How do I revise Philosophy of Religion for Cambridge OCR A-Level?

Structured essays: directly contrast dualist and materialist views by theme (e.g., origin of consciousness, personal identity, afterlife), using key texts and terminology accurately.

What exam tips are there for Philosophy of Religion? (2)

Use examiner-friendly phrasing: 'Plato's dualism is challenged by the materialist notion that...' or 'Descartes' clear and distinct ideas can be critiqued through Dawkins' evolutionary lens...'

What exam tips are there for Philosophy of Religion? (3)

Include scholarly views: mention Ryle's 'ghost in the machine' critique of Descartes or Swinburne's modified dualism to deepen analysis and show wider reading.

What mistakes should I avoid in Philosophy of Religion?

Confusing Plato's dualism with Descartes': students often merge the tripartite soul with Cartesian substance dualism, overlooking that for Plato the soul is the thinking entity while for Descartes mind and body are distinct substances.

What are common errors in Philosophy of Religion exams? (2)

Misrepresenting Descartes' interactionism as a physical connection rather than a causal one; many claim pineal gland is 'where mind meets body' without explaining the conceptual issue of causal interaction.

Philosophy of Religion

CAMBRIDGE-OCR

A-Level

This subtopic explores philosophical debates on the relationship between soul, mind, and body. Students must critically analyse dualist positions, such as Plato's view of the immortal soul distinct from the physical body and Descartes' substance dualism emphasising mind-body interaction, alongside materialist challenges from thinkers like Hobbes, who reduces mental states to physical processes, and Dawkins, who argues consciousness arises solely from brain activity. The focus is on evaluating coherence, explanatory power, and implications for identity and life after death.

Objectives

Exam Tips

Pitfalls

Key Terms

Mark Points

Subtopics in this area

Philosophy of Religion

Topic Overview

Philosophy of Religion is a core component of the OCR A-Level Religious Studies course, inviting students to critically examine fundamental questions about the nature, existence, and attributes of God. This topic bridges ancient philosophical traditions and contemporary debates, exploring arguments for and against theism, the problem of evil, religious language, and the relationship between faith and reason. By engaging with thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Anselm, Aquinas, Hume, Kant, and modern philosophers like Plantinga and Swinburne, students develop rigorous analytical skills and a deep understanding of how philosophical reasoning applies to religious belief.

Studying Philosophy of Religion matters because it equips students to evaluate the most profound questions human beings ask: Does God exist? Why is there suffering? Can we talk meaningfully about God? These questions are not merely academic; they shape worldviews, ethics, and cultural discourse. Within the wider A-Level, this topic complements Ethics and Developments in Christian Thought, providing a philosophical foundation for understanding religious claims and their justification. Mastery of this area is essential for top grades, as it demands precise argumentation, critical evaluation, and the ability to synthesise diverse perspectives.

The OCR specification divides Philosophy of Religion into key themes: ancient philosophical influences (Plato and Aristotle), arguments for the existence of God (ontological, cosmological, teleological), the problem of evil, religious experience, and the nature of religious language. Students must be able to present these arguments in logical form, identify strengths and weaknesses, and engage with scholarly interpretations. Success requires not just memorisation but the ability to construct coherent, balanced essays that demonstrate critical thinking and awareness of philosophical nuance.

What You Need to Demonstrate

Key skills and knowledge for this topic

Award credit for accurately outlining Plato's dualism, referencing the Phaedo and the soul's pre-existence, purification, and separation from the body.
Credit detailed explanation of Descartes' indivisibility argument and conceivability argument for substance dualism, including his pineal gland interactionism.
Reward clear exposition of Hobbes' materialism, emphasising his reduction of mental events to motions in the brain and rejection of incorporeal substance.
Credit analysis of Dawkins' gene-centric materialism, showing how consciousness is explained through evolution and neurobiology without a soul.
Award marks for critical comparison, such as evaluating the interaction problem for dualism or the hard problem of consciousness for materialism.
Award credit for demonstrating a precise understanding of the definitions and distinctions within each attribute, such as the difference between logical and metaphysical omnipotence.
Credit responses that effectively apply philosophical paradoxes (e.g., the stone paradox, Euthyphro dilemma) to critically evaluate the coherence of divine attributes.
Look for explicit engagement with scholarly viewpoints (e.g., Aquinas, Swinburne, Plantinga) to support or challenge the compatibility of attributes.

Marking Points

Key points examiners look for in your answers

Award credit for accurately outlining Plato's dualism, referencing the Phaedo and the soul's pre-existence, purification, and separation from the body.
Credit detailed explanation of Descartes' indivisibility argument and conceivability argument for substance dualism, including his pineal gland interactionism.
Reward clear exposition of Hobbes' materialism, emphasising his reduction of mental events to motions in the brain and rejection of incorporeal substance.
Credit analysis of Dawkins' gene-centric materialism, showing how consciousness is explained through evolution and neurobiology without a soul.
Award marks for critical comparison, such as evaluating the interaction problem for dualism or the hard problem of consciousness for materialism.
Award credit for demonstrating a precise understanding of the definitions and distinctions within each attribute, such as the difference between logical and metaphysical omnipotence.
Credit responses that effectively apply philosophical paradoxes (e.g., the stone paradox, Euthyphro dilemma) to critically evaluate the coherence of divine attributes.
Look for explicit engagement with scholarly viewpoints (e.g., Aquinas, Swinburne, Plantinga) to support or challenge the compatibility of attributes.
High marks require balancing abstract philosophical analysis with theological implications, showing how debates about God's nature impact religious belief and practice.
Award credit for accurately outlining at least two contrasting scholarly positions, using precise terminology (e.g., a priori, contingent, gratuitous evil).
Reward analysis that identifies logical strengths and weaknesses in each scholar’s argument, moving beyond description to evaluation.
Credit synthesis of ideas where learners construct a balanced judgment on the philosophical viability of theistic claims.
Award credit for demonstrating a clear distinction between different types of religious experience (e.g. Rudolf Otto's numinous, William James' mystical states, corporate vs. individual).
Reward precise use of philosophical terminology such as 'noetic quality', 'ineffability', and 'principle of credulity' when discussing the authority of experience.
Acknowledge critical engagement with major thinkers: for instance, evaluating Swinburne's argument from religious experience versus Freud's psychological reductionism or Marx's sociological critique.
Credit the ability to balance the cumulative case for belief drawn from religious experience against the challenges of conflicting truth claims and the possibility of naturalistic explanations.
Award credit for accurately explaining Anselm's definition of God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived' and his move from existing in the understanding to existing in reality.
Credit recognition that Descartes' argument hinges on existence being a perfection contained in the essence of a supremely perfect being, akin to a geometrical property.
Reward clear delineation of Kant's objection: existence is not a real predicate that adds to a concept, thus the ontological argument fails logically.
Acknowledge effective comparison of different forms (e.g., Anselm's Proslogion 2 vs. Proslogion 3) and assessment of responses like Gaunilo's island.
Award credit for demonstrating accurate understanding of Plato's analogy of the cave, explaining how the prisoners, shadows, puppeteers, and the journey outside represent the progression from illusion to knowledge of the Forms.
Credit detailed explanation of Plato's theory of Forms, including the distinction between the world of appearances (aistheton) and the intelligible world (noeton), and the role of the Form of the Good as the source of reality and truth.
Reward clear exposition of Aristotle's Four Causes, with precise definitions of the material, formal, efficient, and final causes, and their relationship to explaining change and being.
High marks for demonstrating understanding of Aristotle's Prime Mover as the necessary, unchanging final cause that moves by attraction, not by physical causation, and its connection to his teleological world-view.
Accurately explain Paley's watchmaker analogy, highlighting its inductive and analogical structure, and its intended conclusion of an intelligent designer.
Demonstrate detailed knowledge of Hume's criticisms (e.g., problem of evil, alternative explanations, flawed analogy) and assess their impact on the teleological argument.
Show precise understanding of Aquina's first three ways (motion, causation, contingency) and Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason, distinguishing between their approaches.
Award credit for sustained critical evaluation, weighing strengths (e.g., intuitive appeal, explanatory power) against weaknesses (e.g., logical fallacies, reliance on controversial premises).
Use technical vocabulary accurately (e.g., 'a posteriori', 'infinite regress', 'necessary being') and integrate scholarly interpretations where relevant.
Award credit for demonstrating accurate understanding of the logical problem, using the inconsistent triad (God's omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and existence of evil) to show the apparent contradiction.
Award credit for explaining the evidential problem with specific examples (e.g., natural evil, extent of suffering) and its use of inductive reasoning to argue that such evil makes God's existence unlikely.
Award credit for evaluating Augustine’s theodicy, including references to evil as privation, the Fall, original sin, free will defense, and aesthetic themes, and for noting criticisms (e.g., scientific challenges to a literal Fall, moral issues of inherited guilt).
Award credit for evaluating Irenaeus’ theodicy, including the two-stage creation (image and likeness), soul-making through suffering, eventual universal salvation, and criticisms (e.g., proportionality of suffering, challenges to divine benevolence).
Award credit for comparing and contrasting the two theodicies, noting differences in origin of evil, human nature, and purpose of suffering, and for assessing their respective strengths in addressing the evidential problem.
Award credit for engaging with scholarly critiques (e.g., John Hick’s development of Irenaeus, D.Z. Phillips on the inadequacy of theodicies) and demonstrating a balanced evaluative conclusion.

