Component 1: Philosophy of religion and ethics — AQA A-Level Religious Studies

Component 1 of AQA A-Level Religious Studies covers two distinct but interconnected areas: Philosophy of Religion and Ethics. In Philosophy of Religion, you will critically examine arguments for and against the existence of God, explore the nature of religious experience, and grapple with the problem of evil. This involves studying key philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Hume, and Kant, and evaluating their contributions to debates about the nature of reality, knowledge, and the divine. The ethics component introduces major normative theories—utilitarianism, situation ethics, natural law, and Kantian ethics—and applies them to contemporary moral issues such as euthanasia, business ethics, and sexual ethics. You will also explore meta-ethics and the relationship between religion and morality.

This component is central to the A-Level because it develops critical thinking, analytical writing, and the ability to construct and deconstruct arguments—skills valued in higher education and many careers. Understanding philosophy and ethics also helps you engage with fundamental questions about meaning, morality, and human existence. The two halves are linked: philosophical questions about God's existence often have ethical implications, and ethical theories can be informed by religious or secular worldviews. Mastery of this component requires not just memorising arguments but evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, and applying them to specific scenarios.

In the exam, you will answer two 3-hour papers (one for Philosophy, one for Ethics), each with three sections: compulsory short-answer questions, one essay from a choice of two on a set topic, and one essay from a choice of two on a different topic. The essays require you to demonstrate knowledge, analysis, and evaluation, with a clear line of argument. To succeed, you need to understand the nuances of each argument, use precise terminology, and engage with scholarly debates. This component builds on GCSE RS but demands a much deeper level of philosophical engagement.

• →The design argument (teleological): Aquinas's Fifth Way, Paley's watchmaker analogy, and Hume's criticisms (e.g., Epicurean hypothesis, problem of evil).
• →The problem of evil: logical (Epicurus, Mackie) and evidential (Rowe) versions, theodicies (Irenaean, Augustinian), and free will defence.
• →Natural Law: Aquinas's four tiers of law, primary and secondary precepts, and application to issues like euthanasia (doctrine of double effect).
• →Kantian ethics: categorical imperative (three formulations), good will, duty vs. inclination, and criticisms (e.g., conflicting duties, rigorism).
• →Religious experience: types (vision, conversion, mystical), William James's four characteristics, and challenges (verification, neurological explanations).

• Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of religious, philosophical, and ethical thought and teaching.
• Explain the influence of beliefs, teachings, and practices on individuals, communities, and societies.
• Analyze and evaluate the cause and significance of similarities and differences in belief, teaching, and practice.
• Critically analyze and evaluate the views and arguments of prescribed scholars.
• Use specialist language and terminology appropriately.
• Construct well-informed and reasoned arguments substantiated by relevant evidence.

• 💡Ensure you can clearly distinguish between the first part (AO1 - knowledge) and second part (AO2 - evaluation) of the two-part questions.
• 💡Practice applying multiple ethical theories to the same issue (e.g., abortion) to compare their different moral conclusions.
• 💡Use the prescribed scholars' names and their specific arguments to substantiate your evaluation.
• 💡Be prepared for questions that span more than one topic within a section.
• 💡Focus on the 'reasonableness' and 'coherence' of arguments when evaluating philosophical claims.
• 💡Always define key terms in your essays (e.g., 'omnipotent', 'categorical imperative') and show you understand their nuances. This demonstrates AO1 knowledge and sets up your AO2 evaluation.
• 💡For evaluation (AO2), use a 'strength then weakness' structure but ensure you weigh arguments and reach a justified conclusion. Avoid simply listing points; instead, compare and contrast, e.g., 'While Kant's emphasis on rationality is a strength, it fails to account for emotions, which situation ethics addresses.'
• 💡In ethics, apply theories to specific examples (e.g., euthanasia, stealing) to show practical understanding. Use the scenario to test the theory's consistency and limitations—this is where top marks are gained.

• Failing to link philosophical or ethical theories to the specific scholars prescribed.
• Confusing cognitive and non-cognitive approaches in religious language.
• Applying ethical theories to issues without demonstrating a clear understanding of the theory's core principles.
• Neglecting the evaluation (AO2) component in favor of purely descriptive (AO1) content.
• Failing to address the 'proof' status of arguments for God's existence.
• Misconception: The design argument proves God exists. Correction: It is an inductive argument that suggests design is probable, but it is not a proof; Hume and Darwin offer strong counterarguments that students must evaluate.
• Misconception: Situation ethics is the same as 'anything goes' relativism. Correction: Fletcher's situation ethics is based on agape love as the absolute, but it allows flexible application; it is not without principles (the four working principles).
• Misconception: The problem of evil only applies to theism. Correction: While it is a challenge to theistic belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, some versions (e.g., Rowe's evidential) can be adapted to challenge deism or polytheism; students should focus on the specific logical contradiction.