’t prove the necessary existence of God
Paragraph 1 ‘a priori’ – deductive and reaches a logical conclusion
Paragraph 2 Kant – existence is not a predicate and so the ontological argument is based on a mistake
Paragraph 3 Descartes – the term ‘perfect’ includes within it the notion of existence
Paragraph 4 Stephen Davis – Kant is not able to prove conclusively that ‘exists’ is not a real predicate
Paragraph 5 Kant – the triangle argument (can’t reject 3 sides but can reject whole triangle)
Conclusion Aquinas – to define something we have to understand it, we don’t understand God
Conclude St. Anselm’s ontological argument doesn’t prove the necessary existence of God
‘We cannot derive the existence of God from his definition’ Discuss.
Introduction Describe the ontological argument
Conclude we can’t derive the existence of God from his definition
Paragraph 1 ‘a priori’ – deductive and reaches a logical conclusion
Paragraph 2 Kant – existence is not a predicate and so the ontological argument is based on a mistake
Paragraph 3 Descartes – the term ‘perfect’ includes within it the notion of existence
Paragraph 4 Stephen Davis – Kant is not able to prove conclusively that ‘exists’ is not a real predicate
Paragraph 5 Kant – the triangle argument (can’t reject 3 sides but can reject whole triangle)
Conclusion Aquinas – to define something we have to understand it, we don’t understand God
Conclude we can’t derive the existence of God from his definition
`
Is ‘a posteriori’ or ‘a priori’ the more persuasive style of argument?
Introduction Describe what ‘a posteriori’ and ‘a priori’ styles of arguments are
Conclude that ‘a posterori’ is the more persuasive style of argument
Paragraph 1 Plato – we cannot trust our senses, must focus on independent truths like goodness
Example – optical illusions and mirages
Paragraph 2 J.L Mackie – impossible to establish concrete reality based of a definition
Paragraph 3 Hume – impossible to prove anything without empirical evidence or experience
Paragraph 4 Aristotle and Aquinas – the natural world is the best source of evidence
Paragraph 5 History – we change conclusions based on new evidence, ‘a priori’ does not
Conclusion Science – results gathered and conclusions drawn from empirical evidence
Conclude that ‘a posterori’ is the more persuasive style of argument
Can the teleological argument be defended against the challenge of ‘chance’?
Introduction Describe the teleological argument
Conclude that the teleological argument can be defended against the challenge of chance
Paragraph 1 ‘a posteriori’ – empirical evidence, everyone can see the intricacies of the world
Paragraph 2 Problem of evil – evil shows the world is not perfect, no designer
Paragraph 3 Problem of evil – John Hick’s vale of soul making, God designed it with evil in mind
Paragraph 4 Hume – no one was there to witness the event of design
Paragraph 5 Science – evolution (Dawkins)
Conclusion Science and religion are compatible (Darwin quote)
Conclude that the teleological argument can be defended against the challenge of chance
To what extent is the Teleological Argument successful in proving the existence of God?
Introduction Describe the teleological argument
Conclude that the teleological argument isn’t successful in proving the existence of God
Paragraph 1 ‘a posteriori’ – empirical evidence, everyone can see the intricacies of the world
Paragraph 2 Hume – order does not prove design
Paragraph 3 Hume – why prove God? Why couldn’t there be more than one God?
Paragraph 4 Hume – why the Christian God? It could prove the Hindu’s are right
Paragraph 5 Science – evolution (Dawkins)
COUNTER
Science and religion are compatible (Darwin quote)
Conclusion Problem of evil – evil shows the world is not perfect, no designer or they were cruel
Conclude that the teleological argument isn’t successful in proving the existence of God
Does the cosmological argument simply jump to the conclusion of a transcendent creator, without sufficient explanation?
Introduction Describe the cosmological argument
Conclude cosmological argument jumps to conclusion of transcendent creator
Paragraph 1 Cosmological – empirical evidence, everyone has experience of cause and effect
HOWEVER, doesn’t prove the existence of God, just need of a first cause
Paragraph 2 Science – Big bang is first cause, no need for God
Paragraph 3 Hume – order does not prove design
Paragraph 4 Hume – why prove God? Why couldn’t there be more than one God?
Paragraph 5 Hume – cannot see the first cause or design, and cannot go outside universe to establish relationship between itself and its cause
Conclusion Hume – why the Christian God? It could prove the Hindu’s are right
Conclude cosmological argument jumps to conclusion of transcendent creator
To what extent is the cosmological argument successful in proving the existence of God?
Introduction Describe cosmological argument
Conclude cosmological argument is unsuccessful in proving the existence of God
Paragraph 1 Swinburne – strong inductive, uses Ockham’s razor
Paragraph 2 ‘a posteriori’ – based on empirical evidence, everyone has experience of cause and effect
Paragraph 3 Science – the universe is either eternal or cause of a spontaneous random event
Paragraph 4 Contradiction – Aquinas says God is infinite yet infinity is impossible
Paragraph 5 Kierkegaard – Paradox not contradiction, it makes sense but we don’t understand God so can’t understand it
Conclusion Russell – Fallacy of composition
Conclude cosmological argument is unsuccessful in proving the existence of God
Can existence be treat as a predicate?
