A Level (A2) Predictions 2017 – OCR Philosophy and Ethics

73cb446336eb194320cea1e7f0b350e64dc519803963d08f26f3002925c2a53f

It’s that time of year again. Let’s see whether we can take a look at the previous questions and take an educated guess about what might come up. The truth is that this has become harder and harder to do. A few years ago there were a few topics that hadn’t come up. Now everything has pretty much come up in previous years. Still, I’ll have a go at predictions. Just remember the usual disclaimer: I am not psychic and I don’t know the future. These are *guesses*! Anything could come up! Please revise all areas, you just may want to have a little look in more depth at these topics. OK, that said here goes:

Philosophy:

Religious Experience: ‘Voices are not proof of God but evidence of psychological neurosis.’ Discuss (35) (Click link for essay)

Miracles: ‘Hume’s understanding of miracles is flawed’. Discuss. (35)  (Click link for essay)

Attributes of God: ‘God’s foreknowledge is incompatible with human free will.’ Discuss. (35)

Life after Death: ‘Resurrection is more coherent than reincarnation’. Discuss. (35)

Religious Language: To what extent does analysis of the uses and purpose of religious language overcome the criticisms of the logical positivists? (35)

Ethics

Free Will and Determinism: Critically evaluate theological determinism. (35)

Conscience: How convincing are Newman’s claims that conscience is the voice of God? (35)

Virtue Ethics: ‘Virtue Ethics is the best approach to environmental issues.’ Discuss (35)

Sexual Ethics: Assess the usefulness of religious ethics as an approach to the issues surrounding contraception. (35)

So why have I predicted these ones? Well, in philosophy, the only topics that have never come up as far as I can see are voices in religious experience, Hume’s definition of miracles (different from his criticisms of miracles, which has come up), and the uses and purpose of religious language. Then the other two from life after death and attributes have not come up for a while.

With ethics it was a case of choosing between quite a few options – as far as I can see, no-one apart from Butler has been specified in a question, so there could be a question on any of the other conscience scholars. Also never seen a specific question on predestination which seems odd? The two applied topics have never come up in that combination.

There you go – hope that helps with revision! Now to do ‘predictions’ for AS – a bit pointless really as it is the first year, so literally anything could come up! That hasn’t stopped other people from having a go at it though!

BTW – are you interested in a really useful revision guide for AS? Get mine here: https://rs.pushmepress.com/titles/as-religious-studies-revision-guide-for-ocr-a-level-religious-studies/trade-paperback-uk

 

 

“Scripture Is The Only Valid Form Of Revelation” Discuss (35 Marks)

“Scripture Is The Only Valid Form Of Revelation” Discuss (35 Marks)

A revelation is often referred to as “a divine disclosure, whereby God reveals Himself in some way to a person”. Christians claim that God reveals himself to us in many ways namely; through nature: the universe with its vastness and complexity gives testimony to God and His glory, He is also revealed through our conscience: all societies have a certain moral code built into them in which stealing, lying, murder, and such are universally condemned. Humanity’s sense of right and wrong testifies to God’s existence as it is a sign of His goodness, they also believe that the work of Jesus reveals God: Jesus Himself testified that He had come to earth to reveal the will of God the Father. All of these revelations have come from the Christian scripture.The Bible is God’s revelation of Himself to humankind. The Scripture says “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction, for instruction in righteousness”(2 Timothy 3:16).The Bible is humankind’s source for the knowledge of God and His plan. In this essay I will outline different types of attitudes towards Christian scripture and evaluate the claim that “Scripture Is the Only form of Revelation”.

In philosophy, there are two different ways in which people understand the idea of revelation from God; propositional revelation and non-propositional revelation. Propositional revelation is often understood as God revealing truths about His nature to people.The revelations are made up of non-debatable statements of facts and the information given reveals inerrant knowledge which is without need of interpretation. An example of a propositional revelation is the ten commandments, given to Moses.

Many people criticise this view as it suggests that the receiver of the revelation is passive. However, psychologically, the human mind does not passively receive information, it actively receives it, for example when you learn something, you remember it. Additionally, when trying to learn, we can make memory errors, this means propositional revelations of God may not have been recorded accurately as humans are not infallible. To add, many people claim that the zealous after effects of a revelation can act as proof of the genuineness of the revelation however, this is not the case. There is no direct way to prove that a propositional revelation has happened. Furthermore, different religions, claim to have received propositional revelations, yet sometimes truth claims from different religions conflict. This could mean that all revelations are limited by the ability of receivers to interpret the revelation into their own religion, making it an interpretation, not a statement of fact.

