This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

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

Reply 20

11

Very interesting.
Looks like it struggles to understand that an introduction is meant to be a short summary!
That's not how Anselm used the painter analogy - that's a common misconception which it seemed to not pick up on.
It's weird it's asking you for scholarly views after your explanation of the ontological argument - they need to be present in the essay in general yes - but there's no need for them to be present during your AO1 explanation! So that's a fail.
You meant to write 'Anselm' rather than 'Gaunilo' as the responder to the lost island critique, seemed not to pick up on that (though it's kinda trivial tbh).
It is right that you need more detail for this 'circular' evaluation of Anselm's response. Though I note it hasn't suggested how to actually improve it.
Descartes is good - but Kant is not an atheist! Kant believed in God, he just didn't think the ontological argument was a valid way to argue for God.
Kant's critique here (in my notes referred to as the critique that existence being a predicate does not guarantee existence in reality) is a better explained version of the evaluation you tried to do of Anselm's reply to gaunilo. Still needs more though.
Interesting. I think it's been slightly harsh with the mark - but not by much. Maybe you should have gotten 26. It seems like it's not too useful at giving advice about how to improve though - that's the main issue.
Basically just writing the useless stuff teachers typically write on essays as 'feedback', i.e., 'evaluate more, do better analysis, include more scholars' - just parroting what the mark scheme says rather than actually offering suggestions on what to actually do.
It's also disappointing it doesn't break the marks down into AO1 and AO2 - I really think the AI would struggle with that for OCR, especially with identifying what the AO1 marks are actually for in a particular question.
If you have any others please do share!
And check out my summary notes for ontological argument - very difficult topic but worth getting through: https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/ontological-arguments/the-ontological-argument-summary-notes/

Right thank you, would you say that the advice that it gives is useful to boost the marks?

Reply 21

emelianiloufar

14

Original post by Joe312

Very interesting.
Looks like it struggles to understand that an introduction is meant to be a short summary!
That's not how Anselm used the painter analogy - that's a common misconception which it seemed to not pick up on.
It's weird it's asking you for scholarly views after your explanation of the ontological argument - they need to be present in the essay in general yes - but there's no need for them to be present during your AO1 explanation! So that's a fail.
You meant to write 'Anselm' rather than 'Gaunilo' as the responder to the lost island critique, seemed not to pick up on that (though it's kinda trivial tbh).
It is right that you need more detail for this 'circular' evaluation of Anselm's response. Though I note it hasn't suggested how to actually improve it.
Descartes is good - but Kant is not an atheist! Kant believed in God, he just didn't think the ontological argument was a valid way to argue for God.
Kant's critique here (in my notes referred to as the critique that existence being a predicate does not guarantee existence in reality) is a better explained version of the evaluation you tried to do of Anselm's reply to gaunilo. Still needs more though.
Interesting. I think it's been slightly harsh with the mark - but not by much. Maybe you should have gotten 26. It seems like it's not too useful at giving advice about how to improve though - that's the main issue.
Basically just writing the useless stuff teachers typically write on essays as 'feedback', i.e., 'evaluate more, do better analysis, include more scholars' - just parroting what the mark scheme says rather than actually offering suggestions on what to actually do.
It's also disappointing it doesn't break the marks down into AO1 and AO2 - I really think the AI would struggle with that for OCR, especially with identifying what the AO1 marks are actually for in a particular question.
If you have any others please do share!
And check out my summary notes for ontological argument - very difficult topic but worth getting through: https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/ontological-arguments/the-ontological-argument-summary-notes/

hey can you explain how anselm did use the painter analogy then? i also thought it was to prove existence in re > in intellectu

Reply 22

Joe312

17

Original post by emelianiloufar

hey can you explain how anselm did use the painter analogy then? i also thought it was to prove existence in re > in intellectu

The painter analogy shows that a thing can be both in the mind and in reality.

His argument proceeds like this:

1.

get the atheist to realise the concept of God exists in their mind

2.

Get the atheist to see that a thing could exist both in the mind and in reality (e.g. painting)

3.

Argue that if God existed only in the mind, God wouldn't be God (wouldn't be greatest/unlimited/ contain the impossibility of non-existence etc).

Reply 23

groca12

11

Original post by emelianiloufar

would you say tilf is accurate? im considering a subscription

I think its the mark that im taking as pinches of salt because I've submitted a model essay from a website that gave it 37 and its responding with 24

Reply 24

Joe312

17

Original post by groca12

I think its the mark that im taking as pinches of salt because I've submitted a model essay from a website that gave it 37 and its responding with 24

Which website did you get the model essay from - and would you mind posting it here? I could check which site is better,

Reply 25

groca12

11

Original post by Joe312

Which website did you get the model essay from - and would you mind posting it here? I could check which site is better,

I got it from https://peped.org/philosophicalinvestigations/essay-ontological-argument/
The AI said: Arguably, we cannot derive the existence of God from His definition due to the inherently ambiguities of the predicate, existence, and indeed the nature of the subject Himself, God. Beyond this, the definition that would be used – a supremely perfect being – deeply undermines the theological idea of an epistemological space (extolled by John Hick), which allows us to develop a more meaningful relationship with God based on faith. (The introduction effectively sets the stage for the discussion by highlighting the inherent ambiguities in defining God and existence. However, it could benefit from a clearer thesis statement that directly addresses the question. The mention of John Hick is relevant but could be better integrated into the argument.)
This type of argument, an ‘ontological argument’ is a priori, and deductive. Medieval Platonic Monk Anselm produced one, which tries to show that God is ‘de dicto necessary’ (i.e. necessary through language). It begins with Anselm, who argues (in his ‘Prosologion’) that God is ‘that – thus – which – nothing – greater – can – be – conceived’. He makes the case that if we were to compare a log to a horse they might say that the horse is greater (i.e. having movement). Likewise, if they were to compare a horse to a human, they might conclude that the human is greater (i.e. having faculties of reason). Therefore, there must be some ‘supreme good’ which allows these comparisons to be drawn, and from which other matter confers value. This, he knows to be God (akin to Plato’s ‘Form of the Good’). (This paragraph provides a good explanation of Anselm's ontological argument, including the concept of 'de dicto necessary.' The historical context and comparison to Plato's 'Form of the Good' are well-presented. However, the explanation could be more concise to maintain focus on the main argument.)
From this definition in Anselm’s ‘Proslogion’, he argues that things can either exist in the mind (in re)/continually or in the mind AND reality (in re & in intellect)/necessarily. And, as God is that – thus – which – nothing – greater – can – be – conceived, He must therefore exist both in the mind AND in reality, for this must be better than to exist in the mind alone (and God is a supremely perfect being. In other words, by virtue of the way we define God, Anselm believes His existence to be necessary; alluding to Psalm 14 (the fool says in his heart, “there is no God”). (The explanation of Anselm's argument about existence in the mind and reality is clear and detailed. The reference to Psalm 14 is a nice touch. However, the paragraph could benefit from a more explicit connection to the question of whether God's attributes can argue for His existence.)
A contemporary of Anselm, Gaunilo, responds by writing (his ‘On behalf of the fool’) that this allows anything to be ‘thought into existence’. He imagines a perfect ‘lost island’, with warm seas, white sandy beaches and so on. This island could either exist in the mind, or in the mind AND reality. Since it’s better to exist in the mind AND reality, this island must therefore exist in reality (i.e. being perfect). Clearly, as this island doesn’t exist, the argument falls short for God too (a ‘reductio ad absurdum’). However, this is one of the weaker criticisms of the Ontological argument, as it doesn’t make sense to think of islands necessarily. They are, by definition, dynamic landforms which shift and come into or go out of existence over millions of years. That is, they are wholly contingent. (Gaunilo's criticism is well-explained, and the use of 'reductio ad absurdum' is correctly identified. The paragraph effectively critiques the ontological argument but could be strengthened by discussing how this criticism impacts the overall argument about God's attributes.)
