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

11

Original post by millz_888

Hi guys can someone please help me and give me any tips on how to revise this I haven’t started yet and am really stressing! thank you :smile:

https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/ocr-religious-studies/
the condensed notes from this website are really helpful and quite short so you could easily go over these in a week and probs just do quite a few essay plans once you've gone over the content!

Reply 42

Henriettawinter

9

Hi guys, for the topic existence of god theres one spec point asking if there are logical fallacies in the arguments that cannot be overcome. What does it mean by logical fallacy- like any weaknesses identified in the arguments?

Reply 43

flowersinmyhair

OP

Volunteer Team

20

Original post by Henriettawinter

Hi guys, for the topic existence of god theres one spec point asking if there are logical fallacies in the arguments that cannot be overcome. What does it mean by logical fallacy- like any weaknesses identified in the arguments?

It is an argument based on faulty reasoning

Reply 44

17

Original post by Henriettawinter

Hi guys, for the topic existence of god theres one spec point asking if there are logical fallacies in the arguments that cannot be overcome. What does it mean by logical fallacy- like any weaknesses identified in the arguments?

Yeah it's fine to interpret it as any weakness in the argument - though ideally a logical error/mistake type of criticism/weakness - not just saying something like there is scientific evidence against it. All of Hume's criticisms would count as claiming the cosmological argument is based on logical fallacies.

Reply 45

Kaiywaiy

4

For the ontological argument and criticisms of it, do Kants criticisms only apply to Descartes form of the argument or are they Anselms as well?
If there is an existence as a predicate question- am I just writing about Descartes and Kant or am I mentioning how he criticises anselm also ?
I thought I understood this and then my teacher confused me more saying that Kant was only criticising Descartes 😕

Reply 46

17

Original post by Kaiywaiy

For the ontological argument and criticisms of it, do Kants criticisms only apply to Descartes form of the argument or are they Anselms as well?
If there is an existence as a predicate question- am I just writing about Descartes and Kant or am I mentioning how he criticises anselm also ?
I thought I understood this and then my teacher confused me more saying that Kant was only criticising Descartes 😕

Kant meant to target Descartes, but you can argue his criticisms apply to Anselm too.

There's always debate about whether they really successfully apply to Anselm - but that's part of evaluation, and the same is true for Descartes too.

Reply 47

Kaiywaiy

4

Original post by Joe312

Kant meant to target Descartes, but you can argue his criticisms apply to Anselm too.
There's always debate about whether they really successfully apply to Anselm - but that's part of evaluation, and the same is true for Descartes too.

Okay thank you :smile:

So I should focus on Descartes but if I’m feeling I don’t have enough for a substantial answer I can tie anselm in ?

Reply 48

17

Original post by Kaiywaiy

Okay thank you :smile:

So I should focus on Descartes but if I’m feeling I don’t have enough for a substantial answer I can tie anselm in ?

That wouldn't really get any extra marks though for that question cause it's not adding anything.

Better do include Kant's other criticism - that even if existence is a predicate, that doesn't mean God actually does exist - OR Hume's critique of the ontological argument, which was a precursor for Kant's critique that existence is not a predicate.

Reply 49

7

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

I also submitted mine (which my teacher who marked for the exam board marked and gave 33/40 for) and it gave me 24 yet level 5. if I understand correctly a level 5 essay would be 11-13 for Ao1 and 18-20 for Ao2 scoring between 29 and 33? and 24 does not fit into this. ive been consistently getting As and A*s in all of my essays since January so this confused me

Reply 50

7

in the arguments based on reason section of the spec (ontological), there is a spec point saying 'whether a posteriori or a priori is the most persuasive style of argument'
-if we were to be given a question vague in nature almost repeating that spec point rather that specifying the ontological vs the a posteriori arguments of God's existence would any link to the a posteriori arguments of Anselm or the a priori arguments of Plato? as I would imagine many people would initially associate that question with them rather than the arguments for the existence of God. and how far could we expand this incorporation of them?? it seems logical to link them as they are Ancient Greek influences. I'm just confused as to how I would go about answering this best or if I've completely misunderstood and it would simply just be the arguments for existence 😹

Reply 51

17

Original post by hollysmith1543

in the arguments based on reason section of the spec (ontological), there is a spec point saying 'whether a posteriori or a priori is the most persuasive style of argument'
-if we were to be given a question vague in nature almost repeating that spec point rather that specifying the ontological vs the a posteriori arguments of God's existence would any link to the a posteriori arguments of Anselm or the a priori arguments of Plato? as I would imagine many people would initially associate that question with them rather than the arguments for the existence of God. and how far could we expand this incorporation of them?? it seems logical to link them as they are Ancient Greek influences. I'm just confused as to how I would go about answering this best or if I've completely misunderstood and it would simply just be the arguments for existence 😹

I think you meant Aquinas' a posteriori arguments, not Anselm's?

