how to get top marks OCR A Level Religious Studies

hi there,

I am not struggling too much (A in y13 mock exams) but would love some advice as to how to break into the top top marks - my highest mark (and i dont get rly any higher than this in class) in the mock exams was 33/40

so if anyone has taken this a level, gotten A to A star and has advice - maybe on formatting essay, AO2 marks/ evaluation, and generally what you think got you these top marks, please let me know!

extra info - the topics we will have in the exam are:
ancient philosophical influences
problem of evil
nature of god
arguments from observation

sexual ethics
meta ethics
conscience
euthanasia

christian moral action
knowledge of god's existence
jesus
gender and theology
so if you are an expert in any of these and have any specific tips, i would love to hear

sorry for the big ask, i would really appreciate any help!

other current students feel free to join this chat, maybe we can learn from each other?

Reply 1

Joe312

I'm an examiner for OCR religious studies

Getting an A* is all about writing clearly and well - the spec says 'skillfully'

You have to show detailed understanding for AO1

for AO2 you need examine both sides of a debate or evaluation point and then come to your own reasoned judgement about which side is right.

It's also essential that you choose deep evaluation points to make. For example, just saying that Aquinas' natural law ethics is 'outdated', while perhaps true, really isn't a particularly impressive nor deep thing to say.

You can find essay structure advice as well as notes with suggested content to use on my website here: https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/ocr-religious-studies/ocr-religious-studies-a-level-essay-structure/
Note: I am still in the process of uploading a lot of the content.

If you want to post one of your 33 mark essays here I can tell you what sort of thing would improve it to full marks.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 2

lauratsr

Original post by Joe312

I'm an examiner for OCR religious studies

Getting an A* is all about writing clearly and well - the spec says 'skillfully'

You have to show detailed understanding for AO1

for AO2 you need examine both sides of a debate or evaluation point and then come to your own reasoned judgement about which side is right.

It's also essential that you choose deep evaluation points to make. For example, just saying that Aquinas' natural law ethics is 'outdated', while perhaps true, really isn't a particularly impressive nor deep thing to say.

If you want to post one of your 33 mark essays here I can tell you what sort of thing would improve it to full marks.

Hello there,

thank you so so much for your reply! the site looks super helpful, and your advice is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for!
:smile:

i will post an essay up here soon if it wouldn't be too much trouble for you to have a look (from my exam, so will need to type it up as it is a copy of a written paper)

thanks again!

Reply 3

lauratsr

Original post by lauratsr

Hello there,

thank you so so much for your reply! the site looks super helpful, and your advice is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for!
:smile:

i will post an essay up here soon if it wouldn't be too much trouble for you to have a look (from my exam, so will need to type it up as it is a copy of a written paper)

thanks again!

Original post by Joe312

Hi, sorry for the biggest delay ever i hope this would still be possible!

this is my essay: Evaluate the view that God cannot be known from creation. (33/40) - it actually got 29 (please see note below essay)

Natural theology is the idea that one can gain knowledge of God through their experience of life and the universe, which for many Christians is considered God’s creation. Yet some theologians dispute whether natural theology really offers knowledge of God, with the implications of this view being that revealed theology is the only way to know God. The ways of evaluating whether their argument is compelling could be to consider the role of sensus divinitatus in faith, the role of the Fall in changing creation, and if conscience can indicate God. The line of argument will be tha God can be known from creation, although this is not the same as truly knowing God.

A first approach to counter-arguments to the view involves the human experience. Aquinas argues that humanity could never have an experience that was truly satisfying, and that this was due to an ever-present (if subconscious_ desire to be united with God (/ experience the beautific vision), something not possible on Earth. Whilst this could be seen as a possible indication of God, it rests on accepting that nothing can be truly satisfying. This is an idea some will be reluctant to accept, with other people even feeling that they have had experiences to prove that this is untrue, or at least not universal.
Another aspect of creation of humanity that can be argued demonstrates the existence of God is the conscience. Aquinas also supported this argument, with the idea of an innate instinct for good/ moral sense being the basis of his ethical theory of natural law. Yet his theory is often criticised as being too reliant on this universal feature of humanity, which seems contradicted by human evil in the world. However Kant supported it, due to his belief in God-given reason being gifted deliberately so that humans could follow their openness to goodness. Again, this is undermined by the argument questioning the universality of equal capacities for reasoning, as proposed by Alastair MacIntyre.

