A2 Religious Studies Revision Textbook

Over the past two years, I've been pilfering resources from GetRevising to help me digest the large topics in Religious Studies.

This took me two days to compile. I scoured through all my notes to produce this textbook which should help some looking for a resource that goes over everything. 

Keep on reading, of course, and post any comments you have below. 

Good luck in those exams!

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: puchowski
  • Created on: 23-05-13 20:37
Preview of A2 Religious Studies Revision Textbook

First 20 words of the document:

Religious Studies A2
Philosophy of Religion
Religious Ethics
Revision textbook
J. K. Puchowski - 2013

Other pages in this set

Page 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

All information in this book is
subject to the OCR A-level
specification of RELIGIOUS
STUDIES for the A2
examinations in:
in the year 2013.
-This revision pack was compiled by
J. K. Puchowski in May 2013.…read more

Page 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

Religious Language I
· RL considers whether it is possible to
talk of the metaphysical
· Language can be seen as either
Cognitive language conveys truth or
facts. Non-cognitive does not convey
any particular truth claim.…read more

Page 4

Preview of page 4

Here's a taster:

Religious Language II
· LOGICAL POSITIVISTS (Schlick, Neurath et
al.) argued that meaning can only be found in
statements which are proven empirically and
· They later fall into two branches, according to
· V-ists such as AYER will argue that we only
get meaning by knowing that a statement is
completely verifiable (Language, Truth and
Logic) or if it is logically sound (mathematics).…read more

Page 5

Preview of page 5

Here's a taster:

Religious Language III
· F-ists such as FLEW continue on,
arguing that you have to deny the
antithesis of a statement ­ such as
"the cat isn't black" ­ and prove
that. This creates "uniquity".
· You still need proof. This theory of
knowledge was also proposed by
Karl Popper.
· Thus, if I say "God exists", what I
must also say is that "God does
not, NOT exist". There must be
nothing else.…read more

Page 6

Preview of page 6

Here's a taster:

Religious Language IV
· One could argue that the VERIFICATION
principle is self-defeating ­ consider the
argument itself: how can we prove that what
is meaningful is that which has been proven?
· HARE argues that the FALSIFICATION
principle is problematic; people have their
own forms of certainty, or "bliks", and to them
there is meaning in what they are saying.…read more

Page 7

Preview of page 7

Here's a taster:

argued that statements could be
"verifiable in principle".
· WARD rejects this as ANY
statement could in essence be
verifiable in principle.
· It is worth knowing that AYER later
gave up on the VERIFICATION
principle.…read more

Page 8

Preview of page 8

Here's a taster:

Religious Language V
· If RL is non-cognitive, then maybe there is a
different way to know God.
· Aquinas argued that ANALOGY is the method
whereby humans understand the metaphysical ­
we either see him through examination
(ATTRIBUTION) or by comparison
(PROPORTION). Analogy can be found in either
one of those.
· To say GOD IS GOOD, we mean GOOD by what
there is GOOD in the world or by looking at
GOOD in several different objects.…read more

Page 9

Preview of page 9

Here's a taster:

Religious Language VI
· BRAITHWAITE posits that to
argue that God exists is to have a
form of moral-like assertion; we
believe it to be true. It is a
commitment to a way of life ­
"which determine his behav."
· BROWN is confused; he thinks
that we can only understand God
in human terms. Thus, there is a
problem in our understanding, but
we don't have any other form of
knowledge. We are stuck and have
to ANTHROPOMOPHISE God.…read more

Page 10

Preview of page 10

Here's a taster:

Religious Language VII
· WITTGENSTEIN was once a fully fledged
LOGICAL POSITIVIST. Later on in his life, his
ideas changed.
· He argued that the language we use is
contextual. It is a game.
· When I speak of God, I speak of him in the
language-game of religion. It is for this reason
why when I speak of God in the language-
game of verifiable objectivity, there is no
· Meaning is therefore found within the
language-game. It only concerns the
language-game.…read more



Page not found?

Similar Religious Studies resources:

See all Religious Studies resources »See all resources »