The Student Room Group

OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]

OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
@Pwca
(edited 8 months ago)

Scroll to see replies

Sorry you've not had any responses about this. :frown: Are you sure you've posted in the right place? :smile: Here's a link to our subject forum which should help get you more responses if you post there. :redface:
What are your thoughts about Paper 1? I find philosophy the best paper since there is so much you can write about. Hopefully, there will be great exam questions. Any predictions?
Original post by CategoryError
What are your thoughts about Paper 1? I find philosophy the best paper since there is so much you can write about. Hopefully, there will be great exam questions. Any predictions?


im so confused, who even does philosophy, like i do the subject but whose doing it and why are the grade boundaries so high
Reply 4
What are you some of you guys predictions?
Original post by Kkardash
What are you some of you guys predictions?


MBS, Religious experience, Symbols, Boethius or 20th century perspectives
Reply 6
If anyone has any specific questions, I'm happy to help. I have thirteen years of tutoring experience for OCR RS and a degree in Theology from Cambridge.
Original post by Kkardash
What are you some of you guys predictions?

Omnipotence, Boethius, Religious Experience
Original post by jimbleby
If anyone has any specific questions, I'm happy to help. I have thirteen years of tutoring experience for OCR RS and a degree in Theology from Cambridge.

Really?! I would love some help with religious language (mostly on analogical and symbolic language) if u could?
Original post by bloopbloopbloo
Omnipotence, Boethius, Religious Experience


Not sure about the Boethius nature of God suggestion - Anselm's four dimensional approach was a direct question last year
Reply 10
Sure - do you have a specific question? Can't really write thousands of words on a whole topic!
Original post by Hlfluysdykx
Really?! I would love some help with religious language (mostly on analogical and symbolic language) if u could?
I really struggle with 20th century language and feel like just skipping it out of my revision considering we can choose out of 4 essay questions. Is this a really bad idea and is anyone else thinking of missing a topic out?
Original post by Hlfluysdykx
Not sure about the Boethius nature of God suggestion - Anselm's four dimensional approach was a direct question last year


To be fair, a lot of topics do repeat themselves.
Original post by Imogen_eckley
I really struggle with 20th century language and feel like just skipping it out of my revision considering we can choose out of 4 essay questions. Is this a really bad idea and is anyone else thinking of missing a topic out?

It is a bad idea as the other three questions may in fact be much harder. You could focus on the other topics more, but do not neglect 20th century perspectives.
Original post by jimbleby
Sure - do you have a specific question? Can't really write thousands of words on a whole topic!


1. I am a bit confused on Aquinas' analogies of attribution and proportion and how they actually relate to his theory
2. Why does Tillich believe that symbols were the best way to talk meaningfully about God / what was his reasoning behind it ?

I think possibly I don't understand these because I don't agree with the theories and the topic itself I generally just find boring.

Would anyone else be able to give me an idea as to what I would write if there was an essay on psychology or physiological explanations for religious experiences also???

Thanks
Does anyone know what topics were in the paper last year?
Reply 16
Anyone know what topics were asked in the AS exam this year?
Reply 17
Original post by poppy1234567890
Does anyone know what topics were in the paper last year?


"Critically evaluate Aristotle's Prime Mover"
"Critically assess Aquinas' fifth way"
"Augustine's Theodicy justifies evil in the world"
"Anselm's four-dimensionalist approach successfully explains God's actions in time" Discuss
Original post by Hlfluysdykx
1. I am a bit confused on Aquinas' analogies of attribution and proportion and how they actually relate to his theory
2. Why does Tillich believe that symbols were the best way to talk meaningfully about God / what was his reasoning behind it ?

I think possibly I don't understand these because I don't agree with the theories and the topic itself I generally just find boring.

Would anyone else be able to give me an idea as to what I would write if there was an essay on psychology or physiological explanations for religious experiences also???

Thanks


1. Aquinas believed we can talk about God positively. He accepts, as in the apophatic way, that our language is limited and we cannot describe God using everyday words because he is so far removed from us, but does not accept that that means none of our positive words/concepts can be used to invoke something about God. His two analogies try and express this: God is not loving in a human sense, but is infinitely loving (proportion); and we are good, so our goodness must be derived from God's goodness (attribution). They're basically both ways we can talk positively about God, but still acknowledge that our words don't do it justice.

2. Tillich thought religious language primarily interacted with some other dimension of existence. God, the holy spirit, prayer: they're all, in someway, physical activities that interact with something metaphysical. The best way to talk about them in his view, therefore, is to do away with descriptive, rigid human language and instead use symbols as kind of keys to activate some inner connection we have with the metaphysical. The feeling of unity and patriotism one might feel cannot be summed up in words, it is best expressed with the symbol of a national flag, for example.
He argues that symbols should also participate in what they point to, so the symbol of clasping hands, getting on your knees and praying participates in the metaphysical connection to God by showing submission. In short, symbolic language is just a way we can talk about things we can't really express with words, at least from my understanding.

3. I would talk about Russell's quote: there is "no distinction between the man who eats little and see heaven, and the man who drinks much and sees snakes" as a kind of lead into physiological explanations for religious experiences. As far as scientific evidence, you have 'mass hysteria' as evidence that corporate religious experiences like the Toronto Blessing were simply a kind of mass hypnosis, a group of people extenuating other's effects. There's Persinger's God Helmet, which was an experiment where a scientist created a helmet that could induce the same feelings as numinous experiences, a kind of awareness of a greater presence, etc. These two point to there being physical explanations for experiences, which makes God less likely. You can always argue that God simply made those things happen though.
Reply 19
Original post by animalcrossing
OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
@Pwca


does anybody know whether specific questions can come up again? i know topics consecutively can but can specific bullet points from the “areas for discussion” section on the spec?

Quick Reply