OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 - 10th June 2025 [Exam Chat]

Reply 60

8

Original post

by misanthrope07

I did that question and i mainly talked about descartes and his substance dualism - and critic it/gilbert ryle and over eval, i referenece plato not so much aristotle. but the wording of the question was very weird

That’s exactly what I did. I hope it was a strong approach🤞🏻

Reply 61

H_Rose19

7

Original post

by misanthrope07

I did that question and i mainly talked about descartes and his substance dualism - and critic it/gilbert ryle and over eval, i referenece plato not so much aristotle, i compared substance dualism to materialism. but the wording of the question was very weird

Oh no, I interpreted it as being about materialism and consciousness (as in mind/soul) being explained by material interactions like Ryle or Dawkins' ideas 😭 I only talked for about 1/2 a paragraph about Descartes, do you think that would still be ok? I did talk about how Ryle refutes the idea though? But this would make my overall argument way off

Reply 62

loveleema

10

Original post

by misanthrope07

I did that question and i mainly talked about descartes and his substance dualism - and critic it/gilbert ryle and over eval, i referenece plato not so much aristotle, i compared substance dualism to materialism. but the wording of the question was very weird

I talked about materialism, plato and behaviourism mainly. I didn’t talk about Descartes at all but I suppose you could’ve mentioned anyone really

Reply 63

misanthrope07

6

Original post

by H_Rose19

Oh no, I interpreted it as being about materialism and consciousness (as in mind/soul) being explained by material interactions like Ryle or Dawkins' ideas 😭 I only talked for about 1/2 a paragraph about Descartes, do you think that would still be ok? I did talk about how Ryle refutes the idea though? But this would make my overall argument way off

I think it's fine, since not alot of peoppe did the question (i assume) they might go easy on us when marking, all it matters that you'r able to back you judgement and why. I did reference science - based ideas on the mind-body interaction (through neuropathways and the nervous system) but it should be ok hopefully

Reply 64

irllyhateucas

1

i focused on anselm and the criticisms he faced, what did you write about?

Reply 65

H_Rose19

7

Original post

by misanthrope07

I think it's fine, since not alot of peoppe did the question (i assume) they might go easy on us when marking, all it matters that you'r able to back you judgement and why. I did reference science - based ideas on the mind-body interaction (through neuropathways and the nervous system) but it should be ok hopefully

Ok thank you, hopefully it will be alright! I had interpreted material interactions as materialism but now I see how that could be intended to mean Descartes!

Reply 66

Heeledskjs

3

For material interactions can u guys lmk ur honest thoughts ( i didnt mention Plato lol 😭 or Aristotle really or Descartes except name drops throughout )

1.

No - behaviourism - reductive actions mental remembrance trained behaviourism - DEFEATED by skinner

2. Yes - Dawkins 2 souls, distinguishes between them, then explains consciousness
Backed by science modern
3) No
Unable to explain modern theories incompatible eg. Pansychism
Its bound by how far science is advanced

Reply 67

FranceZO

5

Wow was not expecting religious experience and no nature of God or problem of evil? Did falsification instead of religious experience and somehow think it's my best one despite not really revising it. Didn't revise MBS or ontological much but probably helped so I could do more evaluation and actually almost finish writing all essays for once 😭

Reply 68

loveleema

10

Original post

by H_Rose19

Oh no, I interpreted it as being about materialism and consciousness (as in mind/soul) being explained by material interactions like Ryle or Dawkins' ideas 😭 I only talked for about 1/2 a paragraph about Descartes, do you think that would still be ok? I did talk about how Ryle refutes the idea though? But this would make my overall argument way off

Yes same I did too but I asked my teacher afterwards and she said it was on materialism? I mean if it was asking Descartes specifically they’d say substances or wholly separate substances not material

Reply 69

H_Rose19

7

Original post

by loveleema

Yes same I did too but I asked my teacher afterwards and she said it was on materialism? I mean if it was asking Descartes specifically they’d say substances or wholly separate substances not material

Ok that definitely makes me feel better that I'm not the only one who did it that way! My teacher also said materialism when I was telling her about the questions, but I didn't actually ask whether it could be about Descartes because I hadn't even considered it until I saw what people had argued on here. I agree if it was Descartes I don't see how it could say material interactions, especially because one of his flaws is the lack of explanation regarding how the interactions happen

Reply 70

Heeledskjs

3

Original post

by phoebe310807

I did the soul mind and body question but COMPLETELY forgot about gilbert ryle how cooked am i

I didn’t mention Plato, Aristotle , ryle or Descartes.

Reply 71

misanthrope07

6

anyone did the falsification question? how was it? I mentioned flew, hare and mitchell and evaluated them and mentioed the verification principle as a better alternative to judge whether or not religious language has factual truth/reality

Reply 72

KierenParker

1

Original post

by H_Rose19

Oh no, I interpreted it as being about materialism and consciousness (as in mind/soul) being explained by material interactions like Ryle or Dawkins' ideas 😭 I only talked for about 1/2 a paragraph about Descartes, do you think that would still be ok? I did talk about how Ryle refutes the idea though? But this would make my overall argument way off

Your interpretation is spot on. I think people got scared by the fact they said consciousness and not soul, and they've given pre prepared answers on Plato and Descartes. The question wanted a materialism focus.

Reply 73

H_Rose19

7

Original post

by KierenParker

Your interpretation is spot on. I think people got scared by the fact they said consciousness and not soul, and they've given pre prepared answers on Plato and Descartes. The question wanted a materialism focus.

Ok thank you, this definitely makes me feel better because I was so worried I had missed the entire point of the question, thank you!

Reply 74

H_Rose19

7

Original post

by misanthrope07

anyone did the falsification question? how was it? I mentioned flew, hare and mitchell and evaluated them and mentioed the verification principle as a better alternative to judge whether or not religious language has factual truth/reality

I did falsification too, I talked about Flew and how he avoids some issues of Ayer's Verification principle. Then I did Hare and Wittgenstein together about how religious language doesn't have any factual content in the first place. And then I talked about via negativa and how it can be harder to falsify but how the Parable of the Gardener kind of circumvents this

Reply 75

KierenParker

1

Original post

by H_Rose19

I did falsification too, I talked about Flew and how he avoids some issues of Ayer's Verification principle. Then I did Hare and Wittgenstein together about how religious language doesn't have any factual content in the first place. And then I talked about via negativa and how it can be harder to falsify but how the Parable of the Gardener kind of circumvents this

I didn't use any AO1 outside of falsificationism as I wasn't totally prepared for the question. Evaluated each of the 3 falsificationists regarding whether they are successful at showing cognitive or not. Didn't think the question really required a comparison of other theories showing cog or non cog tbh.

Reply 76

Ladeedadadad

4

Original post

by H_Rose19

Ok thank you, hopefully it will be alright! I had interpreted material interactions as materialism but now I see how that could be intended to mean Descartes!

I did the same.... kind of scared I answered it on "is the soul material or non material" instead of the actual question.

Reply 77

loveleema

10

Original post

by H_Rose19

Ok that definitely makes me feel better that I'm not the only one who did it that way! My teacher also said materialism when I was telling her about the questions, but I didn't actually ask whether it could be about Descartes because I hadn't even considered it until I saw what people had argued on here. I agree if it was Descartes I don't see how it could say material interactions, especially because one of his flaws is the lack of explanation regarding how the interactions happen

I am 100% sure it’s not about Descartes specifically because the soul is immaterial 😭 also it was quite literally in the name, I think you’re fine don’t even worry about it

Reply 78

timtam07

8

Original post

by irllyhateucas

i focused on anselm and the criticisms he faced, what did you write about?

For Anselm, my evaluation points were:

•

Anselm’s justifications for his definition of God (1. that something must be greater than we can imagine and 2. existence is greater than nonexistence and necessity) were strong for his defence of belief in god because it’s simple and logical, so therefore, it’s easy for atheists to see why believers hold faith in god

•

support from Descartes in saying that God’s existence is a predicate of God. God is a supremely perfect being so it’s only logical that existence is part of his definition, therefore defending belief in God.

•

supporting/refuting point from Aquinas in saying that we should also base belief on observation. I argued that this is a more realistic approach to belief as faith isn’t solely based on logic and can also come from experience (this would also logically explain religious experiences, for example)

•

Anselm’s argument becoming problematic when we regard the problem of evil. I said that if God is the greatest possible being, then he must be able to do both great good and great evil. If God is only capable of ultimate good (especially the Christian one, who is the definition of supreme goodness) then He therefore isn’t the “greater than possibly conceived” (or whatever the definition was. I then circled back and said that atheists might question why they would believe in such a god, and that, in that case, belief isn’t really justified.

In conclusion, I said that Anselm’s defence was somewhat successful, though Aquinas’ approach was more practical and realistic in justifying belief in God.

Reply 79

loveleema

10

For religious experience what did everyone write? I did William James and then talked about St Paul’s experience, then talked about Feuerbach, Alston, Russell, Flew and Swinburne and then went to F.C Happold for mystical experiences. Thought it was a nice question tbh

OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 - 10th June 2025 [Exam Chat]

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated