exam focus
Terminology for top marks
To get top marks in exams you need to use specialist terms that show your knowledge and understanding of the topic. Here we’ll take you through some essential terms and how to employ them
An essential part of any academic discipline at any level is being able to use the right terminology, at the right times, and in the right places. This will be true of all your A-level subjects, including religious studies which abounds with specialist vocabulary.
If you took GCSE religious studies some of it will already be familiar: you will have referred to the classical attributes of God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, as well as defining more common, but sometimes misused, terms such as ‘miracle’, ‘abortion’, even ‘Bible’ perhaps, or ‘church’. These will inevitably be used during your A-level studies too, but you also need to become fluent with terms belonging to the realms of philosophy and theology at a high level. Let’s identify some of the terms that recur most frequently.
A priori and a posteriori
When you are introduced to arguments for the existence of God, possibly the first major topic that you’ll cover on the philosophy of religion paper, you are likely to find the arguments described using Latin terminology. Arguments for the existence of God are usually understood to be either a priori or a posteriori. These terms apply to discussions about the nature of knowledge and proof in general philosophy too — they are fundamental in our understanding of how we gain knowledge about the world and the value and status we think that knowledge has.
A posteriori arguments are based on our direct, empirical experience of the world — that is experience that derives from the use of our physical senses. The Cosmological and Teleological (Design) Arguments fall into this category, as does an argument from religious experience. A posteriori knowledge is not logically necessary.
That means that it may or may not be true and that conclusions drawn on the basis of such knowledge are not going to be the only conclusions which could be drawn — there are other possible conclusions which could be more or less likely. For example, the Cosmological Argument is based on the most direct experience we have of the world — its very existence — and on the sequence of cause and effect that we observe in the world. Taking these as the basis of the proof, the argument leads to the conclusion that God must be at the beginning of any series of cause and effect which culminates in the existence of the universe. The Design Argument makes much of observing certain features of the universe that are thought to need an explanation: beauty, order and regularity, for example.
Whether a priori or a posteriori, the conclusions reached by these arguments could be different. We could decide that a chain of causes and effects may be infinite, and need no first cause, or that the appearance of design in the universe is nothing more than an illusion.
David Hume
One of the most famous examples of a posteriori knowledge is used by David Hume in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. He comments that although we confidently make the assertion that the Sun will rise tomorrow on the basis of all our past experience of the Sun rising, there would be nothing logically contradictory about claiming that the Sun will not rise tomorrow. It may or may not; something else may rise instead —a huge blue melon, for example. Absurd? Maybe, but only because the probability of the Sun rising tomorrow is so high that we don’t actually waste time seriously considering that it might not. However, because the rising of the sun is not a matter of a priori knowledge, it is not logically necessary.
The Ontological Argument for the existence of God is a classic a priori argument that works through a series of premises to arrive at a conclusion which is the only one that can be reached. David Hume called this type of knowledge ‘relations of ideas’ — it dealt with matters that experience could not verify but which were known to be certainly and analytically true. Matters of maths and geometry fall into this category, and, for Anselm, the existence of God, which, he maintained, was analytically true. Anselm starts with a definition of God that he believes makes it impossible to think of him as non-existent, irrespective of any sense experience. So too, whether we have an example of a triangle before us or not, we know that triangles are, by necessity, possessed of three angles.
Teleological
Another term you need to be able to use early on in your course is teleological.
This does not just refer to the Teleological Argument. In fact, the argument is referred to this way because of the broader meaning of teleological. It comes from the Greek word telos, meaning the end or purpose of an action, being or item. Aristotle identified four causes of a thing, which culminated in a complete explanation of what caused something to exist. The most important of these causes was the final cause, which was teleological — concerned with ultimate end or function — since this is what gave an item its ultimate goodness. Aristotle maintained that everything had a final cause, even if wasn’t immediately apparent.
This word will come up with some frequency in studies of ethic theory. A teleological ethical theory, such as utilitarianism, evaluates the goodness of an action on the basis of its final consequences rather than the action itself or the motives with which the action was performed.
The term is also used in a study of virtue ethics, which is based on the principle that the telos, or goal, of a human being is to flourish, pursue the virtues and attain eudaimonia. Another interesting application of the term might be in discussion of Irenaeus’ theodicy which sees evil and suffering as being teleological — in other words, it has a role to play in bringing about a purpose, that of soul-making. This is a useful part of your evaluation of this theodicy as it may appear more optimistic than other theodicies because evil and suffering are therefore purposeful.
Eschatology
An essential term for almost all disciplines within religious studies is eschatology. Whatever options you are covering you will almost certainly find use for this term.
Typically, it refers to the end times and the events associated with them: death, heaven, hell and judgement. In philosophy we may refer to something being eschatologically verifiable. This means that it will not be until the end of time (should such a concept be meaningful) that some things will be proved true or false — the existence of God, for example. In ethics we might use the term in the context of human behaviour having ‘eschatological implications’, to allude to possible rewards or punishments in the afterlife. Most of all, perhaps, it will be used to discuss ideas, in different religions and philosophy, about the possible form an afterlife might take.
Within biblical studies, eschatology is highly significant for the biblical writers since virtually every book of the Bible deals with the prospect of eternal life and how this impacts on the believer in the present and the future.
And more…
Confident use of the right language will make an enormous difference to your exam answers. Consider these other essential terms and make sure you know what they mean and how you can use them:
■ symbol and myth
■ testimony and credulity
■ rational principle
■ Ockham’s razor
■ inductive leap
■ vacuous statement