Religion - Verdict

NufcNavan

Thought it was an ok-ish paper. Section B and J were easy. Section C was tough and the Aristotle question snookered everyone on Section A into tdoing the second question.

Machismo Fan

NufcNavan wrote: »

Thought it was an ok-ish paper. Section B and J were easy. Section C was tough and the Aristotle question snookered everyone on Section A into doing the second question.

It was relatively easily passable which is nice because I feared failing. The Aristotle question was terrible alright though the other question was quite nice. I would've preferred just war or conflict resolution for Section F but the questions that were there were fine.

Fad

YOU GOT PHILOSOPHERS ON YOUR PAPER?

RAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHH


etc

>_<

NufcNavan

Fad wrote: »

YOU GOT PHILOSOPHERS ON YOUR PAPER?

RAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHH


etc

>_<

Don't rage too much. It was only Aristotle. Nobody learns him. everyone was hoping for either Socrates or Plato, or at least a choice question.

Fad

NufcNavan wrote: »

Don't rage too much. It was only Aristotle. Nobody learns him. everyone was hoping for either Socrates or Plato, or at least a choice question.

I learned him....

NufcNavan

Everyone learnt Socrates or Plato instead.

ColmDawson

I didn't do religion for the Leaving Cert, but I find the topic fascinating/disturbing (I used to be a wishy-washy Catholic, I'm now an atheist).
Could someone give me a brief summary of the areas you cover?

Is there Catholic bias or is it a completely even overview of world religions?

Is the option of skeptically dissecting and/or rejecting the notion of god(s) explored?

NufcNavan

ColmDawson wrote: »

I didn't do religion for the Leaving Cert, but I find the topic fascinating/disturbing (I used to be a wishy-washy Catholic, I'm now an atheist).
Could someone give me a brief summary of the areas you cover?

Is there Catholic bias or is it a completely even overview of world religions?

Is the option of skeptically dissecting and/or rejecting the notion of god(s) explored?

It is not biased in the slightest. It is looked at from an educational point of view and almost every aspect or religion is covered, including philosophy, science vs relgion, atheism etc.

Fad

ColmDawson wrote: »

Is the option of skeptically dissecting and/or rejecting the notion of god(s) explored?

Not biased.

Not a whole lot to do with Catholicism at all tbh.

It's a nice subject, interesting too.

fuzzel

Ah it is biased. Primarily towards religious world views but also towards Christianity. It's even reflected in the course aims to "appreciate" religious world views and "acknowledge" non religious ones. I mean, nearly every university consider's Hume's "Dialogues concerning natural religion" to be one of the most fundamental works ever written on the subject of religion (Cambridge university philosophy department lists it as "by far the most important work ever written) but it wasn't mentioned even once in any of my religion books, primarily because it's pretty much the atheist's bible. I think "On Miracles" was mentioned once on one hand out, but that's propably one of Hume's most assailable arguments.

As for why I think it's biased towards Christianity, well there's a clear emphasis on the topics covered to do about twice as much on Chirstianity as on other religions. For example, in my "Moral Decision - making" book there are two chapters on "Morality and the Christian tradition" and "The Ethical Vision on Jesus" and then one chapter which seeks to cover "The Ethics of Greece, Rome, Judaism and Islam." Not to mention that a whole section of the course (albeit not one that is compulsory, but which could potentially be one quarter of the course) is called "Christianity- Origins and Contemporary Expressions".

To be honest I think RE's rubbish course that was poorly written and has a poorly thought out exam. I think the best testament to the incompetence of the people behind the RE course is that in the last chief examiner's report 40/40 is given to an answer on the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus which claims that there are no primary sources for Socrates's existence showing that they clearly don't understand what a primary source is, or are unaware of Plato. Either way, such complete ignorance on such an important part of historical analysis in an answer which requires it should at least cause it to lose a single mark, even if the rest of the answer is very good.

Anyway. [/rant]
Pretty tired right now so sorry if it's a little illegible.

Edit- While I'm ranting about religion I should mentin that in my book at least the coverage of Descartes, Nietzsche, Religion and the environment, and Science and Religion is embarrassingly bad, especially when they are talking about Nietzsche when it becomes clear the the author really doesn't understand Nietzsche philosophy very well (Oh and in Religion and the Environment when it resorts to half lies and total naivety to try and justify some pretty preposterous ideas (like why canceling all debt every 50 years would be a good idea thing).)