STRANMILLIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE BEd Year 3 Module Guide Post-Primary SRS3030 Philosophy of Religion and Ethics Weighting of Module 20 CATS / 10 ECTS / 5 US Credits
This module is a compulsory element of the Religious Studies course and all queries should be taken to the Module Leader. Content Topics selected from: Arguments for the existence of God; life after death; miracles; problem of evil; religious experience; religious language; ethical theories; practical ethics; work of selected philosophers. Learning Outcomes On completion of this module the students should demonstrate: a clear knowledge and understanding of the different approaches to an understanding of God and ethics outlined in the course a knowledge and understanding of the skills appropriate to philosophical and ethical discourse an ability to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the writings and thought of key thinkers in philosophy of religion and ethics an ability to critically analyse some of the main areas of debate in the philosophy of religion and ethics and assess the contribution of scholars to debate on the issues an ability to use knowledge and understanding to locate and justify a personal position in relation to various theories in philosophy of religion and ethics confidence to read and utilise scholarly texts an ability to present subject material and scholarly views in clear written English. Skillls Students should: develop an ability to identify and critically analyse aspects of Ethics and the Philosophy of Religion demonstrate a high level of ability to reflect on their own value system; have a well-developed ability to manage their own learning and to organise an effective work pattern, including meeting deadlines; demonstrate a well-developed ability to process and synthesise empirical and theoretical data and to present and justify a chosen position. Teaching and Learning Teaching methods are informal and students are encouraged and expected to contribute to the topics under discussion. Topics for reading and research will be suggested in lectures and students will be encouraged to use the library facilities. Students are encouraged to consider the implications and applications of the various aspects of this course for their school-based work.
Assessment In this module assessment consists of one 2,000 word assignment and one 2 hour examination. BOTH elements must be passed. Title Date Duration / Word Length % Aggregate Examination 120 minutes 70% Assignment 2,000 words 30% Assignment Title: Describe the key features of religious experience. Is religious experience a convincing proof of the existence of God? You should refer to module readings and your own additional readings where appropriate (at least 5 scholarly references are required). Word Limit A written assignment must not exceed the maximum word limit set for that assignment. Students are required to enter an accurate word count on the Assignment Cover Sheet. Tutors will not read or assess any part of the work which exceeds the word count by 10%. For example, with a word limit of 2000, reading will cease at 2200 words. Assignment Hand-In All assignments are to be handed in to the Central Administration Office to the postprimary administrator. Your assignment should have a front cover on which the tutor can write remarks and record a grade - you can collect these from the Central Administration Office. Unless you hand your assignment directly to the Central Administration Office no credit will be given if assignments are lost. Late submission of coursework Coursework submitted after the deadline will be penalised at a rate of 5% of the assessed mark per working day up to 5 working days. Coursework submitted more than 5 working days after the deadline will be recorded as zero for that assignment. Exemptions will be granted only if there are extenuating circumstances see your adviser of studies.
Plagiarism see current study regulations 3.17 Plagiarism: It is an academic offence for students to plagiarise. Plagiarism is defined as the presentation of the work of others as the writer s own without appropriate acknowledgement. This includes auto-plagiarism (to use excerpts from his or her previous work without appropriate acknowledgement) and selfplagiarism (to submit one piece of work more than once, e.g. where such work has been previously been submitted for a different assignment). 3.18 It is also an academic offence for a student to permit another student to copy his/her work submitted for assessment. Both parties will be dealt with in accordance with these procedures. 