OCR Religious Studies Exam A-level H572 P 1,2 6th/12th Oct 2020 - Exam Discussion

Watch
Evil Homer
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1

OCR A-level Religious Studies H572 - Paper 1 and 2 6th/12th/ October 2020

Exam technique, night before breakdowns and discussion regarding this exam... It's all here Image Feel free to add resources to the thread as well as anything that may be helpful to others Image

This thread covers the following papers:


  • H572 Paper 1,2 6th/12th October 2020



Image


The official specification:



https://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/81960-specification.pdf





Image

List of Recommended Resources:





0
reply
aesthetically
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
anyone know how to plan this question: To what extent are a posteriori arguments are more persuasive than a priori arguments for God? [40]
0
reply
Joe312
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
(Original post by aesthetically)
anyone know how to plan this question: To what extent are a posteriori arguments are more persuasive than a priori arguments for God? [40]
One way you could do it is to do 2 paragraphs on a posteriori arguments and 2 paragraphs on the ontological argument, each with evaluation, and you will have your answer to the question based on which argument comes out of the evaluation stronger, or if they both fail.

You could get a pretty solid B grade for that kind of response. For an A grade you'd need to more carefully choose your evaluations so they are more relevant to the question. For example, using Hume's criticism of the ontological argument would be great as it's specifically a criticism of a priori approaches to proving something exists.
Last edited by Joe312; 1 month ago
0
reply
aesthetically
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by Joe312)
One way you could do it is to do 2 paragraphs on a posteriori arguments and 2 paragraphs on the ontological argument, each with evaluation, and you will have your answer to the question based on which argument comes out of the evaluation stronger, or if they both fail.

You could get a pretty solid B grade for that kind of response. For an A grade you'd need to more carefully choose your evaluations so they are more relevant to the question. For example, using Hume's criticism of the ontological argument would be great as it's specifically a criticism of a priori approaches to proving something exists.
i did it kind of like that by trying to make synoptic links between each paragraph. This is how I planned it but i think its not coherent enough. i have not finished it yet :

Intro:
Priori - separate from experience, uses analytical deduction
Posteriori - reasoning that uses observation or experience to reach conclusions

Posteriori are accused on taking logical fallacies as much as the ontological argument. Equally what might be a leap in logic for one person might not be for another.However clearly to the religious believer the posteriori are more persuasive as they are likely to affirm faith. Posteriori could draw more on experiences that a believer had whilst priori as a Anselm intended therefore it remains evident that posteriori arguments are more persuasive than priori

5th way:
Teleological argument - latin telos for purpose/endpoint of something from that he reasons that god must exist . Aquinas influenced by aristotle who believed that all things had a purpose but we cannot achieve that purpose without something to make it happen like a guide God - ‘governance of the world’
Things that lack knowledge [natural bodies] act for a purpose/end, they need knwoledge in order to act. This must hapen not by luck but by design- intention/deliberate act.
Arrow + Archer example: nature body needs to get purpose just like an arrow needs an archer to get to its target
Paley: watch analogy:
Positives :
Many things in nature, like eyes, show the marks of design.
2. These things must either have been created by an intelligent designer or produced by random natural processes.
3. Random natural processes never produce things with the marks of design. *

Cosmological : 3 ways observation about the way the universe works
Motion-change state is a form of motion
Causation- eveyrthing we observee is caused by everything else
Contingency- everything in the universe is contingent snf relies on something to have brought into existence

However defers as it relies on priori- separate from experience, uses analytical deduction

Anselm:
Ontological Argument - deals with the nature of being. It uses reasoning that comes prior [ before] experience- theoretical/ analytical deduction to try and prove god.

If we understand the definition of God then you understand god exists

1st formulation- fool of psalms

2nd formulation-

Necessary beings better than contingent





Criticism- Hume

More like a vegetable with intricacy than a watch
Issues with post.: is it valid to use an analogy to do complicated philosophy to try disprove/prove existence of God. Some argue that the arguments form the analogy are weak at best they can only suggest something only shares a characteristic to make it useful to illustrate the posteriori arguments to an extent but not sufficient.
However people naturally work with experience first rather than

*Counterclaim: This challenge came not from a philosopher finding a flaw in Paley’s argument, but rather from Darwin’s development of the theory of evolution. This theory provides very strong reason to doubt premise 3 of Paley’s argument.

Richard Dawkins less concinving as the ‘ designer is unconscious natural selection, the blind watchmaker.’ However it is important to remember that Paley was writing before evolution was written and so we cannot dismiss.



2. criticism


Gaunilo vs anselm

Hume vs telos


Are his criticism effective

Kant counterclaim:descartes


extent are a posteriori arguments are more persuasive than a priori arguments for God





Conclusion:
Posteriori arguments have largely not continued in modern times ; however anthropic principle suggest that there s too much that has gone on for it to be chance.
0
reply
aesthetically
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
if anyone wanted practice questions to plan :
https://haslingdenhighrs.wordpress.c...xam-questions/
https://haslingdenhighrs.wordpress.c...xam-questions/
0
reply
Joe312
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by aesthetically)
i did it kind of like that by trying to make synoptic links between each paragraph. This is how I planned it but i think its not coherent enough. i have not finished it yet :

Intro:
Priori - separate from experience, uses analytical deduction
Posteriori - reasoning that uses observation or experience to reach conclusions

Posteriori are accused on taking logical fallacies as much as the ontological argument. Equally what might be a leap in logic for one person might not be for another.However clearly to the religious believer the posteriori are more persuasive as they are likely to affirm faith. Posteriori could draw more on experiences that a believer had whilst priori as a Anselm intended therefore it remains evident that posteriori arguments are more persuasive than priori

5th way:
Teleological argument - latin telos for purpose/endpoint of something from that he reasons that god must exist . Aquinas influenced by aristotle who believed that all things had a purpose but we cannot achieve that purpose without something to make it happen like a guide God - ‘governance of the world’
Things that lack knowledge [natural bodies] act for a purpose/end, they need knwoledge in order to act. This must hapen not by luck but by design- intention/deliberate act.
Arrow + Archer example: nature body needs to get purpose just like an arrow needs an archer to get to its target
Paley: watch analogy:
Positives :
Many things in nature, like eyes, show the marks of design.
2. These things must either have been created by an intelligent designer or produced by random natural processes.
3. Random natural processes never produce things with the marks of design. *

Cosmological : 3 ways observation about the way the universe works
Motion-change state is a form of motion
Causation- eveyrthing we observee is caused by everything else
Contingency- everything in the universe is contingent snf relies on something to have brought into existence

However defers as it relies on priori- separate from experience, uses analytical deduction

Anselm:
Ontological Argument - deals with the nature of being. It uses reasoning that comes prior [ before] experience- theoretical/ analytical deduction to try and prove god.

If we understand the definition of God then you understand god exists

1st formulation- fool of psalms

2nd formulation-

Necessary beings better than contingent





Criticism- Hume

More like a vegetable with intricacy than a watch
Issues with post.: is it valid to use an analogy to do complicated philosophy to try disprove/prove existence of God. Some argue that the arguments form the analogy are weak at best they can only suggest something only shares a characteristic to make it useful to illustrate the posteriori arguments to an extent but not sufficient.
However people naturally work with experience first rather than

*Counterclaim: This challenge came not from a philosopher finding a flaw in Paley’s argument, but rather from Darwin’s development of the theory of evolution. This theory provides very strong reason to doubt premise 3 of Paley’s argument.

Richard Dawkins less concinving as the ‘ designer is unconscious natural selection, the blind watchmaker.’ However it is important to remember that Paley was writing before evolution was written and so we cannot dismiss.



2. criticism


Gaunilo vs anselm

Hume vs telos


Are his criticism effective

Kant counterclaim:descartes


extent are a posteriori arguments are more persuasive than a priori arguments for God





Conclusion:
Posteriori arguments have largely not continued in modern times ; however anthropic principle suggest that there s too much that has gone on for it to be chance.
Looks like ur on the right lines, but I don't think you need so much AO1, especially for the a posteriori arguments, maybe cut out Aquinas' 5th way.

The key thing will be how you expand on your evaluation to show not just whether the priori/posteriori arguments work, but then what this says about their strength relative to each other.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (176)
14.53%
I'm not sure (56)
4.62%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (354)
29.23%
I have already dropped out (35)
2.89%
I'm not a current university student (590)
48.72%

Watched Threads

View All