Introduction Describe the ontological argument
Conclude that existence can be treat as a predicate
Paragraph 1 Russell – ‘exist’ is being used wrong, Santa Clause argument
Paragraph 2 Kant – existence is not a predicate and so the ontological argument is based on a mistake
Paragraph 3 Descartes – the term ‘perfect’ includes within it the notion of existence
Paragraph 4 Hume – no difference to God in the mind and God in reality
Conclusion Stephen Davis – Kant is not able to prove conclusively that ‘exists’ is not a real predicate
Conclude that existence can be treat as a predicate
Does the ontological argument justify belief in God?
Introduction Describe the ontological argument
Conclude the ontological argument does not justify belief in God
Paragraph 1 ‘a priori’ – deductive and reaches a logical conclusion
Paragraph 2 Kant – existence is not a predicate and so the ontological argument is based on a mistake
Paragraph 3 Descartes – the term ‘perfect’ includes within it the notion of existence
Paragraph 4 Stephen Davis – Kant is not able to prove conclusively that ‘exists’ is not a real predicate
Paragraph 5 Kant – the triangle argument (can’t reject 3 sides but can reject whole triangle)
Conclusion Aquinas – to define something we have to understand it, we don’t understand God
Conclude the ontological argument does not justify belief in God
To what extent does the ontological argument prove the existence of God?
Introduction Describe the ontological argument
Conclude the ontological argument does not prove the existence of God
Paragraph 1 ‘a priori’ – deductive and reaches a logical conclusion
Paragraph 2 Kant – existence is not a predicate and so the ontological argument is based on a mistake
Paragraph 3 Descartes – the term ‘perfect’ includes within it the notion of existence
Paragraph 4 Stephen Davis – Kant is not able to prove conclusively that ‘exists’ is not a real predicate
Paragraph 5 Kant – the triangle argument (can’t reject 3 sides but can reject whole triangle)
Conclusion Aquinas – to define something we have to understand it, we don’t understand God
Conclude the ontological argument does not prove the existence of GodS
Critically discuss Aristotle’s understanding of reality
Introduction Describe Aristotle’s understanding of reality (4 causes and the prime mover)
Conclude that Aristotle’s understanding of reality is incredibly weak
Paragraph 1 ‘a posteriori’ – his ideas are based on empirical evidence
Paragraph 2 Plato and Descartes – senses cannot be trusted
Paragraph 3 Some argue no intrinsic purpose other than existing, no empirical evidence for prime mover
Paragraph 4 Hume and Russell – universe is just brute fact
Paragraph 5 Prime mover depends on everything having a cause, but the prime mover doesn’t have one
Conclusion Science – Big bang theory is beginning for the universe and shows prime mover not needed
Conclude that Aristotle’s understanding of reality is incredibly weak
Analyse Aristotle’s four causes
Introduction Describe Aristotle’s four causes
Conclude that Aristotle’s four causes are good for explaining everything bar the universe
Paragraph 1 ‘a posteriori’ – his ideas are based on empirical evidence
Paragraph 2 Plato and Descartes – senses cannot be trusted
Paragraph 3 Some argue no intrinsic purpose other than existing, no empirical evidence for prime mover
Paragraph 4 Uses in real life: science using the efficient and everyday using the final
Paragraph 5 Prime mover depends on everything having a cause, but the prime mover doesn’t have one
Conclusion Science – Big bang theory is beginning for the universe and shows prime mover not needed
Conclude that Aristotle’s four causes are good for explaining everything bar the universe
Assess the effectiveness of Aristotle’s four causes in explaining the world
Introduction Describe Aristotle’s four causes and how he uses them to explain the world
Conclude that Aristotle’s four causes are ineffective at explaining the world
Paragraph 1 ‘a posteriori’ – his ideas are based on empirical evidence
Paragraph 2 Plato and Descartes – senses cannot be trusted
Paragraph 3 Some argue no intrinsic purpose other than existing, no empirical evidence for prime mover
Paragraph 4 Hume and Russell – universe is just brute fact
Paragraph 5 Prime mover depends on everything having a cause, but the prime mover doesn’t have one
Conclusion Science – Big bang theory is beginning for the universe and shows prime mover not needed
Conclude that Aristotle’s four causes are ineffective at explaining the world
Compare and contrast Aristotle’s Prime Mover and Plato’s form of the good
Introduction Describe where Aristotle’s prime mover comes from
Describe where Plato’s form of the good comes from
Conclude that they are incredibly different
Paragraph 1 Both represent some form of ultimate reality, but for Plato this was true knowledge, and for Aristotle it was perfection
Paragraph 2 The prime mover attracts, whilst the form of the good illuminates
Paragraph 3 Both perfectly good, but in different ways (potentiality filled vs form of goodness itself)
Paragraph 4 Prime mover is the soul important being, form of the good is the most important out of a hierarchy of forms
Conclusion Prime mover is beyond time and space, the form of the good is something we can recognise in out world
Conclude that they are incredibly different
Compare and evaluate Plato’s reliance on reason (rationalism) and Aristotle’s use of the senses (empiricism) in their attempts to make sense of reality
Introduction Describe what Plato’s reliance on reason is
Describe what Aristotle’s use of the senses is
Conclude that Aristotle’s empiricism is superior to Plato’s rationalism
Paragraph 1 Plato – ‘a priori’ because senses cannot be trusted
Paragraph 2 Aristotle – ‘a posteriori’ because can only reach conclusions based on the strength of observable evidence
