The Student Room Group

OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]


OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 1: Philosophy of Religion (H573/01) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]

Welcome to the exam discussion thread for this exam.
Introduce yourself! Let others know what you're aiming for in your exams, what you are struggling with in your revision or anything else.

Wishing you all the best of luck.

General Information
Date/Time: 10th June 2024 AM
Length: 2h

Good luck!
Click here to find exam discussions for other A-level subjects


Hello, I am flowersinmyhair. I'm aiming to get an A in RS and my least favourite part of philosophy is religious language. Philosophy is my strongest paper of the course 😀.
Original post by flowersinmyhair
Hello, I am flowersinmyhair. I'm aiming to get an A in RS and my least favourite part of philosophy is religious language. Philosophy is my strongest paper of the course 😀.

I’m also aiming to get an A - I’d say my least fav topic is nature of God and my fav is the ontological argument 🫶
Original post by Vincent Carousel
I’m also aiming to get an A - I’d say my least fav topic is nature of God and my fav is the ontological argument 🫶
My favourite part is probably the problem of evil or the soul
Does anyone remember what was on the 2024 papers?
Original post by rural-ream
Does anyone remember what was on the 2024 papers?
No because they've not happened yet
Reply 6
Original post by flowersinmyhair
No because they've not happened yet

To get things back on track for the philosophy paper a bit - technically, according to Boethius & Anselm's views on time - the 2024 exam has indeed not yet happened within time. However, within eternity it always happens.
Original post by Joe312
To get things back on track for the philosophy paper a bit - technically, according to Boethius & Anselm's views on time - the 2024 exam has indeed not yet happened within time. However, within eternity it always happens.
I'm not God though so I can't see that for myself
Original post by flowersinmyhair
No because they've not happened yet


Sorry I meant 2023?
Original post by rural-ream
Sorry I meant 2023?
I don't know the answer to that either
Reply 10
Original post by rural-ream
Sorry I meant 2023?

It was on The verification principle, augustine's theodicy, William James on religious experience and Descartes' view of the soul.

However you're probably asking this to try and predict what's going to come up. I wouldn't recommend that for OCR - they have repeated topics on consecutive years before!
Reply 11
Original post by Joe312
It was on The verification principle, augustine's theodicy, William James on religious experience and Descartes' view of the soul.
However you're probably asking this to try and predict what's going to come up. I wouldn't recommend that for OCR - they have repeated topics on consecutive years before!

I heard the youtube channel I think therefore I teach has some pretty accurate predictions tho?
Reply 12
Original post by ja.252
I heard the youtube channel I think therefore I teach has some pretty accurate predictions tho?

Sure, and I could make 'pretty accurate' predictions if I really wanted to as well. Maybe I could get 65% accuracy. But do you really wanna gamble your A level on that? I guarantee you - that year they repeated three of the same topics from the last year - everyone who had followed predictions got absolutely screwed. So it's up to you - but if you rely on luck in life, it will eventually run out.

Imo all this frenzied culture students develop at this time of year around predictions is just a distraction from doing what it takes to revise everything properly.
(edited 2 weeks ago)
Hi, could anyone read through my plan for a question on comparing Aquinas and Freud on the aspect of guilt. i have made it detailed to act as my notes too, but is the ao2 good? I also don't know what other points to make. My argument is that neither of them are convincing:

Perhaps it could be argued that Aquinas provides a more optimistic and reassuring view of guilt.
Aquinas distinguished between vincible and invincible ignorance to ensure it is clear when feelings of guilt are justified.
He argued that human beings should do what they think is right, and that human beings can, using reason, discern correctly what is right. He also acknowledges that human beings can make mistakes because the operation of ‘ratio’ involves knowledge, and knowledge may be incomplete or erroneous.
For aquinas, a responsibly informed action is not blameworthy, even though it may be wrong. A person can honestly do the wrong thing, whilst believing it is the right thing. This does not mean however, that people are always blameless. A person may through irresponsibility or even the temptation of sensuality, fail to educate themselves and may consequently act without the necessary knowledge.
This is distinguished by Aquinas as vincible and invincible ignorance:
STRENGTH: this perhaps is a strength of his argument, as illustrated by the an extreme example he provides:
He considers a citation where mistaken reason bids a man to sleep with another man's wife. This is clearly based on ignorance of divine law, the commandment prohibiting adultery, that he ought to know. However, if the misjudgement comes about by thinking the woman really is his own wife, then he is free from fault.
Here Aquinas, implausibly shows that a person is not blameworthy- and should not hold himself guilty- over a genuine mistake because of invincible ignorance- the lack of knowledge for which a person is not responsible.
The person may feel regret about what happened but should not hold themselves to be guilty of a moral offence.
Ultimately, for Aquinas, to be guilty is to act in a way that was clearly wrong at the time the offence was committed.
HOWEVER: it could be argued that Aquinas himself is guilty of being overly optimistic about human nature. His view that people make mistakes and choose apparent goods due to invincible ignorance is naive, suggesting that people do not deliberately choose evil acts.
THIS IS A PLAUSIBLE CHALLENGE: If you consider the terrible things that humans have done and that entire cultures have embraced, e.g. slavery and Nazism, it starts to look like human nature is not as positive as Aquinas thought. If we really had an orientation towards the good and the primary precepts accurately described our nature’s orientation, then we should not expect to find the extent of human evil we do.
This objection directly relates to Aquinas' view of guilt because it questions the premise that individuals are not culpable for their actions when they act out of invincible ignorance. If human beings are capable of intentionally committing evil acts despite knowing what is morally right, as evidenced by historical atrocities, then Aquinas' assertion that guilt arises primarily from acting against one's informed conscience becomes problematic. The objection suggests that Aquinas' distinction between vincible and invincible ignorance may not adequately address the complexity of moral decision-making and the capacity for deliberate wrongdoing. Consequently, it challenges the foundation of Aquinas' optimistic perspective on human nature and its implications for the experience of guilt.


On the other hand, Freud's approach to guilt is different. Although there is a similarity in the disruption it causes, he is more so concerned with addressing the psychological reasons for feeling guilt and responsibility.
For Freud, guilt is the result of internal conflict in the mind; the struggle between what you desire and what you feel you should or should not do.
the tension between the demands of conscience and the actual demands of the ego is experienced as a sense of guilt’.
This he believes is a product of the superego of the human psyche. This is a repository of internalised moral standards of right and wrong that children acquire from their family and society- early messages from authority figures that have established a set of rules. Failing to live up to these rules leads to criticism, punishment, guilt, and remorse.
According to Freud, religious and moral feelings and consciousness are related to the super-ego. When we talk about conscience, we are not discerning the moral thing to do, we are feeling guilty because of the super-ego. This may have nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of our actions, as Aquinas believes, and have everything to do with the feelings arising from the interplay between the id, the ego, and the superego in our minds.
For Freud, the inner turmoil of guilt can cause a person to do bad things.
It is, therefore, not a consequence of wrongdoing- like Aquinas believed- but cause of future wrongdoing.
STRENGTH: Freud's view of guilt seems more convincing because it begins with our experience of guilt. This is how conscience initially reveals itself to us, so it seems right to focus on an explanation on this phenomenon- something which Aquinas.
Furthermore, it can be argued that it is reinforced by the Genesis Garden of Eden story: indeed from a Freudian perspective, the story illustrates the tension between desire for the fruit of knowledge encouraged by the id and then the sense of guilt at having done something that the authority figure-God- prohibited as a manifestation of the Superego.
HOWEVER: although in a sense Freud's work can be seen as empirical and scientific, the research that it is based on is limited. Freud's analysis was based on a small number of patients with psychological problems. It is ultimately dubious to make a claim about ALL human consciences, generalising from the small troubled group to the whole population.
This is a strong objection to Freud’s view of guilt that is reinforced by contemporary scientists: Freud has been criticised by contemporary psychologists for not being empirical enough. Karl Popper criticised Freud’s theory for being ‘unfalsifiable’ as it could not say what would prove it wrong. This means it is not true empiricism. Freud studied a small sample size of patients, a poor cross-section of society and did not do proper experiments, so he is unscientific. However, Popper was clear that he wasn’t saying there was absolutely nothing of value in Freud’s ideas just that they needed to be subjected to proper scientific experiment and testing.
Additionally, its alignment with the Garden of Eden story can be rejected because it relies heavily on a specific interpretation of a religious narrative, which may not be universally accepted or applicable across different cultural or religious contexts.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending