Year 13 WJEC Philosophy: Core Knowledge Points Review | Year 13 WJEC 哲学：核心知识点梳理

📚 Year 13 WJEC Philosophy: Core Knowledge Points Review | Year 13 WJEC 哲学：核心知识点梳理

Year 13 WJEC Philosophy builds on the foundations laid in Year 12, extending students’ critical engagement with central problems in philosophy of religion and ethics. This review distils the core knowledge points required for A2 Units 3 and 4. Whether you are preparing for examinations or seeking a structured revision guide, the following sections unpack the essential arguments, counter-arguments, and technical vocabulary across themes such as cosmological reasoning, religious language, the problem of evil, divine attributes, meta-ethics, free will, conscience, and applied ethics.

Year 13 WJEC 哲学课程在 Year 12 的基础上进一步深化，要求学生对宗教哲学和伦理学的核心问题进行批判性探讨。本文梳理了 A2 单元3和单元4的核心知识点。无论你是为考试做准备，还是寻找系统的复习指南，以下各节都会围绕宇宙论推理、宗教语言、恶的问题、神圣属性、元伦理学、自由意志、良心以及应用伦理学等主题，拆解关键的论证、反驳和专业术语。

1. Cosmological Argument: Aquinas, Leibniz and Copleston | 宇宙论论证：阿奎那、莱布尼茨与科普斯顿

Aquinas’ Third Way argues from the existence of contingent beings to the necessary existence of God. All things we observe are generated and corrupted; they are possible not to be. If everything were merely possible, then at some time nothing would have existed, and nothing could come from nothing. Therefore, there must be a necessary being, which Aquinas identifies as God.

阿奎那的第三路论证从偶然存在物出发，推导出上帝的必然存在。我们观察到的事物都有生灭，它们都可能不存在。倘若万物都仅仅是偶然的，那么在过去某个时刻可能什么都不存在，而从虚无中不可能生出任何东西。因此，必须有一个必然存在，阿奎那认为这就是上帝。

Leibniz relies on the Principle of Sufficient Reason: for every fact or existent, there must be a sufficient reason why it is so and not otherwise. The universe as a series of contingent things requires an explanation external to itself. This ultimate reason is God, a necessary being that contains its own reason for existence.

莱布尼茨依赖于充足理由原则：每一个事实或存在物都必须有一个充足理由说明它为何如此而不是别样。宇宙作为偶然事物的系列，需要一个外在于自身的解释。这个终极理由就是上帝，一个自身包含存在理由的必然存在者。

Copleston, in his radio debate with Russell, used an analogy: if you heard three musical notes emerging from nowhere, you would demand a causal explanation. Similarly, the existence of the universe demands an external, self-existent cause. Russell replied that the universe is simply a brute fact and that the idea of necessity can only apply to analytic propositions, not to things.

科普斯顿在与罗素的广播辩论中使用了一个类比：假如你听到三个不知从何而来的音符，你会要求一个因果解释。同样地，宇宙的存在需要一个外在的、自存的因。罗素回应说，宇宙只是一个残酷事实，必然性的概念只适用于分析命题，而不适用于事物本身。

---

2. Teleological Argument: Paley, Hume and Darwinian Challenges | 目的论论证：佩利、休谟与达尔文主义的挑战

Paley’s watchmaker analogy compares a watch’s complexity and purpose to those of living organisms. Just as a watch implies a watchmaker, the intricate design of nature implies a divine designer. The arrangement of parts serving an end is indicative of intelligent agency.

佩利的手表类比把钟表的复杂性与目的性比作生物体的设计。正如钟表意味着制表师，自然界精巧的设计也意味着一位神圣的设计者。各部分服务于某种目的，这就是智慧设计的标志。

Hume’s criticisms, voiced through Philo, maintain that the analogy is weak: the universe resembles a vegetable or an animal more than a man-made machine. The world could result from trial and error over vast time, from a committee of lesser gods, or from blind material forces. The existence of evil further suggests an imperfect, amoral, or limited designer.

休谟借斐罗之口提出批评：类比很脆弱，宇宙更像一株植物或一个动物，而非人造的机器。世界可能是漫长岁月里试错的结果，可能由一群低等神祇合作完成，也可能源于盲目的物质力量。恶的存在更暗示设计者是不完美、不道德或能力有限的。

Darwinian evolution provides a naturalistic explanation of apparent design. Natural selection operating on random variations can produce complex adaptive structures without any guiding intelligence. Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker insists that cumulative selection is a mindless, mechanical process that mimics design. Swinburne counters that the fine-tuning of physical constants still suggests divine ordering, but the multiverse hypothesis offers a naturalistic alternative.

达尔文的进化论为表面上的设计提供了自然主义的解释。自然选择作用于随机变异，能够产生复杂的适应性结构，无需任何引导性理智。道金斯的《盲眼钟表匠》坚持，累积选择是一个无意识的机械过程，却能够模仿出设计。斯温伯恩反驳说，物理常数的微调仍然暗示神圣的安排，但多重宇宙假说又提供了一个自然主义的替代。

---

3. Religious Language: Verification, Falsification and Language Games | 宗教语言：证实、证伪与语言游戏

Logical positivists like Ayer proposed the verification principle: a statement is meaningful only if it can be verified analytically or empirically. Religious utterances such as ‘God loves us’ are neither true by definition nor verifiable by sense experience, so they are cognitively meaningless.

逻辑实证主义者如艾耶尔提出了证实原则：一个陈述只有在能够被分析或经验证实时，才是有意义的。宗教话语如“上帝爱我们”，既不能通过定义判真，也不能通过感官经验证实，因此它们在认知上是无意义的。

Ayer’s weak verification allows statements to be meaningful if it is possible to indicate what observations would confirm them. John Hick’s eschatological verification suggests that claims about God will be verified post-mortem, but this remains speculative. Flew developed the falsification challenge: religious believers allow nothing to count against their assertions, so they die the ‘death of a thousand qualifications’, rendering their claims vacuous.

艾耶尔的弱证实原则允许，只要可以指出什么观察能证实它，该陈述就有意义。希克的来世证实说提出，关于上帝的主张将在死后得到证实，但这仍然是推测性的。弗卢提出了证伪挑战：宗教信徒不允任何事证伪自己的主张，于是这些主张因一次次修饰而变得空洞无物。

Hare responded with the notion of ‘blik’: religious beliefs are not hypotheses but non-falsifiable interpretations of experience that underpin ways of living. Mitchell’s partisan parable shows that faith can allow for serious counter-evidence without being irrational. Wittgenstein argued that the meaning of religious language lies in its use within a ‘form of life’, not in verification. Each language game has its own internal rules; criticizing religion by scientific standards is a category mistake.

黑尔以“信念取向”回应：宗教信仰不是假说，而是支撑生活方式的、不可证伪的经验解读。米切尔的游击队员寓言表明，信仰可以容纳严重的反证而不丧失理性。维特根斯坦则主张，宗教语言的意义在于它在“生活形式”中的使用，而非在于证实。每种语言游戏都有其内部规则；用科学标准批评宗教是一种范畴错误。

---

4. The Problem of Evil and Theodicies | 恶的问题与神义论

Mackie formulated the logical problem of evil: an all-powerful and all-good God is incompatible with the existence of any evil. If God can prevent evil but does not, He is not wholly good; if He cannot, He is not omnipotent. The inconsistent triad is a stark challenge to classical theism.

麦基提出恶的逻辑问题：全能全善的上帝与任何恶的存在是不相容的。如果上帝能阻止恶却不阻止，祂就不是全善的；如果祂不能阻止恶，祂就不是全能的。这个不一致的三元组是对古典有神论的尖锐挑战。

The Augustinian theodicy defines evil as a privatio boni, a corruption of goodness rather than a substance. Evil entered the world through the fall of angels and humans who misused free will. God is just to permit suffering as a consequence of original sin. Criticisms include reliance on a literal Adam, the existence of natural evil before humans, and the incompatibility of a perfectly created world falling into sin.

