The Student Room Group

OCR A Level Religious Studies Philosophy of religion H573/01 - 9 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]

Poll

How did this exam go for you?


OCR A Level Religious Studies Philosophy of religion H573/01 - 9 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]


Here is the exam discussion for this exam. Talk anything from how to revise for it, specific questions or time management :ahee:

Date/Time: Thursday 9th June AM
Length: 2h


Resources:
Specification
Advanced Information




:goodluck: with revision and exams :work:

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Note that although the advance info only mentions arguments based on observation (teleological & cosmological) you could technically get set a question which requires knowledge of the ontological argument too.

For example: Assess whether a priori or a posteriori is the more convincing type of argument [40 marks].

You would have to mention the a priori ontological argument to do well for that kind of question.

Here are links to my notes on the topics in the advance info:

Ancient Philosophical influences (Plato & Aristotle)

Teleological argument

Cosmological argument

The problem of evil

The nature & attributes of God
Original post by Joe312
Note that although the advance info only mentions arguments based on observation (teleological & cosmological) you could technically get set a question which requires knowledge of the ontological argument too.

For example: Assess whether a priori or a posteriori is the more convincing type of argument [40 marks].

You would have to mention the a priori ontological argument to do well for that kind of question.

Here are links to my notes on the topics in the advance info:

Ancient Philosophical influences (Plato & Aristotle)

Teleological argument

Cosmological argument

The problem of evil

The nature & attributes of God

Thanks for the really helpful advice! This is great :smile:
Original post by Joe312
Note that although the advance info only mentions arguments based on observation (teleological & cosmological) you could technically get set a question which requires knowledge of the ontological argument too.

For example: Assess whether a priori or a posteriori is the more convincing type of argument [40 marks].

You would have to mention the a priori ontological argument to do well for that kind of question.

Here are links to my notes on the topics in the advance info:

Ancient Philosophical influences (Plato & Aristotle)

Teleological argument

Cosmological argument

The problem of evil

The nature & attributes of God

This is soo helpful thank you
Does anyone know the specific definition of “Logical” and “Evidential” arguments? Like if I was to define it in an intro, how would I?
I'm really not confident about this exam I do OCR. Does anyone have any effective ways and smart ways to revise RS? TIA
Thank you for your notes , your notes have really helped me understand attributes of God much better. Do you have any of these for the DCT paper that’s if you do DCT ?
Original post by Joe312
Note that although the advance info only mentions arguments based on observation (teleological & cosmological) you could technically get set a question which requires knowledge of the ontological argument too.

For example: Assess whether a priori or a posteriori is the more convincing type of argument [40 marks].

You would have to mention the a priori ontological argument to do well for that kind of question.

Here are links to my notes on the topics in the advance info:

Ancient Philosophical influences (Plato & Aristotle)

Teleological argument

Cosmological argument

The problem of evil

The nature & attributes of God


Hey I just wanted to say thank you for your notes. The nature and attributes of God was a massive help.
Do you have any these notes for DCT, assuming you do DCT and not Jewish thoughts?
Reply 8
Original post by natali3sdd
Thank you for your notes , your notes have really helped me understand attributes of God much better. Do you have any of these for the DCT paper that’s if you do DCT ?


Yeah you can find the DCT notes on the same website. Here's the link to them specifically: https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/ocr-religious-studies/ocr-christianity/
Original post by s.Ellie
Does anyone know the specific definition of “Logical” and “Evidential” arguments? Like if I was to define it in an intro, how would I?


Are you talking abt problem of evil?
Original post by daeconstudent
I'm really not confident about this exam I do OCR. Does anyone have any effective ways and smart ways to revise RS? TIA


Same, I feel like the wording of the question could just really throw me off! I'm doing essay plans for revision. Wby?
Original post by daeconstudent
I'm really not confident about this exam I do OCR. Does anyone have any effective ways and smart ways to revise RS? TIA

Just do essay plans and write the essays in timed conditions. That way you'll get a feel of whether you need to speed up or not.
Does anyone have any essay plans? :smile:
Original post by Joe312
Note that although the advance info only mentions arguments based on observation (teleological & cosmological) you could technically get set a question which requires knowledge of the ontological argument too.

For example: Assess whether a priori or a posteriori is the more convincing type of argument [40 marks].

You would have to mention the a priori ontological argument to do well for that kind of question.

Here are links to my notes on the topics in the advance info:

Ancient Philosophical influences (Plato & Aristotle)

Teleological argument

Cosmological argument

The problem of evil

The nature & attributes of God

I feel like a question including the ontological argument is less likely though because they probably won't ask a question that deviates away from what students have been revising. Still worth knowing for synoptic links and the unlikely chance it does come up but I don't think it's as probable as the other topic areas on Arguments from Observation.
Original post by nichster291
I feel like a question including the ontological argument is less likely though because they probably won't ask a question that deviates away from what students have been revising. Still worth knowing for synoptic links and the unlikely chance it does come up but I don't think it's as probable as the other topic areas on Arguments from Observation.


An observation question which requires mentioning the ontological argument is certainly less likely to come up than an observation question which doesn't require mentioning the ontological argument. However, that is because there are far more types of questions on observation which don't require mentioning ontological than questions which do.

Basically the advice is to have an ontological argument paragraph prepared - maybe with Anselm and Kant's critique, in addition to your paragraphs on the teleological and cosmological arguments.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by Rara345
Are you talking abt problem of evil?


Yeah, it’s alright I got a definition now
Does anyone have any good points abt a comparison of prime mover + form of good?
Also are we meant to know abt Boethius and justice? We haven't done anything about that at all at school, but i've seen it mentioned? (Nature and attributes)
I don't think its on the spec for attributes so no?
Original post by Rara345
Does anyone have any good points abt a comparison of prime mover + form of good?
Also are we meant to know abt Boethius and justice? We haven't done anything about that at all at school, but i've seen it mentioned? (Nature and attributes)
Original post by hiiiiiiye2ue89
I don't think its on the spec for attributes so no?


It says 'divine benevolence and just judgement of human

actions'
We havent done any just judgement ;P
Reply 19
Original post by s.Ellie
Does anyone know the specific definition of “Logical” and “Evidential” arguments? Like if I was to define it in an intro, how would I?


The Logical Problem of Evil is basically just it does not make sense that God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient with the existence of evil. His omnipotence allows him the power to stop evil, his omniscience allows him to know exactly how to stop evil and his omnibenevolence would mean that he would want to stop evil out of his love for us. It does not logically make sense for him to be all three of these attributes with the existence of evil. I think it was created by Epiricus but it is a common criticism of both Augustine and Iranaeus' theories.
The evidential argument is essentially just there is enough evidence of human and animal suffering that appears to serve no use or greater good to go against the existence of God, this was developed by William Rowe.
I personally bring the evidential and logical PofE in when I am criticising the theories, it just makes it so much easier!

Quick Reply