Yet even if these proposals are considered to fail, the argument that knowledge of God being accessible in the world can still be made. Paley is one scholar who supported this claim, feeling that the evidence of order (through orbits, seasons, etc.) showed that God existed, as the laws that controlled these occurrences must have been created by a lawmaker. However this ‘argument on regularity’ is typically disregarded due to alternative explanations found in physics.
But he also made another argument about purpose, in which he implied that the specialised nature of things such as eyes or wings are evidence of design, and therefore a designer. Yet once again this arguments may be discredited due to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, which has far more weight as it is backed by empirical evidence.

A further approach to the natural created world allowing God to be know is Otto’s (I actually wrote ___’s because I forgot who said it) suggestion that nature’s power to evoke ‘numinous’ feelings of awe and wonder is evidence of how we are drawn naturally to God, as God is beauty and nature is God’s beautiful creation. This proposal may be considered strong in that it arguably is a universal experience, which is even evidenced through the popularity and frequency of nature programmes.

Another strong point in favour of natural theology is John Calvin’s attempt to prove sensus divinitatus by referring to the historical tradition of religion regardless of culture and time. This has weight as it is backed by empirical evidence, and also the teaching of St Paul in Acts 17 which shows the sensus divinitatus is present despite the culture and views being different.
This being said, Calvin criticised natural theology as being limited. This view was inspired by Augustine’s teaching of the Fall, which suggested that God’s creation, as well as humanity’s capacity to recognise God, were critically damaged. He used the analogy of a now-broken mirror to argue that there is a great distortion to what we could learn from the natural world/ creation, and so we must focus on revealed theology.
Luther supported this, claiming that natural theology only gave vague knowledge which if undirected (by the Church and Bible) would lead to idolatry. He used the Biblical quotation ‘do not lean on your own understanding’ to strengthen this point.
However it is crucial to note that these claims, if accepted, do not necessarily mean that God cannot be known from creation at all.

Thus we can conclude to disagree with this statement, although this does not mean that natural theology is enough on its own to truly know God, but rather know of God.

- by the way, I have been using your website a lot, and have recommended it to my class - they have found it to be super helpful too! thanks a bunch!

EDIT! When I was typing up the essay I was thinking about how it didn't seem like it should have been awarded 33 marks - when I got to the end (after I had submitted the post, so I have had to wait for the review) I looked at the mark and it was 29 instead
I don't know why but for some reason I have had it in my head that it got 33? I think I got mixed up with one of my other results, although the essays I did best at were taken out in the advanced information
Maybe I could upload another essay instead that did get a better score, as I think it is more clear to see that this essay isn't that great
if that is too much to ask then no worries! thanks anyway

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 4

glsuctliffe

Original post by Joe312

I'm an examiner for OCR religious studies
Getting an A* is all about writing clearly and well - the spec says 'skillfully'
You have to show detailed understanding for AO1
for AO2 you need examine both sides of a debate or evaluation point and then come to your own reasoned judgement about which side is right.
It's also essential that you choose deep evaluation points to make. For example, just saying that Aquinas' natural law ethics is 'outdated', while perhaps true, really isn't a particularly impressive nor deep thing to say.
You can find essay structure advice as well as notes with suggested content to use on my website here: https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/ocr-religious-studies/ocr-religious-studies-a-level-essay-structure/
Note: I am still in the process of uploading a lot of the content.
If you want to post one of your 33 mark essays here I can tell you what sort of thing would improve it to full marks.

Hi there,

I know this is super late response to this thread but I have been looking through your website, particularly the A/A* summary sections and you have really clearly outlines counter arguments/evaluation etc. I was wondering if what you have put down for those summaries is all I would need to include in an essay to get at least an A, or would I need my own evaluation/other arguments as well?

Thank you so much for your time and help :smile:

Reply 5

Joe312

Original post by glsuctliffe

Hi there,
I know this is super late response to this thread but I have been looking through your website, particularly the A/A* summary sections and you have really clearly outlines counter arguments/evaluation etc. I was wondering if what you have put down for those summaries is all I would need to include in an essay to get at least an A, or would I need my own evaluation/other arguments as well?
Thank you so much for your time and help :smile:

Nope that's all you need - so long as you present the evaluations as your own judgement.

But the complex thing my notes can't tell you how to do is linking that content to the particular questions. For that - you need to read through my list of questions and practice fitting paragraphs to those questions - making sure to 1. at the start of the paragraph - one sentence to introduce the relevance of the paragraph for that question and 2. at the end of the paragraph - one sentence to explain the answer to the question reached by the evaluation.

That's a skill which simply takes practice and should be part of your revision.

Reply 6

glsuctliffe

Original post by Joe312

Nope that's all you need - so long as you present the evaluations as your own judgement.
But the complex thing my notes can't tell you how to do is linking that content to the particular questions. For that - you need to read through my list of questions and practice fitting paragraphs to those questions - making sure to 1. at the start of the paragraph - one sentence to introduce the relevance of the paragraph for that question and 2. at the end of the paragraph - one sentence to explain the answer to the question reached by the evaluation.
That's a skill which simply takes practice and should be part of your revision.

thank you so so much, this has helped a lot!! yes, i will make sure to keep doing practice papers in order to improve that skill.

have a lovely evening, thanks again i really appreciate it

Reply 7

SarahThes1

Original post by Joe312

I'm an examiner for OCR religious studies
Getting an A* is all about writing clearly and well - the spec says 'skillfully'
You have to show detailed understanding for AO1
for AO2 you need examine both sides of a debate or evaluation point and then come to your own reasoned judgement about which side is right.
It's also essential that you choose deep evaluation points to make. For example, just saying that Aquinas' natural law ethics is 'outdated', while perhaps true, really isn't a particularly impressive nor deep thing to say.
You can find essay structure advice as well as notes with suggested content to use on my website here: https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/ocr-religious-studies/ocr-religious-studies-a-level-essay-structure/
Note: I am still in the process of uploading a lot of the content.
If you want to post one of your 33 mark essays here I can tell you what sort of thing would improve it to full marks.

Hi Jo will you be adding further notes specially New Testament Studies? Thanjs mo much!

Reply 8

Joe312

Original post by SarahThes1

Hi Jo will you be adding further notes specially New Testament Studies? Thanjs mo much!

For Edexcel? Unfortunately no - I doubt I'll ever get round to writing notes for that to be honest, since hardly any schools do it.

Reply 9

SarahThes1

Original post by Joe312

For Edexcel? Unfortunately no - I doubt I'll ever get round to writing notes for that to be honest, since hardly any schools do it.

OK thanks for letting me know

Reply 10

Bellahadid12

I'm really stuck on RS, would anybody be willing to read my two essays and give me feedback on them!

To what extent can evil be said to have a purpose?

I empathically believe that evil serves no purpose aside from causing misery and suffering of millions. Although some scholars such as Augustine and John Hick try to defend evil having a purpose, I align more with William Rowe’s and D.Z Phillips’ arguments that it simply is not purposeful and in fact is indicative of an evil God.
The Augustinian theodicy, that tries to defend evil is clearly faulty and illogical. Augustine claims that evil and suffering is ‘sin or punishment from sin’. This argument immediately seems quite unjust as unfair especially considering he believes that a major reason for the existence of evil is due to original sin. He puts forth that original sin and thus evil was introduced into the world due to Adam and Eve disobeying God at the garden of Eden and as a result of all of us being ‘seminally present in the loins of Adam’ that we have to bear evil and suffering as a consequence of their disobedience. The notion that evil serves a purpose as punishment can be further strengthened by emphasising how humans till this day have not learned from their mistakes and still disobeys Gods commandments thus introducing moral evil. If we disobeyed God at the very start of humanity, and yet have not learned our lesson, would it not be justifiable that evil still serves a purpose as punishment as we are not heeding the commandments of God? The strength of this argument lies in how it demonstrates the justness of God as he is allowing evil to happen as a result of our actions and disobedience. This implies that we are the root cause of evil and provides the hope that evil can be reduced so long we as a species follow God’s commandments. This evidently proves how evil serves a purpose as a punishment which will eventually allow us to follow Gods commandments and thus earn salvation.

However, upon further reflection, I would argue that this position is extremely weak for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, if following Augustine’s theodicy, I would argue that it leads you to the conclusion that we are responsible for evil and suffering and not God. It unduly shifts the blame of evil from God to us humans. However, I fail to see how this claim is defendable in the face of innocent children and babies that are being punished by evil on account of their possible disobedience. I would argue that this surely instead of portraying the theological idea of an omnibenevolent just God it rather depicts a tyrannical and even unjust God as he did not give the children a chance to better themselves before being faced with such evil and suffering. Secondly, and most convincingly, Augustine’s whole theodicy relies on a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve. I would find that this is a fatal flaw of his theodicy as there is no empirical evidence for the existence of Adam and Eve and even less with the notion that we all existed seminally in the loins of Adam. Surely, if the very foundations/ basis of Augustine’s theodicy cannot be defended, it highlights how illogical and comical his whole attempt of justifying the purpose of evil is.

One could argue that John Hick with his vale of soul making much more adequately defends the notion that evil serves a purpose. He expands on Iraneous’ theodicy and successfully claims that humans are ‘childish’ and ‘immature’ and although we are made in Gods image, we have yet to be transformed into his likeness. Therefore, he posits that evil and suffering is soul-making and serves a purpose educating and teaching humans certain virtues and values that make them into better individuals and make them more in the likeness of God. I could appreciate how this seems like a valid theodicy as it emphasises how evil, and suffering are merely a consequence of free will which allows us to learn certain virtues which will eventually allow us to transform into better/more God like individuals. It almost portrays God to be more compassionate and omnibenevolent and so successfully defends against the idea that the existence of evil depicts an evil and tyrannical God as it emphasises the omnibenevolence of God, as one that is allowing evil and suffering to occur only for the purpose for us to become better individuals and for us to transform to his likeness.

However, upon reflection, I would argue that Hicks theodicy is riddled with several un defendable issues. Sure, the argument could be made that through experiences of evil it teaches you certain virtues such as patience, resilience. For example, if I felt pain after eating too hot food, it would teach me the virtue of patience. But, as a William Rowe argues, surely this could have been achieved with much less evil? Rowe emphasises the amount of gratuitous evil present in the world. Sure, a dying fawn in the forest may serve some unknown purpose ;however, could this purpose not have been achieved with the fawn suffering for a couple of days rather than a couple of weeks? The same argument I argue is applicable to Hicks theodicy, why must there be such extent of suffering for humans to learn certain virtues to transform into His nature. Could God not have allowed us to transform into his likeness without the need for such extent of evil and suffering? This clearly emphasises how evil serves no purpose, often times it is useless and so extreme and painful. I would argue that it is not ‘soul-making’ as Hick unduly argues but rather that it is ‘soul-breaking’. I do not find it to serve any inherent purpose other than to cause pointless suffering and pain.

To conclude, I believe that evil cannot be defended or to be said to have a purpose. Hicks and Augustine’s theodicy fails to defend the purpose of evil and I would argue that even trying to defend it in the first place as D.Z Phillips argues is an act of evil in and of itself.

Is preferential option for the poor justified

I would find preferential option for the poor as justified as it is a direct call for help of the polateriats as a result of the structural sin present in society. It urges for people to offer aid for the poor to help alleviate the struggles they face as a result of their circumstance. However, this has been this has been met with unduly criticisms from scholars such as Pope John Paul, and some biblical references, such as the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. However, more convincingly, I would argue that it’s been successfully defended by Gutierrez, the Boff Brothers and extensive biblical accounts.

A strong argument on the justness of preferential option was posited by Gutierrez, who after Marxist-analysis of society, rightfully identified it as being corrupt and structurally sinful. Instead of employing old-fashioned orthodoxy (right teaching), he successfully adopted orthopraxis (right action) through CEB’s in order to help alleviate the struggles of the poor. This is a very strong and justified response to the current society, and I would argue that the strength of this outlook lies and how much it is in line with biblical ideology of an omnibenevolent God. I’d argue that preferential option for the poor is justified as it recognises the plights of the poor face and act in ways to help alleviate the suffering which is in line with the values and beliefs of God. However, this faces criticisms from the likes of Pope John Paul who posits that it is not the role of the church to catalyse societal action on this mortal earth but rather should prepare humans for salvation. His stance is further strengthened as he argues that the church should ‘widen the scope for the spiritually poor as much as the materially poor’. This could be deemed as a successful criticism as it can be defended by the biblical parable of Lazarus and the rich man. Lazarus, who was materially poor, received salvation in Heaven but the rich man, the materially rich, was condemned to a lifetime in hell where he was left begging for water. This could imply that preferential option for the poor is unjustified as it takes away from the main goal of the church, to help everybody achieve salvation, and rather forces it to focus on cultural and societal issues. Upon further reflection, I would value this criticism as very weak as I would emphatically argue that it is the responsibility of the church and thus the Christians as a whole to want to behave like God and thus help out those who are suffering. If the church were to ignore the plights of the poor, surely would this not imply that as an extension God is also ignorant of the poor? However, this is simply not the case and would undermine the whole omnibenevolence of God. God in this situation would be inclined to help and give aid to the suffering and by extension I would argue that the Church must also follow in this example. Additionally, I fail to understand how helping those in need would take away from the main goal of the church, to lead others to salvation, surely these could coincide together? Therefore, I would argue that preferential option for the poor is justified and should be carried out.

A further significant argument that defends the notion that the preferential option for the poor is just proposed by the Boff Brothers with their 5 justifications: Eschatological, Christological, Apostilic, Ecclesiological and Theological. Christological justification in particular is significant as it emphases how Jesus himself sided and acted in solidarity with the poor and marginalised. An example of this would be when he healed a woman of her bleeding, despite this being considered taboo at the time. In this occasion, I would argue that he not only alleviated her from her struggles but simultaneously emphasised the agape and kindness that should be given to those in need. This surely justifies preferential option for the poor as it highlights how even Jesus helped the poor and as a result we should too. Contrastingly, some people may not find this argument convincing and argue that one group should not be given preferential option as Jesus died for the salvation of all not just the poor. Their stance can be strengthened by actually how difficult it is for a rich person to be granted salvation in heaven, ‘it is harder for a rich man to go to heaven then for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle’ and because of this they argue that preferential option is unfair and unjust. However, upon further reflection I would argue that this criticism is invalid for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, there is is some strength in the idea that Jesus died for the salvation of all, but I would argue that this does not deter away from the fact that the poor are those who are currently in need and suffering. It is not the matter of preferring one group over another but rather giving aid to those who are at a severe advantage and to allow them to have a decent quality of life. More convincingly however, I would argue that preferential option does not deter away from anybodies salvation but rather only help with it. This can be exemplified with the theological justification and the parable of the sheep and the goat. The goats were those who refused to help the needy and as a result they were punished in hell, whereas the sheep did help the poor and so was granted salvation in heaven. Surely, this emphatically highlights how justified preferential option is as it opens up avenues for people to help those who are less advantaged and in turn help them achieve salvation?

To conclude, I strongly believe that preferential option for the poor is justified and that it should be employed and enforced to help those who are struggling. I believe that we are ‘stewards’ of the Earth and therefore have a responsibility to look after each other and to value that everybody is made in Gods image and so should give the poor the respect and dignity they deserve.

Reply 11

rsstudier44

Original post by Joe312

I'm an examiner for OCR religious studies
Getting an A* is all about writing clearly and well - the spec says 'skillfully'
You have to show detailed understanding for AO1
for AO2 you need examine both sides of a debate or evaluation point and then come to your own reasoned judgement about which side is right.
It's also essential that you choose deep evaluation points to make. For example, just saying that Aquinas' natural law ethics is 'outdated', while perhaps true, really isn't a particularly impressive nor deep thing to say.
You can find essay structure advice as well as notes with suggested content to use on my website here: https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/ocr-religious-studies/ocr-religious-studies-a-level-essay-structure/
Note: I am still in the process of uploading a lot of the content.
If you want to post one of your 33 mark essays here I can tell you what sort of thing would improve it to full marks.

hi if ur still available studying rs and am really struggling with getting marks as revising but still cant break the 30 mark in philosophy essays and in ethics ones struggling to get past 25 marks

Latest

Trending

Articles for you

A guide to GCSE and A-level grade boundaries

Try out the app

Continue on web

how to get top marks OCR A Level Religious Studies

Related discussions

Articles for you