As aforementioned, the greatest drawback of this type of argument is its assumption that existence is a predicate at all. As an existent God appears not to add anything to our understanding of Him. A well-educated Theologian and a well-educated atheist have exactly the same conceptions of God, even if there’s disagreement over His existence. (This paragraph introduces Kant's critique effectively, highlighting the issue of existence as a predicate. The comparison between a theologian and an atheist is insightful. However, the paragraph could be more focused on how this critique relates to the question of arguing for God's existence from His attributes.)
This was the argument set out most notably by German Philosopher Kant, in response to a reformulation of the Ontological argument by Descartes (in brief, that a supremely perfect being must have the ‘perfection’ of existence’). Beyond existence appearing not to be a predicate, there’s arguably no reason why we cannot believe that if such a supremely perfect being existed, He would have existence. (But, since He doesn’t, He does not). For example, one can describe the perfect mermaid as being half-human, half-fish and as having existence, whilst still rejecting the concept of a perfect mermaid in its entirety. (The discussion of Descartes' reformulation and Kant's response is well-articulated. The mermaid analogy is a good illustration of the argument. However, the paragraph could benefit from a clearer connection to the main question and a more detailed analysis of Kant's critique.)
Therefore, the problems with understanding both the nature of existence and the essence of God mean that we cannot derive the existence of God from His definition, Anselm argues, that things can either be self-evidently true in themselves, or self-evidently true in themselves and to us. Although, for them to be self-evidently true in themselves and to us, we must have complete understanding of existence and God (i.e. the predicate and the subject), which we do not. As such, one can make the case that God’s definition makes His existence self-evidently true in itself but this form or argument (from definition) does not convincingly show that God’s existence is self-evidently true to us. (This paragraph effectively summarizes the problems with understanding existence and God's essence. The mention of Anselm's distinction between self-evident truths is relevant. However, the paragraph could be more concise and focused on how these issues impact the argument about God's attributes.)
Finally, many theologians write about a ‘self-limitation’ of God’s divine attributes, in order for Him to allow us a more genuine relationship to develop. In other words if God’s existence was completely known to us by definition, we would have no choice as to whether to believe in Him or not. What makes a relationship with God valuable is the fact that we freely choose to believe in it through faith. 1 Corinthians (i.e. St Paul) refers to this ambiguity when it is written that we ‘see God through a glass, darkly’. There is scant Biblical evidence to the contrary, that God’s definition is completely known to us. Theologian John Hick refers to this as our epistemological space’ (or ‘knowledge gap’) in which to operate. (The discussion of the 'self-limitation' of God's attributes and the concept of 'epistemological space' is insightful. The reference to 1 Corinthians and John Hick adds depth to the argument. However, the paragraph could be more directly tied to the question of whether God's attributes can argue for His existence.)
To conclude, we certainly cannot derive God’s existence from His definition due to the problematic logic, with which He is referred and because taking this to be true would critically undermine our freedom to engage in a relationship with Him. Or, as DZ Phillips suggests, perhaps it doesn’t make sense to question God’s existence at all. Instead, we shall take this as the starting point for theology, in the same way that other academic subjects of integrity have axioms on which further investigation rests (e.g. Maths, Physics, Chemistry). (The conclusion effectively summarizes the main points and addresses the question. The mention of DZ Phillips is a nice touch. However, the conclusion could be more concise and focused on reinforcing the main argument.)
Level: 5
Mark: 24

I think it finds it difficult to give above mid 20s; considering most of my essays get around 32 in class, they are very different

Reply 26

rural-ream

4

Original post by Joe312

Which website did you get the model essay from - and would you mind posting it here? I could check which site is better,

Hi I’m are struggling on how to structure an ethics essay in order to gain the top bands. I feel confident in my structure for philosophy and DCT but feel like the same approach to an ethics questions does not work. Normally I would intro+conclusion, 6 paragraphs for and against with evaluation at the end of each. What would you recommend?

Reply 27

Joe312

17

Original post by rural-ream

Hi I’m are struggling on how to structure an ethics essay in order to gain the top bands. I feel confident in my structure for philosophy and DCT but feel like the same approach to an ethics questions does not work. Normally I would intro+conclusion, 6 paragraphs for and against with evaluation at the end of each. What would you recommend?

Where do you put your AO1?

Reply 28

rural-ream

4

Original post by Joe312

Where do you put your AO1?

My AO1 is at the start of each paragraph, so is few sentences followed by a few sentences of evaluation for each point

Reply 29

Joe312

17

Original post by rural-ream

My AO1 is at the start of each paragraph, so is few sentences followed by a few sentences of evaluation for each point

Let's say you had this question, what do you think the AO1 marks would be awarded for:

"Non-voluntary euthanasia can never be justified" - Discuss [40]

Reply 30

rural-ream

4

Original post by Joe312

Let's say you had this question, what do you think the AO1 marks would be awarded for:
"Non-voluntary euthanasia can never be justified" - Discuss [40]

The defintion of NVE, case studies, application of an ethical theory, scholars

Reply 31

Joe312

17

Original post by rural-ream

The defintion of NVE, case studies, application of an ethical theory, scholars

Definition of NVE and case studies yes

Application of ethical theories - no, for this question those would not get you AO1 marks. Nor would it really get you AO2 marks, so that's best kept to a minimum. If you want to bring in an ethical theory then it would be needed to briefly explain the application, so that you can get onto evaluating whether what it says about NVE is valid or not - and that would get you AO2 marks.

Only things mentioned in the question count for AO1. Unless it's a very general question, in which case you could get AO1 for whatever you mention.

Consider this question:

How convincing is Natural law when applied to non-voluntary euthanasia? [40]

In this question, the AO1 marks would be for:

1.

explaining non-voluntary euthanasia

2.

explaining natural law

3.

explaining how natural law applies to non-voluntary euthanasia

This would be a general question about euthanasia:

Could medical interventions to help patients end their life ever be justified? [40]

For this reason - when it comes to 'particular' questions which focus on a particular AO1 area of a topic, I recommend starting the essay with an AO1 paragraph. Get that done and then focus on AO2.

I wrote this guide on question structure:
https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/ocr-religious-studies/ocr-religious-studies-a-level-essay-structure/

Reply 32

rural-ream

4

Original post by Joe312

Definition of NVE and case studies yes
Application of ethical theories - no, for this question those would not get you AO1 marks. Nor would it really get you AO2 marks, so that's best kept to a minimum. If you want to bring in an ethical theory then it would be needed to briefly explain the application, so that you can get onto evaluating whether what it says about NVE is valid or not - and that would get you AO2 marks.
Only things mentioned in the question count for AO1. Unless it's a very general question, in which case you could get AO1 for whatever you mention.
Consider this question:
How convincing is Natural law when applied to non-voluntary euthanasia? [40]
In this question, the AO1 marks would be for:

1.

explaining non-voluntary euthanasia

2.

explaining natural law

3.

explaining how natural law applies to non-voluntary euthanasia

This would be a general question about euthanasia:
Could medical interventions to help patients end their life ever be justified? [40]
For this reason - when it comes to 'particular' questions which focus on a particular AO1 area of a topic, I recommend starting the essay with an AO1 paragraph. Get that done and then focus on AO2.
I wrote this guide on question structure:
https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/ocr-religious-studies/ocr-religious-studies-a-level-essay-structure/

For a normative ethics essay like ‘utilitarianism is the best approach to moral decision making’ what structure would you suggest is best?

Reply 33

Joe312

17

Original post by rural-ream

For a normative ethics essay like ‘utilitarianism is the best approach to moral decision making’ what structure would you suggest is best?

That question requires that you consider at least one other theory - to judge whether utilitarianism is the 'best', since 'best' is a comparitive term.

So two paragraphs on Util, one paragraph on one other theory.

See my summary notes for paragraph examples.

Reply 34

Henriettawinter

9

Hi guys, i had a question about evaluation: if i mention another scholar to reinforce an argument, is it evaluation to say 'this is a convincing argument as it is reinforced by...' I just don't get evaluation because often I just agree with a scholar because their argument sounds better- i don't know how to explain WHY😭

Reply 35

Joe312

17

Original post by Henriettawinter

Hi guys, i had a question about evaluation: if i mention another scholar to reinforce an argument, is it evaluation to say 'this is a convincing argument as it is reinforced by...' I just don't get evaluation because often I just agree with a scholar because their argument sounds better- i don't know how to explain WHY😭

That's not yet full proper evaluation. Your instinct is right that you need to explain why it is actually better.

It is difficult. It requires you to really have a good understanding of the logical moves being made in each argument, and being able to bring that out. That's a general skill at analysing argumentation which takes practice.

If struggling to think of evaluation points yourself, I have made my own notes where I give examples of fully detailed evaluation points which you could just learn off by heart. See the 'summary notes' for the various topics here:

https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/ocr-religious-studies/

Reply 36

Bellahadid12

7

I'm so discouraged, at this point I don't think there is any point in me even trying for RS anymore. Resits here I come lmao

Reply 37

Henriettawinter

9

Original post by Bellahadid12

I'm so discouraged, at this point I don't think there is any point in me even trying for RS anymore. Resits here I come lmao

honestly, like the fact we have to study nine topics and then only get on three is so demotivating when it comes to revision. And i always panic when I'm revising coz i don't know if I have enough material or if they ask a really specific question and i don't have enough info on it

Reply 38

Henriettawinter

9

Original post by Joe312

That's not yet full proper evaluation. Your instinct is right that you need to explain why it is actually better.
It is difficult. It requires you to really have a good understanding of the logical moves being made in each argument, and being able to bring that out. That's a general skill at analysing argumentation which takes practice.
If struggling to think of evaluation points yourself, I have made my own notes where I give examples of fully detailed evaluation points which you could just learn off by heart. See the 'summary notes' for the various topics here:
https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/ocr-religious-studies/

thanks- so this for example would count as evaluation and not simply juxtaposing scholars? :
Dawkins argued there are two types of soul – one valid the other invalid. Soul 1 is the view that the soul is a real thing separate from our body, which Dawkins rejects due to lack of evidence. Soul 2 is a metaphorical idea of the soul, as a metaphor for the deep part of our mind and personality where the essence of our humanity is. For example, someone who doesn’t believe in a soul might still say “I felt that in my soul” or “Hitler was a soulless person”. They are just using the term ‘soul’ metaphorically for our deep important human feelings, not for some non-physical part of (soul 1). Dawkins thinks that everything about us, including our minds and consciousness, is nothing more than biological processes in our body and brain.
David Chalmers can be used to criticise Dawkins. Chalmers distinguishes between the ‘easy problem of consciousness’, which means figuring out which brain process is responsible for which mental process such as memory, perception or emotion, and the ‘hard problem of consciousness’, which is what brain process is responsible for consciousness itself. Chalmers points out that neuroscience has made progress as solving the easy problems of consciousness but has not come close to solving the hard problem. Chalmers recognizes the progress of neuroscience at solving the easy problem of consciousness but thinks that its failure thus far to make any significant progress at solving the hard problem suggests that explaining consciousness will require discovery of something new which is radically different to anything we currently understand. This could be a dualist mental property, but Chalmers admits it could also be a materialist physical property or thing we’ve not yet discovered. Our physical universe, once fully understood, could be just as far beyond our current conception as we are beyond Aristotle’s.

Reply 39

Joe312

17

Original post by Henriettawinter

thanks- so this for example would count as evaluation and not simply juxtaposing scholars? :
Dawkins argued there are two types of soul – one valid the other invalid. Soul 1 is the view that the soul is a real thing separate from our body, which Dawkins rejects due to lack of evidence. Soul 2 is a metaphorical idea of the soul, as a metaphor for the deep part of our mind and personality where the essence of our humanity is. For example, someone who doesn’t believe in a soul might still say “I felt that in my soul” or “Hitler was a soulless person”. They are just using the term ‘soul’ metaphorically for our deep important human feelings, not for some non-physical part of (soul 1). Dawkins thinks that everything about us, including our minds and consciousness, is nothing more than biological processes in our body and brain.
David Chalmers can be used to criticise Dawkins. Chalmers distinguishes between the ‘easy problem of consciousness’, which means figuring out which brain process is responsible for which mental process such as memory, perception or emotion, and the ‘hard problem of consciousness’, which is what brain process is responsible for consciousness itself. Chalmers points out that neuroscience has made progress as solving the easy problems of consciousness but has not come close to solving the hard problem. Chalmers recognizes the progress of neuroscience at solving the easy problem of consciousness but thinks that its failure thus far to make any significant progress at solving the hard problem suggests that explaining consciousness will require discovery of something new which is radically different to anything we currently understand. This could be a dualist mental property, but Chalmers admits it could also be a materialist physical property or thing we’ve not yet discovered. Our physical universe, once fully understood, could be just as far beyond our current conception as we are beyond Aristotle’s.

That is junxtaposition.

Once you've explained how Chalmers can be used to critique Dawkins, you have to use this sort of language:

Chalmers' critique of dawkins is successful because...
or:
Chalmers' critique of dawkins is unsuccessful because...

And then give a reason!

That's the best langauge for ensuring you are doing evaluation - saying that the scholar is un/successful and then giving a reason.

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

Related discussions

Articles for you