3.19 Collusion: It is an academic offence for two or more students to work together on an assignment that is meant to be done individually. It is expected that the work being assessed, unless specifically designated as a group assessment, shall be the sole work of the student submitting it. 3.20 Fabrication: It is an academic offence for a student to claim to have carried out experiments, interviews or any form of research which he/she has not in fact carried out, or where he/she invents or falsifies data, evidence or experimental results. It is also an academic offence for a student knowingly to make use of falsified data as described above. Referencing Students are required to use the Harvard system of referencing. See Guide to Using the Harvard Reference System. Key Library Texts Atkinson and Field eds. (1995) New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology Leicester: IVP Bowie, Robert A (2004) Ethical Studies Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Christenson, T (2011) Questioning assumptions: Rethinking the philosophy of religion, Minneapolis: Fortress Copan, Paul (2003) The Rationality of Theism Abingdon: Routledge Davis, S T (1997) God, Reason and Theistic Proofs Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ganssle, Gregory (2004) Thinking about God First Steps in Philosophy Downers Grove: IVP Hauerwas, Stanley (1983) The Peaceable Kingdom A Primer in Christian Ethics Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Hauerwas, Stanley and Wells, Samuel (eds) (2004) The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics Oxford: Blackwell Hick, John (1973) Philosophy of Religion Hemel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall Holmes, Arthur F (1984) Ethics Approaching Moral Decisions Leicester: IVP Mawson, T J (2005) Belief in God: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion Oxford: Clarendon Singer, Peter (1993) A Companion to Ethics Oxford: Blackwell Swinburne, Richard (1996) Is there a God? Oxford: OUP
Thiselton, Anthony C (2005) A Concise Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Religion Grand Rapids: Baker Thompson, Mel (2003) An Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics London: Hodder and Stoughton Thompson, Mel (1999) Ethical Theory London: Hodder and Stoughton Vardy, Peter and Grosch, Paul (1999) The Puzzle of Ethics London: HarperCollins/Fount Vardy, Peter (1999) The Puzzle of God London: Fount/HarperCollins Wilkens, Steve (1995) Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics Downers Grove: IVP Williams, C. (2011) Existential reasons for belief in God: A defence of desires and emotions for faith, Downers Grove: IVP Journals Dialogue: A Journal of Religion and Philosophy Conceptual Equivalents Scale Undergraduate Levels 1 3 Conceptual Equivalent Exceptional I High/Excellent I (in addition to criteria for Definite/low 1) % Pt Mark Band 100 95 100 90 85 94 Definite I 80 78 84 Level 3 Criteria Exceptional and exemplary work showing: A very high level of critical analysis A very high level of insight in the conclusions draw n An in-depth know ledge and understanding across a w ide range of the relevant areas including areas at the forefront of the discipline Very thorough coverage of the topic Confidence in the appropriate use of learning resources to support arguments made Excellent and outstanding answer showing: Considerable independence of thought and critical judgement w ith sustained critical analysis. A w ell developed ability to analyse concepts and ideas at an abstract level A thorough understanding of all the main issues involved and their relevance A substantial degree of originality Substantial evidence of w ide, relevant and critical use of learning resources Good understanding of complex and problematic areas of the discipline Low I 75 70-77 Excellent answer showing: A good level of independence of thought and critical judgement and a level of critical analysis. A developed ability to analyse concepts and ideas An understanding of all the main issues involved and their relevance A degree of originality Evidence of w ide, relevant and critical use of learning resources An understanding of the complexity and scope of
the discipline High 2.1 Definite/solid 2.1 Low /clear 2.1 High 2.2 Definite/solid 2.2 Low /clear 2.2 68 65 62 58 55 52 67 69 64 66 60-63 57-59 54 56 50 53 Very good, comprehensive answer showing: Good understanding of relevant w ider issues. Well developed arguments w ith evidence of independent thought A good understanding of module material coupled w ith the ability to relate this to new ideas and concepts Evidence of w ide and relevant use of learning resources Synthesis / integration of material from other modules/experience as w ell as the current module Evidence of independent/autonomous learning Good answer showing: The ability to draw reasonable conclusions Know ledge and aw areness of the main issues A satisfactory understanding of module material Little reference to resources outside module material High 3 rd 48 47 49 Adequate answer which: Shows fair understanding of main issues Definite 3 rd 45 44 46 Shows little familiarity with resources outside module material Makes arguments that are not strong Has a low but acceptable level of written expression Low 3 rd 42 40 43 Passable just acceptable) answer which: Contains some relevant material Contains significant omissions and/or inaccuracies Recognises the aim of the question and has attempted to answer it Marginal fail 35 35 39 Marginally failing answer which: Meets some of the necessary requirements Has some major inaccuracies Shows limited understanding of the module content Weak fail 25 25 34 Unsatisfactory answer which: Fails to meet most of the necessary requirements Shows little understanding of the major issues Indicates that knowledge is vague and skimpy Has many major inaccuracies Poor fail 15 15 24 Poor answer in which There are few points relevant to the question The bulk of the answer is irrelevant/inaccurate There are major misunderstandings of the material
Nothing of merit 0 0 14 Answer meeting none of the necessary requirements with: Minimal or no material of value to the question asked No recognition of the question