Paragraph 3 Hume – impossible to prove anything without empirical evidence or experience
Paragraph 4 Aristotle and Aquinas – the natural world is the best source of evidence
Paragraph 5 History – we change conclusions based on new evidence, ‘a priori’ does not
Conclusion Science – results gathered and conclusions drawn from empirical evidence
Conclude that Aristotle’s empiricism is superior to Plato’s rationalism
Critically assess the significance of Augustine’s teaching on human relationships before the fall
Introduction Describe Augustine’s teaching on human relationships before the fall (caritas and Concordia)
Conclude teachings on before fall aren’t significant because of the ideal it doesn’t portrays
Paragraph 1 Genesis 3 and Fall not sufficient to explain complexity of relationships, and fall not explained
Paragraph 2 Friendship is underestimated in Christian teaching but is foundation of personal, family life
Paragraph 3 Acknowledged the place of the sexual drive but understood sex within the context of love
Paragraph 4 Augustine limits sex to reproduction, but sex is also an expression of love and intimacy
Paragraph 5 His teaching on obedience is not sufficient as it does not satisfactorily deal with free will
Conclusion Significant as scholars continue to be unsure if humans are essentially generous or selfish
Conclude teachings on before fall aren’t significant because of the ideal it doesn’t portrays
Discuss Augustine’s view that, without God’s grace, humans can never be morally good
Introduction Describe Augustine’s view on human nature
Describe how God’s grace can save
Conclude that humans can be morally good without God’s grace
Paragraph 2 The united nations
Paragraph 3 Charitable organizations like CAFOD or OXFAM
Paragraph 4 Conflicts, including WW2 and genocide
Paragraph 5 Slavery and racism
Conclusion Slavery and racism has improved a lot
Conclude that humans can be morally good without God’s grace
Assess the view that Augustine’s teaching on human nature is pessimistic
Introduction Describe Augustine’s view on human nature
Conclude that Augustine’s teaching on human nature is pessimistic
Paragraph 1 Realistic – many argue that it allows those to recognize their sinfulness and concupiscence
Paragraph 2 Optimistic – the City of God is the ultimate destiny and offers potential for improvement
Paragraph 3 Realistic – we are free and our nature is a result of that
Paragraph 4 Pessimistic – he believed everyone to have corrupt nature, even himself (Confessions)
Paragraph 5 Pessimistic – original sin is passed between generations so we are incapable of being clean
Conclusion Pessimistic – doesn’t allow people to be saved without God’s grace
Conclude that Augustine’s teaching on human nature is pessimistic
Assess the effectiveness of Augustine’s claim that humans have a distinctive nature
Introduction Explain that distinct human nature is particular and the same for each human
Describe Augustine’s view of human nature
Explain how Sartre has an opposing view
Conclude that human nature is not distinctive
Paragraph 1 Augustine – all humans have the same nature of a tendency to sin from a very young age
Paragraph 2 Augustine – our telos is to be one with God, this means we have an innate moral nature
Paragraph 3 Augustine –absolute good or bad, perfect goodness before fall, distinctive way to be human
Paragraph 4 Sartre – freedom over fate, we are not destined to sin because of our lineage
Paragraph 5 Sartre –for some difficult to make free choices, but we all can, we’re not constrained by sin
Conclusion Sartre – no absolute morality
Conclude that human nature is not distinctive
‘Original sin means that humans can never be morally good’ discuss.
Introduction Describe Augustine’s view on human nature (including original sin)
Conclude that humans can be morally good despite Augustine’s idea of Original Sin
Paragraph 1 Genetic engineering/infertility treatment
Paragraph 2 The united nations
Paragraph 3 Charitable organizations like CAFOD or OXFAM
Paragraph 4 Conflicts, including WW2 and genocide
Paragraph 5 Slavery and racism
Conclusion Slavery and racism has improved a lot
Conclude that humans can be morally good despite Augustine’s idea of Original Sin
Is Augustine’s teaching on historical Fall and Original Sin wrong?
Introduction Describe Augustine’s teaching on the fall and original sin
Conclude that Augustine’s teaching on historical fall and original sin is wrong
Paragraph 1 Science – Biblical creation story not true (John Selby Spong quote)
Paragraph 2 Supporters Augustine – original sin not event, progression of innocence to moral knowledge
Paragraph 3 Moral errors – we’re being punished for a crime we did not commit
Paragraph 4 Supporters Augustine – punishment for sin is justified
Paragraph 5 Science – evolution shows were going towards perfection, not from it
Conclusion Schleiermacher – logical contradiction in a perfect world going wrong
Conclude that Augustine’s teaching on historical fall and original sin is wrong
Critically assess Augustine’s teaching on Original Sin
Introduction Describe Augustine’s teaching on original sin
Conclude that Augustine’s teaching on original sin is wrong
Paragraph 1 Science – Biblical creation story not true (John Selby Spong quote)
Paragraph 2 Supporters Augustine – original sin not event, progression of innocence to moral knowledge
Paragraph 3 Moral errors – we’re being punished for a crime we did not commit
Paragraph 4 Supporters Augustine – punishment for sin is justified
Paragraph 5 Science – evolution shows were going towards perfection, not from it
Conclusion Schleiermacher – logical contradiction in a perfect world going wrong
Conclude that Augustine’s teaching on original sin is wrong
Is Augustine right that sin means that humans can never be morally good?
Introduction Describe Augustine’s view on human nature (including original sin)
Conclude that humans can be morally good despite Augustine’s idea of Original Sin
Paragraph 1 Genetic engineering/infertility treatment
Paragraph 2 The united nations
Paragraph 3 Charitable organizations like CAFOD or OXFAM
Paragraph 4 Conflicts, including WW2 and genocide
Paragraph 5 Slavery and racism
Conclusion Slavery and racism has improved a lot
Conclude that humans can be morally good despite Augustine’s idea of Original Sin
Is Augustine’s view of human nature pessimistic or optimistic?
Introduction Describe Augustine’s view on human nature
Conclude that Augustine’s view of human nature is pessimistic
Paragraph 1 Realistic – many argue that it allows those to recognize their sinfulness and concupiscence
Paragraph 2 Optimistic – the City of God is the ultimate destiny and offers potential for improvement
Paragraph 3 Realistic – we are free and our nature is a result of that
Paragraph 4 Pessimistic – he believed everyone to have corrupt nature, even himself (Confessions)
Paragraph 5 Pessimistic – original sin is passed between generations so we are incapable of being clean
Conclusion Pessimistic – doesn’t allow people to be saved without God’s grace
Conclude that Augustine’s view of human nature is pessimistic
Do we have a distinctive human nature?
Introduction Explain that distinct human nature is particular and the same for each human
Describe Augustine’s view of human nature
Explain how Sartre has an opposing view
Conclude that human nature is not distinctive
Paragraph 1 Augustine – all humans have the same nature of a tendency to sin from a very young age
Paragraph 2 Augustine – our telos is to be one with God, this means we have an innate moral nature
Paragraph 3 Augustine –absolute good or bad, perfect goodness before fall, distinctive way to be human
Paragraph 4 Sartre – freedom over fate, we are not destined to sin because of our lineage
Paragraph 5 Sartre –for some difficult to make free choices, but we all can, we’re not constrained by sin
Conclusion Sartre – no absolute morality
Conclude that human nature is not distinctive
Evaluate the view that the thinking mind is separate from the body.
Introduction Describe the view that the thinking mind is separate from the body (dualism – Plato)
Explain Plato’s ‘prison for the soul’ quote
Conclude the view that the thinking mind is separate from the body (dualism) is a weak view
Paragraph 1 Plato – ‘a priori’, analogy, evaluate it
Paragraph 2 Descartes – substance dualism, ‘I think therefore I am’
Paragraph 3 Science – no one can tell what we’re thinking by measuring brain waves, we must be asked
Paragraph 4 Dawkins – no soul, we are just the sum of our genes
Paragraph 5 Ryle – the soul is a category mistake
Conclusion Damage – drugs/injury compromises mental state, mind and body can’t be separate
Conclude the view that the thinking mind is separate from the body (dualism) is a weak view
‘There is no such thing as a soul’ Discuss.
Introduction Describe the viewpoint that there is no such thing as the soul (materialism)
Conclude that the idea that there is no such thing as a soul is a weak view point
Paragraph 1 Descartes – substance dualism, ‘I think therefore I am’
Paragraph 2 Aristotle – monism, analogy of axe and eye
Paragraph 3 Dawkins – no soul, we are just the sum of our genes
Paragraph 4 Ryle – the soul is a category mistake
Paragraph 5 Evidence – no empirical evidence for the soul, we cannot see it
Conclusion Science – no one can tell what we’re thinking by measuring brain waves, we must be asked
Conclude that the idea that there is no such thing as a soul is a weak view point
To what extent does Plato successfully explain the relationship between the body and the soul?
Introduction Describe Plato’s view on the relationship between the body and soul (dualism)
Conclude Plato successfully explains an incorrect relationship between body and soul
Paragraph 1 Science – no one can tell what we’re thinking by measuring brain waves, we must be asked
Paragraph 2 Plato – soul can recognise concepts from world of forms
Paragraph 3 Dawkins – no soul, we are just the sum of our genes
Paragraph 4 Ryle – the soul is a category mistake
Paragraph 5 Evidence – no empirical evidence for the soul, we cannot see it
Conclusion Plato – analogy, good for audience
Conclude Plato successfully explains an incorrect relationship between body and soul
Assess whether substance dualism is a convincing approach to questions of body and soul.
Introduction Describe Descartes idea of substance dualism
Conclude that substance dualism is not a convincing approach to questions of body and soul
Paragraph 1 Descartes – ‘I think therefore I am’
Paragraph 2 Evidence – no empirical evidence for the soul, we cannot see it
Paragraph 3 Science – no one can tell what we’re thinking by measuring brain waves, we must be asked
Paragraph 4 Dawkins – no soul, we are just the sum of our genes
Paragraph 5 Ryle – the soul is a category mistake
Conclusion Damage – drugs/injury compromises mental state, mind and body can’t be separate
Conclude that substance dualism is not a convincing approach to questions of body and soul
Is the mind-body distinction a category error?
Introduction Describe Gilbert Ryle’s argument that the soul is a category mistake
Conclude that Ryle is incorrect to argue that the soul is a category mistake
Paragraph 1 Descartes – substance dualism, ‘I think therefore I am’
Paragraph 2 Aristotle – monism, analogy of axe and eye
Paragraph 3 Dawkins – no soul, we are just the sum of our genes
Paragraph 4 Ryle – the soul is a category mistake
Paragraph 5 Evidence – no empirical evidence for the soul, we cannot see it
Conclusion Science – no one can tell what we’re thinking by measuring brain waves, we must be asked
Conclude that Ryle is incorrect to argue that the soul is a category mistake
‘The concept of the soul is better understood metaphorically, rather than as a reality’ Discuss.
Introduction Describe Dawkin’s idea about a metaphorical soul (soul 2)
Conclude it’s incorrect to argue the soul is best understood metaphorically
Paragraph 1 Plato – ‘a priori’, analogy, evaluate it
Paragraph 2 Aristotle – monism, analogy of axe and eye
Paragraph 3 Gilbert Ryle – category mistake
Paragraph 4 Dawkins – metaphorical soul 2
Paragraph 5 Science – no one can tell what we’re thinking by measuring brain waves, we must be asked
Conclusion Descartes – substance dualism, ‘I think therefore I am’
Conclude it’s incorrect to argue the soul is best understood metaphorically
Critically assess dualist ideas about the soul
Introduction Describe the view that the thinking mind is separate from the body (dualism – Plato)
Explain Plato’s ‘prison for the soul’ quote
Conclude the view that the thinking mind is separate from the body (dualism) is a weak view
Paragraph 1 Plato – ‘a priori’, analogy, evaluate it
Paragraph 2 Descartes – substance dualism, ‘I think therefore I am’
Paragraph 3 Science – no one can tell what we’re thinking by measuring brain waves, we must be asked
Paragraph 4 Dawkins – no soul, we are just the sum of our genes
Paragraph 5 Ryle – the soul is a category mistake
Conclusion Damage – drugs/injury compromises mental state, mind and body can’t be separate
Conclude the view that the thinking mind is separate from the body (dualism) is a weak view
‘Jesus’ teaching was only about becoming a moral person’ Discuss.
Introduction Describe who Jesus was
Describe how Jesus taught
Conclude that Jesus teachings was only about becoming a moral person
Paragraph 1 Jesus as a teacher of morality – the sermon on the mount
Paragraph 2 Jesus as a teacher of morality – the golden rule
Paragraph 3 Jesus as a teacher of forgiveness – the parable of the lost son
Paragraph 4 Jesus as a teacher of societal reform – Matthew 10:34 promotes push for social unrest
Paragraph 5 Jesus as a teacher of life after death – the parable of the sheep and the goats
Conclusion Jesus as a teacher – love was his main message, all of his teachings boil down to this
Conclude that Jesus teachings was only about becoming a moral person
To what extent was Jesus merely a political leader?
Introduction Describe who Jesus was
Conclude that Jesus was more a teacher and liberator, than a political leader
Paragraph 1 Political leader – Influence on liberation theology, Oscar Romero
Paragraph 2 Political leader – his actions lead to his death by crucifixion – reserved for political criminals
Paragraph 3 Jesus as a religious liberator – Mark 5:24-34, the women with the flow of blood
Paragraph 4 Jesus as a teacher of morality – the sermon on the mount
Paragraph 5 Jesus as a teacher of forgiveness – the parable of the lost son
Conclusion Not political leader – his teachings and action were in the name of liberation and religion
Conclude that Jesus was more a teacher and liberator, than a political leader
‘Jesus’ miracles demonstrate that he was the Son of God’ Discuss.
Introduction Describe who Jesus was
Describe what it means to be the son of God
Describe what Jesus miracles are
Conclude that Jesus miracles demonstrate that he was the Son of God
Paragraph 1 Healing – Healing of a blind man
Paragraph 2 Nature – Walking on water
Paragraph 3 Humanity – all three synoptic Gospels show Jesus as human in GoG as his is afraid of death
Paragraph 4 Hypostatic union – 100% God and 100% human
Conclusion Jesus resurrection – the ultimate miracle
Conclude that Jesus miracles demonstrate that he was the Son of God
‘Jesus’ role was just to liberate the poor and weak against oppression’ Discuss.
Introduction Describe who Jesus was
Liberators set people free from systems, situations, or ideas that restrict them in some way
Describe how this has influenced liberation theology, Oscar Romero
Conclude Jesus role was to liberate the poor and weak against oppression, and much more
Paragraph 1 Not liberator – Matthew 26:47-56, Garden of Gethsemane, scolds disciple for drawing sword
Paragraph 2 Jesus as a political liberator – turning over the tables in the temple, it had lost its focus
Paragraph 3 Jesus as a religious liberator – Mark 5:24-34, the women with the flow of blood
Paragraph 4 Jesus as a teacher of morality – the sermon on the mount
Paragraph 5 Jesus as a teacher of forgiveness – the parable of the lost son
Conclusion Jesus as a liberator – Matthew 10:34, promotes activism, pushed for social unrest
Conclude Jesus role was to liberate the poor and weak against oppression, and much more
Assess the view that the miracles prove Jesus was the Son of God.
Introduction Describe who Jesus was
Describe what it means to be the son of God
Describe what Jesus miracles are
Conclude that Jesus miracles prove he was the Son of God
Paragraph 1 Healing – Healing of a blind man
Paragraph 2 Nature – Walking on water
Paragraph 3 Humanity – all three synoptic Gospels show Jesus as human in GoG as his is afraid of death
Paragraph 4 Hypostatic union – 100% God and 100% human
Paragraph 5 Mark – 14:62, when asked if ‘the Son of the Blessed One’, responds with ‘I am’
Conclusion Jesus resurrection – the ultimate miracle
Conclude that Jesus miracles demonstrate that he was the Son of God
‘Jesus Christ is not unique’ Discuss.
Introduction Describe who Jesus was
Describe what it means to be unique
Conclude that Jesus was unique
Paragraph 1 Raymond Brown – claim to divinely inspired authority, supported by Matthew 11:27
Paragraph 2 Catholic Church – Nicene Creed, Jesus is not a Son of God but the Son of God
Paragraph 3 Miracles – healing of the blind man
Paragraph 4 John Hick – Neither Christ or Christianity is unique, all religions have equal insight to God
Paragraph 5 Don Cupitt – anti-realist who argued that all supernatural is not real, Jesus didn’t do miracles
Conclusion Jesus resurrection – the ultimate miracle
Conclude that Jesus was not unique
Did Jesus think of himself as divine?
Introduction Describe who Jesus was
Divine means to be the son of God
Conclude that Jesus did think of himself as divine
Paragraph 1 HP Liddon – book John, ‘I am’ like God in Exodus, ‘unveils a consciousness of eternal being’
Paragraph 2 John an interpretation – not historical, wrote by someone thinking Jesus is SoG, biased
Paragraph 3 Humanity – all three synoptic Gospels show Jesus as human in GoG as his is afraid of death
Paragraph 4 Miracles – he shows his divinity through miracles like walking on water, or healing blind men
Paragraph 5 Resurrection – the greatest miracle, shows ultimate divinity
Conclusion Mark – 14:62, when asked if ‘the Son of the Blessed One’, responds with ‘I am’
Conclude that Jesus did think of himself as divine
Was Jesus more than a political liberator?
Introduction Describe who Jesus was
Conclude that Jesus was way more than a political leader, he was a teacher and liberator
Paragraph 1 Political leader – Influence on liberation theology, Oscar Romero
Paragraph 2 Political leader – his actions lead to his death by crucifixion – reserved for political criminals
Paragraph 3 Jesus as a religious liberator – Mark 5:24-34, the women with the flow of blood
Paragraph 4 Jesus as a teacher of morality – the sermon on the mount
Paragraph 5 Jesus as a teacher of forgiveness – the parable of the lost son
Conclusion Not political leader – his teachings and action were in the name of liberation and religion
Conclude that Jesus was more a teacher and liberator, than a political leader
Was Jesus the son of God?
Introduction Describe who Jesus was
Describe what it means to be the Son of God
Conclude that Jesus was the Son of God
Paragraph 1 Raymond Brown – claim to divinely inspired authority, supported by Matthew 11:27
Paragraph 2 Catholic Church – Nicene Creed, Jesus is not a Son of God but the Son of God
Paragraph 3 Miracles – healing of the blind man
Paragraph 4 John Hick – Neither Christ or Christianity is unique, all religions have equal insight to God
Paragraph 5 Don Cupitt – anti-realist who argued that all supernatural is not real, Jesus didn’t do miracles
Conclusion Jesus resurrection – the ultimate miracle
Conclude that Jesus was the Son of God
Was Jesus only a teacher of wisdom?
Introduction Describe who Jesus was
Describe what it means to be a teacher of wisdom (inner purity, forgiveness, morality)
Conclude that Jesus teachings was not only based around wisdom, but also much more
Paragraph 1 Jesus as a teacher of wisdom (morality) – the sermon on the mount
Paragraph 2 Jesus as a teacher of wisdom (morality) – the golden rule
Paragraph 3 Jesus as a teacher of wisdom (forgiveness) – the parable of the lost son
Paragraph 4 Jesus as a teacher of life after death – the parable of the sheep and the goats
Conclusion Jesus as a teacher of societal reform – Matthew 10:34 promotes push for social unrest
Conclude that Jesus teachings was not only based around wisdom, but also much more
Assess the view that Heaven is the transformation of creation.
Introduction Describe what it means to be the transformation of the whole of creation (every species)
Conclude that heaven is the transformation and perfection of the whole of creation
Paragraph 1 Biblical evidence – Romans 8:20, all of creation has suffered and will be rewarded
Paragraph 2 Lacking Biblical support – only that one line in Romans, it could be interpreted differently
Paragraph 3 Difficult – would bacteria be saved? Would this not cause disease?