Examiner Tips

Expert advice for maximising your marks

💡Structured essays: directly contrast dualist and materialist views by theme (e.g., origin of consciousness, personal identity, afterlife), using key texts and terminology accurately.
💡Use examiner-friendly phrasing: 'Plato's dualism is challenged by the materialist notion that...' or 'Descartes' clear and distinct ideas can be critiqued through Dawkins' evolutionary lens...'
💡Include scholarly views: mention Ryle's 'ghost in the machine' critique of Descartes or Swinburne's modified dualism to deepen analysis and show wider reading.
💡For top marks, integrate evaluation throughout rather than as a bolt-on, and address the assessment criteria of 'weighing up strengths and weaknesses logically'.
💡Always define key terms precisely in your introduction, signalling your awareness of philosophical nuances; for example, specify whether you are discussing omnipotence in a logical or metaphysical sense.
💡Structure essays around a clear critical question, such as 'Are God's attributes internally consistent?' and ensure each paragraph directly advances the argument with scholarly evidence.
💡Use specific paradoxes and thought experiments as analytical tools, not just as illustrations, to demonstrate deeper evaluative skills.
💡In timed conditions, prioritise depth over breadth: it is better to analyse two attributes in detail with rigorous philosophical engagement than to superficially cover all three.
💡Embed scholars’ names and key terms fluidly into evaluative paragraphs; avoid lengthy biographical narration.
💡For top-band marks, explicitly link scholars to wider issues—e.g., how Hume’s scepticism informs contemporary debates on religious experience.
💡When evaluating, use phrases like ‘However, this is challenged by...’ to demonstrate comparative analysis and secure high-assessment objectives.
💡Always define 'religious experience' at the outset, referencing classic typologies (e.g. James' four marks of mysticism) to frame your analysis.
💡Incorporate a named case study, such as the conversion of St. Paul or Theresa of Avila's visions, to concretely illustrate theoretical points and demonstrate detailed knowledge.
💡When evaluating influence on belief, explicitly link to the arguments for the existence of God (e.g. inductive arguments from design or the problem of evil) to show wider synoptic awareness.
💡For a balanced essay, structure paragraphs to weigh the positive epistemic value (Swinburne, Alston) against the undermining critiques (Feuerbach, neuroscience), always stating and defending your own reasoned conclusion.
💡Always articulate the precise logical structure of each version, and ensure any critique directly targets a specific premise or inferential step.
💡Using terminology like 'analytic', 'necessary', and 'predicate' accurately demonstrates conceptual clarity and impresses assessors.
💡When evaluating, do more than describe objections—weigh their success by considering counter-responses and the overall viability of a priori proofs.
💡Ensure that when explaining the analogy of the cave, you explicitly link each element (e.g., the shadows, the fire, the sun) to the corresponding aspect of the theory of Forms, particularly the Form of the Good as the ultimate source of illumination.
💡For Aristotle, use a concrete example (such as a statue or a living organism) to illustrate how all Four Causes cooperate in a single entity, and clearly distinguish between the efficient and final causes.
💡Demonstrate critical engagement by evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of these ancient ideas, such as the Third Man critique of Plato's Forms or the coherence of a Prime Mover that is not an efficient cause.
💡Use specialist vocabulary accurately (e.g., 'episteme', 'doxa', 'telos', 'potentiality and actuality') to convey nuanced understanding and meet the expectations for A-Level analysis.
💡In evaluation questions, structure your response to first explain the argument(s) clearly, then offer a balanced assessment of strengths and weaknesses before reaching a justified conclusion.
💡Always ground your critical points in specific scholars: for the teleological argument, use Hume's 'Dialogues' and modern commentators; for the cosmological argument, reference Aquinas' 'Summa Theologica' and Leibniz's 'Monadology'.
💡When discussing Hume's criticisms, show how each one targets a different premise of the design argument—this demonstrates analytical depth and impresses examiners.
💡Pay close attention to the wording of the question: if asked to 'evaluate', you must present both sides; if asked to 'examine', a detailed exposition with some critical comment is expected.
💡Use precise philosophical terminology throughout to demonstrate mastery, and avoid colloquial language—terms like 'teleology', 'efficient cause', and 'contingency' signal advanced knowledge.
💡When outlining the logical problem, explicitly use the inconsistent triad and state the explicit contradiction. Note that Alvin Plantinga’s free will defense is seen by many as logically resolving the problem, shifting attention to the evidential argument.
💡For evaluating theodicies, structure your answer with clear strengths and weaknesses. Use technical terminology (privation, original sin, epistemic distance, soul-making) to demonstrate precise knowledge and earn higher marks.
💡To achieve higher marks, integrate scholarly views: for Augustine, refer to modern scientific challenges (evolution, geology) and philosophical critiques (e.g., Schleiermacher's objection); for Irenaeus, mention John Hick’s vale of soul-making and the problem of gratuitous evil.
💡In comparative essays, highlight the contrasting paradigms: Augustine’s theodicy is retrospective (restoring a perfection lost through the Fall) while Irenaeus’ is prospective (moving towards a future perfection). Show awareness of pastoral and existential implications.
💡Always maintain a critical focus on the exam question, ensuring you consistently evaluate whether the theodicies succeed in responding to the problem of evil, rather than merely describing them. Use phrases like 'However, this is insufficient because...' to demonstrate evaluation.