It would be ok to use the Plato/Aristotle debate yeah cause technically it's answering the question.

Better just to assess the ontological and teleological and/or cosmological and judge if any of them succeed to get your answer though.

They could ask that question like this which would be less ambigious:

"Is God's existence best established a priori?" [40]

Note the use of the term 'best' requiring you to consider another method - e.g. a posteriori.

Reply 52

11

Original post by hollysmith1543

I also submitted mine (which my teacher who marked for the exam board marked and gave 33/40 for) and it gave me 24 yet level 5. if I understand correctly a level 5 essay would be 11-13 for Ao1 and 18-20 for Ao2 scoring between 29 and 33? and 24 does not fit into this. ive been consistently getting As and A*s in all of my essays since January so this confused me

yes mine did the same, im not worrying about it tbh, im guessing that it probs thinks its out of 30 perhaps?

Reply 53

17

Original post by groca12

yes mine did the same, im not worrying about it tbh, im guessing that it probs thinks its out of 30 perhaps?

Honestly I think it's going to be really hard to make the AI work for the OCR RS A level.

Reply 54

7

Original post by Joe312

I think you meant Aquinas' a posteriori arguments, not Anselm's?
It would be ok to use the Plato/Aristotle debate yeah cause technically it's answering the question.
Better just to assess the ontological and teleological and/or cosmological and judge if any of them succeed to get your answer though.
They could ask that question like this which would be less ambigious:
"Is God's existence best established a priori?" [40]
Note the use of the term 'best' requiring you to consider another method - e.g. a posteriori.

I do mean aquinas- too many sleepless nights recently! lets hope I don't make that same mistake in the exam 😹 thank you for the advice- I hope that if they do assess that spec point then as you said, they do it using less ambiguous wording

Reply 55

7

Original post by groca12

yes mine did the same, im not worrying about it tbh, im guessing that it probs thinks its out of 30 perhaps?

very possibly, as the AS if I remember correctly is out of 30

Reply 56

Bellahadid12

7

Does anybody have any points for the last bit on the spec on 20th century perspectives. On the comparison of the ideas of Aquinas and Wittgenstein. Like whether cognitive/non cognitive is better, how non cognitive approaches influence religious texts interpretations and how far Aquinas analogical view of theo Lang remain valuable. I can't for the life of me think of any cohesive points.

Reply 57

11

Original post by Bellahadid12

Does anybody have any points for the last bit on the spec on 20th century perspectives. On the comparison of the ideas of Aquinas and Wittgenstein. Like whether cognitive/non cognitive is better, how non cognitive approaches influence religious texts interpretations and how far Aquinas analogical view of theo Lang remain valuable. I can't for the life of me think of any cohesive points.

you could argue that cognitive statements are better when discussing God as they reflect the arguments made by chistians. for example, when a christian claims "god exists" they aren't just expressing non-cognitive statements as wittgenstein may imply, rather they are making objective cosmological claims.

non cognitive could perhaps influence religious texts through symbolism (tillich), like ideas in the Bible that may be interpreted as metaphorical today (e.g liberal approach to genesis).

you could say that aquinas survives through biblical coherencey (analogies allign with likeness- genesis 1:26)

i would hate that to be a question tho tbh, think i would cry

Reply 58

mayland

6

Original post by groca12

you could argue that cognitive statements are better when discussing God as they reflect the arguments made by chistians. for example, when a christian claims "god exists" they aren't just expressing non-cognitive statements as wittgenstein may imply, rather they are making objective cosmological claims.
non cognitive could perhaps influence religious texts through symbolism (tillich), like ideas in the Bible that may be interpreted as metaphorical today (e.g liberal approach to genesis).
you could say that aquinas survives through biblical coherencey (analogies allign with likeness- genesis 1:26)
i would hate that to be a question tho tbh, think i would cry

could you also add in Hare and Bliks 🙂 and also maybe Hick- eschatological verification?

Reply 59