奥古斯丁的神义论将恶定义为善的缺失，它不是实体，而是善的败坏。恶经由天使和人类滥用自由意志的堕落进入世界。上帝允许受苦作为原罪的后果是公义的。批评包括对字面意义上的亚当的依赖、人类出现之前自然恶的存在，以及完美受造的世界何以会堕落的问题。

The Irenaean theodicy (developed by Hick) sees the world as a vale of soul-making. Suffering and evil are necessary for moral and spiritual development, leading towards freely chosen perfection. Universal salvation is a key tenet. Objectors ask why a perfect God would need such a painful process and point to excessive, seemingly pointless suffering that crushes personality rather than ennobles it.

伊里奈乌的神义论（由希克发展）将世界视为灵魂塑造的幽谷。苦难和恶是道德与灵性成长所必需的，它们导向自由选择的完善。普世救恩是它的核心信条。反对者质问，为何一位完美的上帝需要如此痛苦的过程，并指出那些压倒人格、似乎毫无意义的过度苦难。

Plantinga’s free will defence does not claim to explain why evil exists but shows that the coexistence of God and evil is logically possible. It is possible that an omnipotent God cannot actualise a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Thus, evil’s existence does not contradict God’s existence. Process theodicy, as proposed by Griffin, limits God’s power: God is persuasive, not coercive, and shares in the suffering of the world.

普兰丁格的自由意志辩护并不声称解释恶为何存在，而是表明上帝与恶共存是逻辑上可能的。有可能一位全能的上帝也不能实现一个自由受造物却从不选择恶的世界。因此，恶的存在与上帝的存在并不矛盾。格里芬提出过程神义论，限制了上帝的能力：上帝是劝导性的，而非强制性的，并与世界一同受苦。

---

5. Divine Attributes: Omnipotence, Omniscience and Time | 神圣属性：全能、全知与时间

The paradox of the stone asks: can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it? Either answer appears to limit His power. One common solution is to define omnipotence as the ability to do anything that is logically possible. On this view, creating a stone an omnipotent being cannot lift is a logically incoherent act and therefore not a limit on omnipotence.

石头悖论问道：上帝能创造一块自己举不起来的石头吗？无论怎么回答似乎都限制了祂的能力。一种常见的解决方案是将全能定义为有能力做任何逻辑上可能之事。按此观点，创造一块全能者举不起来的石头本身在逻辑上不融贯，因此不能成为对全能性的限制。

Omniscience and human free will raise a related difficulty: if God infallibly knows what I will do tomorrow, then it seems I must do it, undermining freedom. Boethius defended divine foreknowledge by arguing that God is eternal and sees all events in a timeless present. God’s knowledge is not fore-seeing but simultaneous seeing, which imposes no necessity. Swinburne, however, argues that God is everlasting – within time – and voluntarily limits His knowledge of future free choices to preserve genuine freedom.

全知与人的自由意志引出相关困难：如果上帝无误地知道我明天将做什么，那么我似乎必须那样做，自由就受到了侵蚀。波爱修斯为上帝的先见辩护说，上帝是永恒的，在无时间的当下观看一切事件。上帝的知识不是预先看见，而是同时看见，这并不施加必然性。但斯温伯恩坚持，上帝是历世永存的——在时间之内——并自愿限制自己对未来自由选择的确知，以维护真正的自由。

The coherence of a timeless God interacting with temporal beings is questioned. If God is timeless, can He respond to prayer or act in history? Theologians who favour an everlasting model stress God’s temporal relationship with creation while retaining maximal power and knowledge of past and present.

一个无时间的上帝与时间性存在者互动是否融贯也受到质疑。如果上帝是无时间的，祂能回应祷告或在历史中行动吗？支持历世永存模式的神学家强调上帝与受造物之间的时间性关系，同时保留对过去和现在的全知与全能。

---

6. Religion and Science: Conflict, Independence or Dialogue? | 宗教与科学：冲突、独立还是对话？

The conflict thesis holds that religion and science make incompatible claims. Literalist readings of Genesis clash with the Big Bang and evolutionary biology. Richard Dawkins contends that the God hypothesis is a failed scientific explanation because natural selection can account for complex life. Creationism and Intelligent Design movements attempt to reintroduce supernatural agency, but are widely rejected as non-scientific in mainstream education.

冲突命题认为宗教与科学提出了不可兼容的主张。按字面解释《创世记》，就会与大爆炸理论和进化生物学发生冲突。理查德·道金斯主张，上帝假说是一个失败的科学解释，因为自然选择足以解释复杂生命。创世论和智能设计运动试图重新引入超自然作用因，但在主流教育中被广泛驳斥为非科学。

Stephen Jay Gould advocated non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA): science deals with empirical facts, religion with values and ultimate meaning. When they stay in their proper domains, no conflict arises. However, critics note that many religious claims – about miracles or the resurrection – are empirical in nature, so neat separation is difficult.

斯蒂芬·杰·古尔德倡导互不重叠的训导权：科学处理经验事实，宗教处理价值与终极意义。只要它们各安其位，就不会产生冲突。然而，批评者指出，许多宗教主张——如神迹或复活——在本质上都是经验性的，因此难以截然分离。

Other models propose integration or dialogue. John Polkinghorne argues that science and theology can illuminate each other, especially through the anthropic fine-tuning and the rationality of the universe. Process theology views God’s action as persuasive within an open, evolutionary process, making divine action compatible with a scientific worldview.

其他模式提出整合或对话。约翰·波尔金霍恩主张科学与神学可以互相启发，特别是在人存原理的微调和宇宙的合理性方面。过程神学将上帝的行动视为在一个开放的进化过程中的劝导性作用，使得神圣作为与科学世界观可以相容。

---

7. Meta-ethics: Naturalism, Intuitionism and Emotivism | 元伦理学：自然主义、直觉主义与情感主义

Ethical naturalism holds that moral properties are identical with natural properties. Utilitarianism treats goodness as pleasure; other forms may define rightness in terms of evolutionary fitness. G. E. Moore attacked naturalism with the open-question argument: for any natural property proposed as ‘good’, we can always meaningfully ask ‘But is it good?’ Moore claimed that good is a simple, non-natural property – committing the naturalistic fallacy if defined otherwise.

伦理自然主义主张道德属性等同于自然属性。功利主义将善等同于快乐；其他形式可能用进化适存度来定义正当性。摩尔用开放问题论证抨击自然主义：对于任何被提议为“善”的自然属性，我们总可以有意义地问“但它本身是善的吗？”摩尔声称善是一种单纯、非自然的属性——把它界定为其他属性就犯了自然主义谬误。

Moore’s intuitionism posits that we grasp moral truths through moral intuition, a form of rational insight. W. D. Ross developed a pluralistic intuitionism of prima facie duties such as fidelity, gratitude and beneficence. Intuitionism faces the challenge that intuitions differ across cultures, and there is no clear method to adjudicate conflicting intuitions.

摩尔的直觉主义认为我们通过道德直觉——一种理性的洞察——把握道德真理。罗斯发展出多元的显见义务直觉主义，包括守诺、感恩和行善等责任。直觉主义面临的挑战是：不同文化间的直觉彼此冲突，且没有明确的裁决方法。

Emotivism, advanced by Ayer and Stevenson, claims that moral language merely expresses emotions and attempts to arouse similar feelings in others. ‘Murder is wrong’ means something like ‘Boo to murder!’ Moral statements are neither true nor false. While emotivism captures the dynamic, action-guiding character of morality, it is accused of reducing moral debate to emotional manipulation and cannot account for moral reasoning.

艾耶尔和史蒂文森所倡导的情感主义认为，道德语言只是表达情感并试图唤起他人同感。“谋杀是错误的”大致相当于“谋杀，呸！”道德陈述既非真也非假。情感主义虽然捕捉到了道德的行动引导特征，但被批评将道德辩论降格为情绪操控，也无法解释道德推理。

Hare’s prescriptivism improves on emotivism by asserting that moral judgements are universal prescriptions. To say ‘One ought to keep promises’ is to prescribe that everyone in similar situations should do so. It preserves the rational, action-guiding force while avoiding the truth-aptness debate, though it is charged with permitting the logic of fanaticism.

黑尔的规定主义改进了情感主义，主张道德判断是普遍的规定。说“人应当遵守诺言”，就是规定处于类似情境的每个人都应如此行动。它保留了理性的、指引行动的力量，回避了真值负担的争论，但被指责允许狂热者的逻辑。

---

8. Free Will and Determinism | 自由意志与决定论

Hard determinists such as d’Holbach assert that every event, including human choice, is the necessary outcome of prior causes. On this view, free will is an illusion, and consequently moral responsibility is unsupportable unless retributive attitudes are abandoned. Honderich extends this to a neurological account where all acts are determined by brain events.

硬决定论者如霍尔巴赫断言，每一事件，包括人的选择，都是先前原因的必然结果。依照这种观点，自由意志是一种幻觉，从而道德责任无法成立，除非放弃报应性态度。洪德里希将此扩展到神经学解释，认为一切行为都由大脑事件决定。

Compatibilists (soft determinists) maintain that free will and determinism are compatible. Hume defined free action as doing what one wills without external constraint, even if the will itself is determined. Ayer similarly argued that ‘free’ simply means ‘voluntary and not coerced’. Critics charge that this fails to capture the deep sense of self-origination required for moral responsibility.

相容论者（软决定论者）坚持自由意志与决定论可以相容。休谟将自由行动定义为没有外在约束地按自己的意愿行动，即使意愿本身已被决定。艾耶尔同样主张，“自由”不过意味着“自愿且未受强迫”。批评者认为这未能把握道德责任所要求的自我创始的深刻含义。

Libertarians argue that genuine free will requires undetermined agency. Agent-causation theories (Reid, Chisholm) claim that persons, not events, are the originating causes of their choices. Religious libertarians often link this to the soul’s immaterial nature. The main challenge is explaining how an undetermined event can be anything other than random, and therefore not responsibly chosen.

自由意志论者主张真正的自由意志需要非决定性的自主体。自主体因果理论（里德、奇泽姆）声称，人——而非事件——是选择的起始因。宗教自由意志论者通常将这一点与灵魂的非物质性联系起来。主要挑战在于解释一个未被决定的事件如何不是随机的，从而也不是负责任的选择。

Theological determinism, as found in Augustine and Calvin, wrestles with divine predestination. If God predestines some to salvation and others to damnation, human freedom appears to be destroyed. However, some soft theological determinists maintain a compatibility similar to compatibilism, where free will is defined as voluntary action in accordance with one’s desires, even if those desires are divinely ordered.

神学决定论，如奥古斯丁和加尔文的预定论，挣扎于神圣预定与自由意志之间。如果上帝预定一些人得救、另一些人受罚，人的自由似乎被摧毁了。不过，一些温和的神学决定论者保留一种与相容论相似的见解，将自由意志界定为按照自身欲望自愿行动，即使这些欲望是出于神圣的安排。

---

9. Conscience: Religious and Secular Perspectives | 良心：宗教与世俗视角

Aquinas understood conscience as a rational act applying synderesis (innate moral principles) to specific situations. Conscience is binding, even when erroneous, because one

Published by TutorHao | Year 13 哲学 Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）