Various Christians take a propositional view when approaching the Bible. As they believe it is the absolute word of God. These people are traditionally known as fundamentalists as they oppose liberal approaches who interpret the Bible, often doubting miracles and the creation story. They also believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and that it is therefore infallible. To them, the Bible is an authoritative book that reveals God’s will to His people through historically accurate documents. Fundamentalism is limited in that it does not aid you in interpreting the Bible which can be deemed uninspirational. Their view is also subjective and only accepts one way of interpreting the Bible without knowing of it is the correct way.

Moreover, many fundamentalists use the term “verbal inspiration” to describe how God gave His word to the people. “Verbal Inspiration” refers to the divine origins of every word in the Bible. It claims that God dictates the books of the Bible through divine inspiration, this means that every word of the Bible should be respected in the Bible as you will therefore be following God’s absolute words. This means you can consult the Bible for guidance about moral dilemmas and problems in life, and your answers will be found in the Bible. This view is highly criticised as of the Bible is followed this way, believers must accept harsh punishments like the death penalty for many offences. This is seen by many as barbaric and cruel as this would mean women who commit adultery and who are not virgins before they get married should be stoned to death. Similarly, the idea of how creation happened is highly disputed among all Christians as many liberals do believe in the theory of evolution. To add, of the Bible is divinely inspired then disobeying the Bible in any way is a rejection of God’s commands so a fundamentalist should agree to the stoning of women even though it would be shunned in our society today.

The other way in which people understand revelation from God is through the non-propositional approach. This refers to the idea that religious believers recognise God’s revelation through his action in human history and through experience. The role of the receiver is therefore crucial in this instance as God’s revelation will be a subjective experience. This approach means that humans are free to respond to God’s revelation or not to since the receiving of the revelation is active. An example of a non-propositional revelation is noted by the author Arthur Cohen through his character of Sherlock Holmes, he argues for the existence of a God from the beauty in the world. William Paley also stated that the structure of the eye is so meticulously designed that is must have had a creator. Other examples of non-propositional revelations are the gospels as the are an account of what was revealed through Jesus’ life as His apostles understood it. From reading the Gospels we can form an image of what Jesus’ was like and decipher what this means for us today.

Many people criticise this view as the claim that non-propositional revelations do not reveal direct knowledge of God, nor can they be considered as infallible. This means there is no way of resolving theological debates apart from appealing to one’s own experience. Additionally, the content of a non-propositional revelation is a matter of interpretation. It is equally possible to be amazed by the beauty and nature of the world without experiencing a non-propositional revelation. Dawkins also argues that we have evolved through our genes and are now able to understand a little of our place in the universe and in the process of evolution. Through the development of the prefrontal cortex we can admire art and socially interact. Non- propositional revelations simply attribute a level of consciousness that we have developed from the process of evolution to God. To add, another criticism is that a believer in this approach cannot claim absolute certainty about their belief systems the way a propositional believer can as they have no factual evidence to support them.

Furthermore, people who apply the non-propositional approach to the Bible, will also believe that the Bible is a record of human experiences of God. The inspiration of God makes the author write down their experiences and understanding of God’s action in the world. The author of the Bible is not divinely dictated to but uses their own skills and understanding to record their revelation of God. They tend to coin the term “divine inspiration” to describe how the Bible came about. This refers to the belief that God inspires the writers of the books of the Bible. This view is criticised as there is a discrepancy over what the specific instructions from God are, as of the book is divinely inspired, then the revelation of God is within the text but identifying the exact nature of the revelation would be problematic. Additionally, the instructions in the Bible are difficult for some to come to terms with for example, no divorce for women and men in abusive relationships. To add, some passages in the Bible conflict with modern attitudes. This is evident in St Paul’s patriarchal view of women’s roles in Churches as they are somewhat oppressive and anti-feminist. Many people would argue that scripture is culturally relative and time bound and so is not relevant today.