Common Mistakes

Pitfalls to avoid in your exam answers

Confusing Plato's dualism with Descartes': students often merge the tripartite soul with Cartesian substance dualism, overlooking that for Plato the soul is the thinking entity while for Descartes mind and body are distinct substances.
Misrepresenting Descartes' interactionism as a physical connection rather than a causal one; many claim pineal gland is 'where mind meets body' without explaining the conceptual issue of causal interaction.
Oversimplifying Hobbes as a 'crude materialist' without noting his nuanced view of mental speech and motion, or attributing to him a denial of consciousness rather than a reduction of it.
Assuming Dawkins denies any notion of self or subjective experience, rather than arguing that consciousness is an emergent property of complex neural processes.
Failing to distinguish between the hard problem of consciousness and the easy problems: materialists like Dawkins focus on easy problems but may sidestep the hard problem, which students often overlook in evaluations.
Conflating omnipotence with the ability to do literally anything, including logically impossible acts, without addressing the standard philosophical restriction to logically possible actions.
Misunderstanding omniscience as simple foreknowledge, overlooking the nuanced debates about whether foreknowledge entails determinism and the distinctions between propositional and self-knowledge.
Treating omnibenevolence as unproblematic without considering the challenges posed by the existence of evil and the need for a coherent free will defence.
Failing to distinguish between the intrinsic and relational aspects of God's attributes, leading to superficial analysis that ignores internal coherence issues.
Confusing the ontological argument as empirical or conflating Anselm’s definitional version with Descartes’ perfect being variant.
Treating scholars as isolated figures; failing to recognise interconnections, such as Aquinas borrowing Aristotelian causality or Hume critiquing the design argument’s analogy.
Superficially dismissing the problem of evil without engaging with free-will defence or soul-making theodicy nuances.
Conflating religious experience with mere emotional sentiment or aesthetic awe, neglecting the intentional object of the experience.
Assuming that all reported religious experiences are veridical without considering the role of cultural conditioning, prior beliefs, or psychological factors.
Failing to differentiate between the experience itself and its subsequent interpretation, thus oversimplifying the argument from religious diversity.
Neglecting to address the epistemic asymmetry: the tension between the personal authority of an experience for the individual and its lack of persuasive force for outsiders.
Treating the ontological argument as an empirical or inductive argument, rather than an a priori deductive proof.
Conflating Anselm's and Descartes' versions without noting key differences (e.g., the role of perfection vs. necessary existence).
Misapplying Kant's criticism by stating 'existence is a predicate' or failing to explain why it undermines the argument.
Thinking that Gaunilo's parody island definitively refutes Anselm, without acknowledging Anselm's rejoinder that the island is not a necessary being.
Many students erroneously treat Plato's Forms as mere concepts in the mind rather than as mind-independent, perfect, eternal realities that cause the existence of physical objects.
A common error is to interpret the analogy of the cave as solely a political or educational allegory, neglecting its metaphysical and epistemological significance for the theory of Forms.
Students often confuse Aristotle's efficient cause with the modern scientific notion of a mechanical 'cause-and-effect' chain, overlooking that for Aristotle it is the source of change or motion.
It is a frequent mistake to anthropomorphise Aristotle's Prime Mover, portraying it as a personal, immanent deity like the God of revealed religion, rather than as pure actuality engaged in eternal self-contemplation.
Confusing the teleological argument with the cosmological argument, or conflating Paley's design argument with Aquinas' fifth way (which is teleological but not treated here as observational in the same sense).
Misrepresenting Aquinas' arguments as empirical in the modern sense—his cosmological arguments are metaphysical and not dependent on particular observations of the world.
Superficial evaluation that merely lists Hume's criticisms without explaining their philosophical force or considering counter-rebuttals.
Failing to distinguish between the argument from design (Paley) and the argument to design (the broader category), leading to misunderstandings about the nature of the evidence.
Overlooking the role of analogy in Paley's argument and therefore missing a key line of critique regarding whether the world genuinely resembles a machine.
Confusing the logical problem of evil (claiming a logical contradiction) with the evidential problem (claiming improbability), often failing to articulate the distinct forms of argument.
Presenting Augustine’s theodicy as simply stating evil is a privation without explaining how this relates to free will, the Fall, and the transmission of original sin.
Misunderstanding Irenaeus’ theodicy as implying God directly causes evil for a greater good, rather than permitting it as a necessary condition for soul-making and free moral development.
Failing to distinguish between moral and natural evil in the context of applying theodicies, and not addressing how each theodicy accounts for natural evil.
Oversimplifying theodicies as fully successful solutions without addressing key criticisms, such as the proportion and distribution of suffering, and the problem of animal suffering.

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions students ask about this topic

Key Terminology

Essential terms to know

Dualism

Materialism

Substance

Consciousness

Paradoxes

Eternity

Foreknowledge

Scholarship

Interpretation

Conversion

Mysticism

Corporate experience

A priori

Necessary existence

Perfection

Plato

Aristotle

Forms

Causes

Design

Causation

Contingency

Natural evil

Moral evil

Free will

Soul-making

Ready to test yourself?

Practice questions tailored to this topic

Philosophy of Religion

Subtopics in this area

Topic Overview

What You Need to Demonstrate

Marking Points

Examiner Tips

Common Mistakes

Frequently Asked Questions

Key Terminology

Ready to test yourself?

Related Topics in CAMBRIDGE-OCR A-Level Religious Studies

Religion and Ethics

Developments in Christian Thought

Developments in Christian Thought

Developments in Christian Thought

Philosophy of Religion

Subtopics in this area

Topic Overview

What You Need to Demonstrate

Marking Points

Examiner Tips

Common Mistakes

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments?

How do I answer a problem of evil essay question?

Is religious language meaningful?

What are the main criticisms of the ontological argument?

How should I structure my Philosophy of Religion essays?

What is the difference between the logical and evidential problem of evil?

Key Terminology

Ready to test yourself?

Related Topics in CAMBRIDGE-OCR A-Level Religious Studies

Religion and Ethics

Developments in Christian Thought

Developments in Christian Thought

Developments in Christian Thought