COUNTER
Nature of God – Omnipotent, he could stop it causing bacteria whilst it also keeps its form
Paragraph 4 Unlimited election – salvation is potentially for all, including non-humans
Paragraph 5 Aquinas – animals have no rational souls and cannot live on after death
Conclusion Christopher Southgate – immoral God not saving every creature when suffered in evolution
Conclude that heaven is the transformation and perfection of the whole of creation
Critically assess the view that all people will be saved.
Introduction Describe what universalism is
Conclude that all people will be saved through universalism
Paragraph 1 John Calvin – demonstrates God’s omnipotence and omniscience, can’t change God’s mind
Paragraph 2 Catholic Church – unlimited election, all are called to salvation but not all are saved
Paragraph 3 Parable of the Sheep and Goats – heaven and hell is a consequence of own actions
Paragraph 4 James Arminius – Jesus died for all people and so all have the chance to be saved
Conclusion John Hick – Universalism, God is omnibenevolent, more a temporary purification
Conclude that limited election is an unconvincing Christian belief
‘Purgatory is the most important Christian teaching about the afterlife’ Discuss.
Introduction Describe what purgatory is
Conclude that purgatory is a the most important Christian teaching about the afterlife
Paragraph 1 Catholic Church – if impure but died in grace, don’t go straight to heaven, have to be purified
Paragraph 2 Catholic Church – people need time to freely change, prayers speed this up, masses for dead
Paragraph 3 Protestant – God’s grace is enough for someone to be transformed after death, no purg
Paragraph 4 David Brown – protestant agrees catholic thinking, God cannot overcome individual freedom
Paragraph 5 Protestant – not enough Biblical evidence to endorse it, mainly talks about heaven and hell
Conclusion John Hick – God’s all loving, hell not eternal, universalism, needs time to draw to God
Conclude that purgatory is a the most important Christian teaching about the afterlife
Critically Assess the Christian Belief of Limited Election.
Introduction Describe what limited election is
Conclude that limited election is an unconvincing Christian belief
Paragraph 1 John Calvin – demonstrates God’s omnipotence and omniscience, can’t change God’s mind
Paragraph 2 Catholic Church – unlimited election, all are called to salvation but not all are saved
Paragraph 3 Parable of the Sheep and Goats – heaven and hell is a consequence of own actions
Paragraph 4 James Arminius – Jesus died for all people and so all have the chance to be saved
Conclusion John Hick – Universalism, God is omnibenevolent, more a temporary purification
Conclude that limited election is an unconvincing Christian belief
Does God’s judgement take place immediately after death or at the end of time?
Introduction Describe what it means by God’s judgement
Conclude that God’s judgement takes place immediately after death
Paragraph 1 Catechism – at death, soul goes to judgement, from here to heaven or hell
Paragraph 2 Rich Man and Lazarus – immediate judgement is supported in this parable
Paragraph 3 Sheep and the Goats – end of time supported in parable, Jesus judges in his second coming
Paragraph 4 Day of Judgement – Soul reunite with body and judgment occurs then, then receive fate
Paragraph 5 Catholic Church – soul judged immediately, then united with body for final judgement at end
Conclusion Jesus on the Cross – ‘today you will be with me in paradise’, not a parable, not interpretation
Conclude that God’s judgement takes place immediately after death
Is heaven eternal?
Introduction Describe what heaven is
State that heaven is either not eternal, in time, or out of time
Conclude that heaven is eternal outside of time
Paragraph 1 Biblical support – Genesis 1:1, created heaven in beginning, time present, cannot be eternal
COUNTER
Old Testament a myth
Paragraph 2 Biblical support – Revelation 8:1, time is present in heaven, cannot be eternal, new test
Paragraph 3 NT Wright – God is transforming our world into something everlasting in time, not out
Paragraph 4 Catholic Church – death is a moment of final decision; the soul does not carry on
Paragraph 5 Bernard Williams – surely, we would get bored in an eternal heaven?
COUNTER
Nature of God – omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he could miraculously stop bordem
Conclusion Karl Rahner – death fixes a person’s state of being, and so cannot be in time any longer
Conclude that heaven is eternal outside of time
Is heaven in time or outside of time?
Introduction Describe what heaven is as eternal
Conclude that heaven is outside of time
Paragraph 1 Biblical support – Genesis 1:1, created heaven in beginning, time present, cannot be eternal
COUNTER
Old Testament a myth
Paragraph 2 Biblical support – Revelation 8:1, time is present in heaven, cannot be eternal, new test
Paragraph 3 NT Wright – God is transforming our world into something everlasting in time, not out
Paragraph 4 Catholic Church – death is a moment of final decision; the soul does not carry on
Conclusion Karl Rahner – death fixes a person’s state of being, and so cannot be in time any longer
Conclude that heaven is outside of time
Is hell eternal?
Introduction Describe what Hell is
Conclude that Hell is not eternal
Paragraph 1 Dante – Divine Comedy, traditional view is of an eternal hell
Paragraph 2 Catholic Church – hell reserved for mortal sins, not chosen by God, self-imposed (free will)
Paragraph 3 Parable of the sheep and goats – ‘into the eternal fire’, Jesus’ teaching seems to answer it
Paragraph 4 Biblical support – Luke 12:58-59, ‘paid the last penny’, Hick believes means repent in Hell
Paragraph 5 Unmerciful Servant – Matthew 18:32-34, ‘pay back all he owed’, repent in Hell
Conclusion John Hick – Universalism, God is omnibenevolent, more a temporary purification
Conclude that Hell is not eternal
Is heaven the transformation and perfection of the whole of creation?
Introduction Describe what it means to be the transformation of the whole of creation (every species)
Conclude that heaven is the transformation and perfection of the whole of creation
Paragraph 1 Biblical evidence – Romans 8:20, all of creation has suffered and will be rewarded
Paragraph 2 Lacking Biblical support – only that one line in Romans, it could be interpreted differently
Paragraph 3 Difficult – would bacteria be saved? Would this not cause disease?
COUNTER
Nature of God – Omnipotent, he could stop it causing bacteria whilst it also keeps its form
Paragraph 4 Unlimited election – salvation is potentially for all, including non-humans
Paragraph 5 Aquinas – animals have no rational souls and cannot live on after death
Conclusion Christopher Southgate – immoral God not saving every creature when suffered in evolution
Conclude that heaven is the transformation and perfection of the whole of creation
Is purgatory a state through which everyone goes?
Introduction Describe what purgatory is
Conclude that purgatory is a state through which everyone goes
Paragraph 1 Catholic Church – if impure but died in grace, don’t go straight to heaven, have to be purified
Paragraph 2 Catholic Church – people need time to freely change, prayers speed this up, masses for dead
Paragraph 3 Protestant – God’s grace is enough for someone to be transformed after death, no purg
Paragraph 4 David Brown – protestant agrees catholic thinking, God cannot overcome individual freedom
Paragraph 5 Protestant – not enough Biblical evidence to endorse it, mainly talks about heaven and hell
Conclusion John Hick – God’s all loving, hell not eternal, universalism, needs time to draw to God
Conclude that purgatory is a state through which everyone goes
‘Hell is an idea not a place’ Discuss.
Introduction Describe what Hell is
Conclude that Hell is a place, not an idea
Paragraph 1 DZ Phillips – anti-realism, hell is a symbol of a person’s moral life on earth
Paragraph 2 Pope John Paul II – hell a spiritual state experienced after death, symbolic language in Bible
Paragraph 3 Rich Man and Lazarus – depicts hell as a real place, not a symbol, full of torment
Paragraph 4 Science – where is Hell? We would have found it
Paragraph 5 Nature of God – a loving God would not want to punish people in Hell? Must be symbol
Conclusion John Hick – God’s all loving, hell not eternal, universalism, needs time to draw to God
Conclude that Hell is a place, not an idea
Critically discuss Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats.
Introduction Describe Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats
Conclude that Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats depicts the afterlife as an end of time judgement where heaven and hell are real places and purgatory is non-existent
Paragraph 1 Teaching on Morality – Do good and help people now, no going back on your actions
Paragraph 2 Teaching on Jesus Judgement – end of time supported, Jesus judges in his second coming
Paragraph 3 Teaching on Heaven and Hell as real – ‘into the eternal fire’, real eternal place
Paragraph 4 Teaching on purgatory as non-existent – no mention in story, sheep and goats, no lambs
Paragraph 5 Teaching on actions vs beliefs – judgement concerns action, unlimited election
Conclusion Parable –analogous teaching of Jesus, and so it has to be interpreted and not literal, explain
Conclude that Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats depicts the afterlife as an end of time judgement where heaven and hell are real places and purgatory is non-existent
Discus the view that the idea of purgatory makes more sense than hell.
Introduction Describe what purgatory is
Describe what hell is
Conclude that the idea of purgatory makes more sense than hell
Paragraph 1 Catholic Church – if impure but died in grace, don’t go straight to heaven, have to be purified
Paragraph 2 Catholic Church – people need time to freely change, prayers speed this up, masses for dead
Paragraph 3 Protestant – God’s grace is enough for someone to be transformed after death, no purg
Paragraph 4 David Brown – protestant agrees catholic thinking, God cannot overcome individual freedom
Paragraph 5 Protestant – not enough Biblical evidence to endorse it, mainly talks about heaven and hell
Conclusion John Hick – God’s all loving, hell not eternal, universalism, needs time to draw to God
Conclude that the idea of purgatory makes more sense than hell
‘The God of love would not elect a limited number of people to salvation’ Discuss.
Introduction Describe what limited election is
Conclude that the God of love would not elect a limited number of people to salvation
Paragraph 1 John Calvin – demonstrates God’s omnipotence and omniscience, can’t change God’s mind
Paragraph 2 Catholic Church – unlimited election, all are called to salvation but not all are saved
Paragraph 3 Parable of the Sheep and Goats – heaven and hell is a consequence of own actions
Paragraph 4 James Arminius – Jesus died for all people and so all have the chance to be saved
Conclusion John Hick – Universalism, God is omnibenevolent, more a temporary purification
Conclude that the God of love would not elect a limited number of people to salvation