Others would argue that scripture is the only valid form of revelation as they hold so much authority. This is due to the fact that after the early Church, leaders could not directly refer to the first apostles for guidance and so developed a new authority. This was based on the rule of faith and the Bible. The rule of faith encompassed traditions, teachings of leaders and beliefs of Christians that had been passed down from the time of the apostles. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is also a form of literary authority as it is written by apostolic teachings and by previous popes who hold papal succession. This stems from the belief that Jesus gave the apostles authority as they were witnesses of His work. Bishops and popes are therefore successors of the apostles and hold the same authority, this means their writings are infallible. The Bible is also seen by many people as the law and should be followed, this has been stated by Maurice Willes. This however poses many problems as laws are seen to be constructs of social order for the time they are created in. This could mean that because the Bible was written over 2000 years ago, its laws and instructions are outdated and need to be in accordance with todays society in order to maintain relevance for the people. It would be plausible to suggest however that Christians would claim the Bible is transcendent as it is divine.

In conclusion, I believe Scripture is the only valid from of revelation as many other forms of revelation stem from it. This is evident in the revelation of God through Jesus as his works are described to us in the Bible.Our sense of morality and conscience can also be taken from the Bible for example, in the beatitudes, revealing God’s expectations of us. Additionally, through reading the Genesis and the creation story we are given an answer to the beauty of the world and therefore can attribute nature’s cause, to God.

Schmemann on Death and the Afterlife

Now we understand why God desires that death, why the Father gives His Only-Begotten Son to it. He desires the salvation of man, i.e., that the destruction of death shall not be an act of His power (“Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels?” Matthew 26:53), not a violence, be it even a saving one, but an act of that love, freedom and free dedication to God for which He created man. For any other salvation would have been in opposition to the nature of man, and, therefore, not a real salvation. Hence the necessity of the Incarnation and the necessity of that Divine death. In Christ, man restores obedience and love. In Him, man overcomes sin and evil. It was essential that death be not only destroyed by God, but overcome and trampled down in human nature itself, by man and through man. “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.” (I Corinthians 15:21)

 

The New A Level RS Specification: Essay Writing

New A Level students, an excellent blog post with practical advice on how to write essays

Religious Education Matters

My Lower Sixth pupils have got off to a flying start with their first foray into the new A Level specification from OCR.

I am teaching the Philosophy side of the course this year and we are just wrapping up their first topic: Ancient Greek Influences.

Crucial to helping them make the big step from GCSE to A level has been helping them come to terms with what is required when writing an essay. It is our whole school policy to not enter any pupil for AS levels and, as such, we are fully linear. Looking ahead to Summer 2018 it is imperative that my pupils get as much practice writing essays as they can.

In the Summer holiday I attended an OCR course in London designed to introduce the new course to teachers and Hugh Campbell gave some important information about exam technique. The crucial focus for pupils should…

View original post 1,330 more words

Virtue Ethics and Brexit

Update 17/03/17: I wrote this post last year before the EU referendum in response to a post in which someone tried to frame the choice as egoism on one side (Brexit) and selflessness on the Remain side. I thought this rather shallow.

 

At his site Peter Baron has interestingly looked at the politics of Brexit through the lens of moral egoism.

I thought it would be interesting to take a virtue ethics view of the EU question. Virtue ethics makes eudaimonia, roughly translated as flourishing, a key element of moral decision-making. Equally it emphasises character over duty or consequences. It is not surprising that most of the arguments for Remain or Leave are framed in terms of utility or consequence; basically what are the economic losses or gains if we stay or go, because utilitarianism is the default public discourse mode of moral decision making. And this is so probably because of the materialism and relativism of secular modernity.

It is my view that virtue ethics can do much to augment and invigorate such deracinated modes of moral reasoning. And taking a virtue ethics approach to the EU referendum seems refreshing. Where are the great narratives on both sides? Rabbi Sacks argues here that they are missing from this debate:

“The debate has been great and vigorous but what is it turning on? How much money will this cost us; will it make it easier or harder to control immigration.

“These matters … are important but in the long run the fact is that we have historical narratives that should have been spoken about and haven’t.

“One is the historical narrative of England, that extraordinary history that runs all the way through from Shakespeare to Elgar to Blake. The second is the other narrative, of Europe in the 20th Century, two world wars, tens of millions of deaths and the original vision … the people who really passionately believed and believe in Europe were people who came through the Second World War and vowed let us create a Europe where this can never happen again.

“There are two very powerful historical narratives, one for leaving, one for staying, but nobody has tried to do that and it tells you that it is very difficult to speak in these memory terms and narrative terms at all.”

If we try to speak in these narrative terms we will be attempting a telos-orientated interpretation of events. We will be rejecting Utilitarian modes of thought, but more than that, we will be rejecting the simplistic liberal reactions to Brexit that frame it in terms of egoism on the Leave side and superior moral insight on the Remain side. Here is the smug arrogance of the liberal elites at its worst.

 

To what extent has Augustine’s teaching on human nature caused more harm than good?


It is frequently claimed that Augustine’s teaching on human nature has caused more harm than good. In particular his view of sexuality, of the nature of the will, and the extent of human sinfulness are often asserted to be major elements of all that is wrong or has been wrong with western culture; imperialism, patriarchal dominator-culture, guilt and repression of sexuality, damage to the environment, and damaging gender stereotypes. Often, such claims are followed by further assertions that progress away from such backward attitudes is only possible by a wholesale rejection of the Augustinian current from Christianity, or more usually by a complete rejection of Christianity itself. Indeed, much of what is called the ‘New Age’ (an eclectic pick and mix of spiritualities and religious traditions), is founded on this very rejection, along with a quite sophisticated critique of the core ideas of Augustine. Equally, secular humanism finds much to criticise in Augustine. I want to show in this essay that although these critiques are very popular and are at the heart of progressive liberal thought, they are in large part based on misunderstandings and misrepresentation of the thought of Augustine. These misrepresentations of Augustine are what lead people to assume he has done more harm than good, when in fact he has not – there are other causes I would blame for the effects mentioned above.

Some have claimed that Augustine saw sex as the fundamental entry point of sin into human nature, and that he viewed it as only tolerable within marriage and then only for the purpose of having children, but the obsession with sex is actually more the problem of the modern critic than it is with Augustine. True, in chapter 6 of Confessions, Augustine talks about marriage as a remedy for concupiscence, and laments that his parents didn’t arrange an early marriage for him, as it would have directed his sexual desire to its proper end.But he doesn’t just single out procreation. He recognises that sexual desire finds its true end in love, commitment and procreation – surely a more positive view of marriage than many claim for him?

Another misrepresentation of Augustine, based on a shallow reading of his work, is that he blames everything on lust or concupiscence and forgets about other sins. In the Confessions Augustine draws a connection between his sexual activity and his freedom of will. He found himself unable to give up his involvement with sexual pleasure and felt trapped, in a state of moral paralysis. In Book 8 he says:

” The consequence of a distorted will is passion. By servitude to passion, habit is formed, and habit to which there is no resistance becomes a compulsion. “

As we can see here, his desire for sex is the point of his resistance to the will of God, and his analysis is that the root of the problem is actually weakness of will, rather than lust itself. This weakness of will is perhaps best understood as a lack of charity (caritas), which would have enabled him to love God wholeheartedly, and an excess of cupiditas (self-love) which made him only serve himself. Augustine characterises this conflict using the words of Paul as

“The lust of the flesh against the spirit”

These two lusts or wills were at war deep in his (and our) heart. But Augustine does not identify lust purely with sexual desire. There are actually many forms that the ‘lust of the flesh’ can take such as greed, pride or acedia (spiritual boredom), and he actually thinks that sexual desire is not the most dangerous of these lusts or sins. For instance, because pride is far more subtle than sexual desire, it can do more unseen damage and is harder to root out.

With this understanding, we can now see that the critique of Augustine blaming him for sexual repression and guilt related to sex in Western culture is misplaced. However, it is possible that his interpreters laid too great an emphasis on the sexual element, and that this interpretation actually did some of the ‘damage’. But it should also be considered that this kind of critique derives a great deal from Freud, and therefore needs to be handled with caution, given his now widely criticised research methods, and his reductionist view of the human being.

However, Augustine’s view of human nature is considered to have had a negative effect in other ways. Perhaps the other main way it is seen to do this is in its fatalism about the ability of the will to bring about any real change on its own, without God’s grace, and of God’s electing some people for salvation and passing over others. This fatalism, more accurately known as the doctrine of predestination in Augustine’s thought, seems to me a more profound problem than the sexual guilt accusation, and to a certain extent, it is possible that Augustine’s view has had far-reaching sometimes negative effects. On Augustine’s account, Original Sin has so distorted human nature that it is for him an ontological condition of human existence. In other words, we don’t just do sinful behaviour now and then, sin is part of the very fabric of our existence. We might expect to see this played out in western Thought as a kind of pessimistic paralysis of the will, whereby humans are believed incapable of achieving anything and so in a self-fulfilling prophecy, they don’t. It is almost impossible to say if this is true. Maybe scientific progress would have been quicker, but then again, without the religious background to European culture, as Freud pointed out, the fundamental impetus behind science, that an invisible world with its own specific laws was waiting to be discovered, might not have surfaced.

I would say the doctrine of predestination has made some too obsessed with legalistic notions of right and wrong, and perhaps a disregard for the pain of this world has engendered a certain coldness and cruelty in some, whilst in others it might have provoked an impractical idealism which fails to live in an embodied present. This might have contributed to some of the ills of modernity such as environmental degradation, crony capitalism, and other problems. However, it is worth stating that there are many different causes posited for these ills. Some blame Descartes with his division of the world into mind and body, others find different thinkers and their influence to be crucial. I will briefly look at some of these later.

Most modern criticism of Augustine’s view of human nature relies on a secular account of the world whereby we become more free, happier, and able to pursue our goals to the extent that we are able to drop the superstitious shackles of religion. For instance, Steven Pinker says that the ‘humanitarian principle’, that we should help others because it is in our own best interests, and not from any religious notions, is the way to progress to an ever more tolerant, enlightened and happy future. Culture needs to free itself from religious myths.

However, cultural historian Christopher Dawson argues that “culture consists in a common set of values which serve to unify the various activities of the group. Such values find expression preeminently…in a society’s religious beliefs.” Dawson believed religion to be the key to history, because it is the key to culture. A religion is not simply a theology. Religion must be expressed in sociological ways as well for it “can never escape the necessity of becoming incarnated in culture and clothing itself in social institutions and traditions, if it is to exert a permanent influence on human life and behavior.” The manner in which religion becomes embodied in temporal society establishes the form of a culture.

A people may also lose its religion and become secularized. Without a religion, however, a culture cannot long survive. Secularization is inevitably a sign of “social decay;” since religion provides the principle of inner cohesion for a society, a secular society will sooner or later disintegrate:

“The loss of the historic religion of a society is a sign that it is undergoing a process of social disintegration…We cannot…assume the possibility of a culture continuing to preserve its unity and to persist indefinitely without any religious form whatsoever. When the process of secularization is completed, the process of social dissolution is consummated and the culture comes to an end.”

Rod Dreher claims the Christian West began to lose its way in the fourteenth century, when the English Franciscan friar William of Ockham pioneered the theory of nominalism, which held there is no inherent order or purpose encoded into the material world. This was a radical departure from the philosophy of theologians like Augustine and Aquinas, who believed God’s intention for the material world is inscribed into nature itself, and can be discerned with human powers of reason. The split divided the “enchanted world” philosopher Charles Taylor describes medieval subjects as inhabiting from the disenchanted, meaningless world we now inhabit as post-modern, liberal subjects. We look around us and try to find some sense or meaning in things and events, but agree that meaning may differ depending on the beholder; the early Medievals bore no such burden.

If Dreher is right then this would also free Augustine from the burden of bearing responsibility for harm with his view of human nature. Instead, it is actually when medieval theologians start to deviate from Augustine that the problems of modernity are laid down. Enlightenment ideals of progress then compound the problem by themselves indulging in new myth-making where the faith in a glorious future, which is slowly being attained step by step, actually overrides any evidence to the contrary. This is very clear from Pinker’s analysis, in which he present evidence for progress by pointing to fewer instances of things such as torture, war and so on. It seems highly implausible that such things are actually decreasing, and aside from a veneer of progress of civil and other rights in the West, some would argue that we are actually experiencing an age of barbarism that the so-called barbaric Middle Ages never reached.

In conclusion then, I would say that to the extent that it is possible for any thinker of late antiquity to cause harm which has affected the modern world, then there are just too many plausible alternative sources of such harm, and the direct responsibility that Augustine’s ideas are meant to have, as I have shown, is based on a lack of understanding of what Augustine really thought.

Find out more in my new book for AS Religious Studies (OCR new specification!)