Philosophy of religion — OCR A-Level Religious Studies

Philosophy of religion is a core component of OCR A-Level Religious Studies, exploring fundamental questions about the existence and nature of God, the problem of evil, and the relationship between faith and reason. This topic critically examines arguments for and against theism, including the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments, as well as challenges from atheism and the problem of evil. Students engage with key philosophers such as Anselm, Aquinas, Paley, Hume, and Kant, developing analytical skills to evaluate the coherence and validity of these arguments.

Understanding philosophy of religion is essential because it underpins many ethical and theological debates in the modern world. It encourages critical thinking about ultimate questions, such as whether religious belief is rational and how we can reconcile the existence of suffering with a benevolent God. This topic also connects to broader themes in religious studies, such as the nature of religious language and the relationship between science and religion, providing a foundation for further study in theology, philosophy, or ethics.

In the OCR A-Level exam, philosophy of religion is assessed through essay-based questions that require students to present balanced arguments, use scholarly perspectives, and reach reasoned conclusions. Mastery of this topic involves not only memorising key arguments but also evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, applying them to contemporary issues, and demonstrating awareness of different philosophical traditions. This topic is typically studied alongside ethics and developments in Christian thought, forming a coherent and challenging curriculum.

• →The Ontological Argument: An a priori argument that God's existence is necessary by definition, proposed by Anselm and later refined by Descartes, with criticisms from Kant (existence is not a predicate) and Gaunilo (the perfect island objection).
• →The Cosmological Argument: An a posteriori argument based on contingency or causation, including Aquinas' Third Way (contingent beings require a necessary being) and the Kalam argument (the universe began to exist, so it has a cause). Criticised by Hume (no necessary connection) and Russell (the universe is just there).
• →The Teleological Argument: An a posteriori argument from design, including Paley's watchmaker analogy and Aquinas' Fifth Way. Criticised by Hume (analogy is weak, multiple designers possible) and Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.
• →The Problem of Evil: The logical and evidential problem of evil, challenging the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. Responses include the Free Will Defence (Augustine, Irenaeus), soul-making theodicy (Hick), and process theology. Criticised by Mackie (inconsistent triad) and Rowe (evidential problem).
• →Religious Language: The debate over whether language about God is meaningful, including verificationism (Ayer), falsificationism (Flew), and alternative approaches such as analogy (Aquinas), symbol (Tillich), and language games (Wittgenstein).

• Details of the teleological argument including Aquinas’ Fifth Way and Paley
• Details of the cosmological argument including Aquinas’ first three ways
• Details of Hume’s criticisms of arguments from natural religion
• The challenge of evolution to teleological arguments
• Details of the ontological argument including Anselm
• Gaunilo’s criticisms of the ontological argument
• Kant’s criticisms of the ontological argument

• 💡Ensure clear distinction between a posteriori and a priori styles of argument
• 💡Use scholarly views to support arguments, such as Dawkins or Plantinga
• 💡Focus on the logical fallacies within the arguments
• 💡Evaluate whether existence can be treated as a predicate
• 💡Always evaluate arguments explicitly. Use phrases like 'This is a strength because...' and 'However, a weakness is...' to show critical analysis. Avoid simply describing arguments without assessing them.
• 💡Use scholarly references to support your points. For example, mention Kant's objection to the ontological argument, Hume's criticisms of the cosmological argument, or Plantinga's free will defence. This demonstrates depth of knowledge and engagement with academic debate.
• 💡Structure your essays with a clear introduction, balanced paragraphs, and a conclusion that answers the question directly. Use the 'PEEL' method (Point, Evidence, Explanation, Link) to ensure each paragraph is focused and coherent.

• Confusing a posteriori and a priori arguments
• Failing to distinguish between the logical and evidential aspects of arguments
• Misunderstanding the role of predicates in Kant's critique of the ontological argument
• Over-simplifying Hume's criticisms of natural religion
• Misconception: The ontological argument proves God's existence. Correction: While it is logically valid, many philosophers (e.g., Kant) argue it is unsound because existence is not a property that adds to a concept. The argument is a priori and relies on the definition of God, but it does not convince everyone.
• Misconception: The problem of evil disproves God's existence. Correction: The problem of evil presents a strong challenge, but theodicies (e.g., Free Will Defence, soul-making) offer possible explanations. The logical problem (inconsistent triad) has been largely refuted by Alvin Plantinga's free will defence, though the evidential problem remains powerful.
• Misconception: Hume completely destroyed the design argument. Correction: Hume's criticisms are devastating to Paley's analogy, but the argument can be reformulated (e.g., fine-tuning argument). Hume himself did not claim to disprove design; he argued that the evidence is insufficient for a definitive conclusion.