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

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 🫶

Does anyone remember what was on the 2024 papers?

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.

No because they've not happened yet

Sorry I meant 2023?

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!

I heard the youtube channel I think therefore I teach has some pretty accurate predictions tho?

Does anyone have any predictions on what might come up?

Sarah ! Love RS! Ive been using tilf website to practice and so far it gave me great marks and the feedback makes me think im ready to cook the exams!

Sarah ! Love RS! Ive been using tilf website to practice and so far it gave me great marks and the feedback makes me think im ready to cook the exams!

Could you post one of your essays and the mark + feedback it gave you? I'd be interested in checking out how good tilf is.

This how it marked one of mine:
Anslem developed the ontological argument relying on an analytic definition of God and deduction; he began his argument claiming that God “is that which no greater can be conceived”. However, this argument has little success due to its over-reliance on a divine definition which is critiqued through God’s transcendency, and the epistemic distance and the clear logical fallacies made through the argument. (This paragraph provides a clear introduction to Anselm's ontological argument, mentioning its reliance on an analytic definition of God and deduction. However, it could benefit from a more detailed explanation of what an a priori argument entails and how Anselm's argument fits this category. Additionally, the critique of the argument's reliance on a divine definition is a good point but could be expanded with more specific examples or scholarly views.)
Anselm’s first formulation began with the claim that all can agree that God is “that which no greater can be conceived” and influenced by Psalms 14:1, only the ‘fool’ will disagree with this definition. He then uses the analogy of the painter to claim that a painting in reality and imagination is greater than a painting that just exists in the imagination. Therefore, a God that exists in reality and the imagination is greater than a God that just exists in the imagination. As God is the greatest possible being conceivable, he must exist in reality. (This paragraph effectively outlines Anselm's first formulation of the ontological argument and uses the analogy of the painter well. The explanation is clear and concise. However, it would be beneficial to include more scholarly views or academic approaches to strengthen the analysis. Additionally, the paragraph could be improved by addressing potential counterarguments or criticisms in more detail.)
The contemporary scholar Gaunilo develops his argument of the imaginary island to reduce the ontological argument to reductio ad absurdum. He claims that the ability to conceive of the greatest possible conceivable island does not make it exist. Therefore, he is claiming that it is absurd to claim that because we have accepted a definition of God, this is asserting the facts of the cosmos. Gaunilo responds to his argument with his second formulation of the ontological argument claiming that God is a necessary being, his existence is a necessary part of his existence. An island is a contingent being that relies on the ocean, matter and the earth and can come in and out of existence through geological processes, whereas God is a being of necessity whose existence is an analytic fact of his existence. However, Anselm's counterargument is highly unsuccessful due to its circular nature: claiming that God is a necessary being relies on the acceptance of God’s existence and would thus God’s necessity would be denied by atheists and some polytheists. (The introduction of Gaunilo's critique is well done, and the explanation of the imaginary island analogy is clear. The paragraph also effectively presents Anselm's response to Gaunilo. However, the critique of Anselm's counterargument as circular could be expanded with more detailed analysis and scholarly support. Additionally, the paragraph could benefit from a more explicit connection to the overall question of assessing a priori arguments for the existence of God.)
Descartes develops a different formulation of the ontological argument through a priori knowledge as he claims that God is the being with the ‘greatest perfection’. He uses the analogy of a triangle by claiming that like 180 degrees being necessary for a triangle, existence is a part of God by definition. However, this argument is effectively criticised through Kant’s post-enlightenment atheism. This argument claims that although we may not be able to deny that existence is necessary for God, we can deny both the subject and the object. He claims that we can deny a triangle and thus, its 180-degree nature, likewise, we can deny God and thus, his existence. This argument is much more effective as it mirrors the attitudes of atheism, accepting God’s necessity entails the acceptance of God’s existence which illustrates that both Descartes’ and Anselm’s reliance on necessity is not applicable beyond Christianity as atheism rejects both God and God’s necessity. (This paragraph introduces Descartes' formulation of the ontological argument and effectively explains the analogy of the triangle. The critique using Kant's post-enlightenment atheism is well-presented and relevant. However, the paragraph could be improved by providing more detailed analysis of Kant's critique and its implications for a priori arguments. Additionally, including more scholarly views or academic approaches would strengthen the evaluation.)
Furthermore, the ontological argument develops issues within Christianity due to its issues of reducing the epistemic distance. John Hick claims that this epistemological gap is essential for Christians to choose God through will and maintain free will. Therefore, Anselm giving God an objective definition reduces the epistemic distance and as a result, reduces human’s free will which Plantinga claims is essential to prevent humans from robotic divine obedience. (The discussion of the epistemic distance and its importance in Christianity is a good point. However, the paragraph could benefit from a more detailed explanation of how Anselm's argument reduces the epistemic distance and the implications of this reduction. Additionally, the paragraph could be improved by including more scholarly views or academic approaches to support the analysis.)
Overall, arguments for God through a priori reasoning cannot be applied beyond their religion due to their circular nature but then also cannot be applied within the religion due to the problems of epistemology and God-given free will. The critique of Kant’s denial of God is much more effective than other arguments due to its modern relevance in a secular world where most will deny God from the start. (The conclusion effectively summarizes the main points of the essay and provides a clear overall assessment of a priori arguments for the existence of God. However, it could be improved by providing a more detailed summary of the key arguments and critiques discussed in the essay. Additionally, the conclusion could benefit from a more explicit connection to the overall question and a clearer statement of the final evaluation.)
Level: 5
Mark: 24
(Scores are Beta features and may not be very accurate.)
Overall feedback: You have provided a clear and well-structured response to the question, with a good understanding of the key arguments and critiques of a priori arguments for the existence of God. Your analysis is generally strong, and you have effectively used analogies and examples to support your points. However, your essay could be improved by including more detailed analysis, scholarly views, and academic approaches to strengthen your evaluation. Additionally, making more explicit connections to the overall question and providing a clearer final evaluation would enhance your response.
What went well: Your essay demonstrates a good understanding of the key arguments and critiques of a priori arguments for the existence of God. You have effectively used analogies and examples to support your points, and your analysis is generally strong.
Even better if: Your essay could be improved by including more detailed analysis, scholarly views, and academic approaches to strengthen your evaluation. Additionally, making more explicit connections to the overall question and providing a clearer final evaluation would enhance your response.