A-LEVEL Religious Studies

Transcription

1 A-LEVEL Religious Studies RST3B Paper 3B Philosophy of Religion Mark Scheme 2060 June 2017 Version: 1.0 Final

2 Mark schemes are prepared by the Lead Assessment Writer and considered, together with the relevant questions, by a panel of subject teachers. This mark scheme includes any amendments made at the standardisation events which all associates participate in and is the scheme which was used by them in this examination. The standardisation process ensures that the mark scheme covers the students responses to questions and that every associate understands and applies it in the same correct way. As preparation for standardisation each associate analyses a number of students scripts. Alternative answers not already covered by the mark scheme are discussed and legislated for. If, after the standardisation process, associates encounter unusual answers which have not been raised they are required to refer these to the Lead Assessment Writer. It must be stressed that a mark scheme is a working document, in many cases further developed and expanded on the basis of students reactions to a particular paper. Assumptions about future mark schemes on the basis of one year s document should be avoided; whilst the guiding principles of assessment remain constant, details will change, depending on the content of a particular examination paper. Further copies of this mark scheme are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright 2017 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre. 2

3 Examination Levels of Response Religious Studies (Advanced) A2 Level Descriptors Level A2 Descriptor AO1 Marks Unit 4 italics A2 Descriptor AO2 Marks Unit 4 italics AS Descriptors for Quality of Written Communication in AO1 and AO2 7 A thorough treatment of the topic, which may be in depth or breadth. Information is accurate and relevant. A thorough understanding is shown through good use of relevant evidence and examples. Where appropriate good knowledge and understanding of diversity of views and / or scholarly opinion is demonstrated. Knowledge and understanding of connections with other elements of the course of study are demonstrated convincingly. 6 A generally thorough treatment of the topic which may be in depth or breadth. Information is almost all accurate and mainly relevant. Clear understanding is demonstrated through use of relevant evidence and examples. Where appropriate, alternative views and / or scholarly opinion are satisfactorily explained. Knowledge and understanding of connections with other elements of the course of study are clearly demonstrated A very well-focused response to the issue(s) raised. Different views, including where appropriate those of scholars or schools of thought, are discussed and critically analysed perceptively. Effective use is made of evidence to sustain an argument. Appropriate evaluation is fully supported by the reasoning. There may be evidence of independent thought. The argument is related perceptively and maturely to the broader context and to human experience. A well-focused response to the issue(s) raised. Different views, including where appropriate those of scholars or schools of thought, are discussed and critically analysed. Appropriate evaluation is supported by reasoned argument. There may be evidence of independent thought. The argument is related clearly to the broader context and to human experience Appropriate form and style of writing; clear and coherent organisation of information; appropriate and accurate use of specialist vocabulary; good legibility and high level of accuracy in spelling, punctuation and grammar. 5 A satisfactory treatment of the topic. Information is mostly accurate and mainly relevant. A reasonable understanding is demonstrated through use of some evidence and examples. Where appropriate, some familiarity with diversity of views and / or scholarly opinion is shown. Some knowledge and understanding of connections with other elements of the course of study are demonstrated A satisfactory response to the issue(s) raised. Views are explained with some supporting evidence and arguments, and some critical analysis. An evaluation is made that is consistent with some of the reasoning. Some of the response is related satisfactorily to the broader context and to human experience Mainly appropriate form and style of writing; generally clear and coherent organisation of information; mainly appropriate and accurate use of specialist vocabulary; good legibility and fairly high level of accuracy in spelling, punctuation and grammar. 4 Key ideas and facts are included; demonstrates some understanding and coherence using some evidence and examples. Where appropriate, brief reference may be made to alternative views and / or scholarly opinion. Limited knowledge and understanding of connections with other elements of the course of study are demonstrated. 3 A summary of key points. Limited in depth or breadth. Answer may show limited understanding and limited relevance. Some coherence The main issue is addressed with some supporting evidence or argument, but the reasoning is faulty, or the analysis superficial or only one view is adequately considered. Little of the response is related to the broader context and to human experience. A basic attempt to justify a point of view relevant to the question. Some explanation of ideas and coherence Form and style of writing appropriate in some respects; some of the information is organised clearly and coherently; some appropriate and accurate use of specialist vocabulary; satisfactory legibility and level of accuracy in spelling, punctuation and grammar. 2 A superficial outline account, with little relevant material and slight signs of partial understanding, or an informed answer that misses the point of the question. 1 Isolated elements of partly accurate information little related to the question A superficial response to the question with some attempt at reasoning. A few basic points, with no supporting argument or justification. 0 Nothing of relevance. 0 No attempt to engage with the question or nothing of relevance Little clarity and organisation; little appropriate and accurate use of specialist vocabulary; legibility and level of accuracy in spelling, punctuation and grammar barely adequate to make meaning clear. 3

4 Indicative content Note: This content is indicative rather than prescriptive and students are not obliged to refer to all the material contained in this mark scheme. Any legitimate answer will be assessed on its merits according to the generic levels of response. Question 1 Ontological argument and the relationship between reason and faith 0 1 Explain the strengths and weaknesses of the ontological argument. Refer to both Anselm s version of the argument and Descartes version. There is no requirement for the students to break down each strength and weakness between Descartes and Anselm. Generalised comments about the arguments with examples from each philosopher somewhere in the response will meet the requirements of the question. Strengths Anselm defines God as that than which nothing greater cannot be conceived, which is a good basis as a definition as it means that God cannot be limited in any way. Anselm s statements move logically on to the point that if God only existed in the imagination he would not meet the definition of that than which a greater cannot be conceived, so God must exist in reality too. Anselm also argues that God must exist necessarily as any contingent thing would not meet the definition of that than which nothing greater cannot be conceived. Descartes defines God as the supremely perfect being. Since humans are limited, they cannot have come up with the idea of God themselves, therefore God must have implanted the idea himself in the human brain; he is one of the innate ideas. Existence is one of God s many perfections and no being can be perfect if it does not exist (reductio ad absurdum). For Descartes existence must be a predicate of God if he doesn t exist, than he cannot be the supremely perfect being. Descartes use of the mountain and valley parallel helps to show the relationship between God and existence clearly. Weaknesses Anselm s argument is a prayer and is basically a stance of belief, not logic. If God is infinite, as that than which a greater cannot be conceived suggests, God cannot be reached, defined or otherwise explained through limited human intellect. The use of reductio ad absurdum weakens his position (some people might call this a strength). It might be possible to define anything into existence, using Gaunilo s arguments, for example, so even with Anselm s attempted development of necessary being the argument is open to attack. Descartes starting points that God must be the supremely perfect being and have given the idea himself are both based on faith. Can t go from a statement of belief to a philosophical proof. Descartes argument can be boiled down to: if God exists, then God must have existence to be supremely perfect, but this is not proof, only one option. Existence is not a predicate in the way Descartes tries to use it. Maximum Level 5 if all aspects of the question are not addressed. [30 marks] AO1 4

5 0 2 The ontological argument is about faith not reason. How far do you agree? Note: any version of the ontological argument may be used in response to this question. In support The definitions of God provided by both Anselm and Descartes are purely constructs of faith. A person has to believe in the existence of God first before they can accept these definitions. The logic of the argument is totally dependent on accepting the existence of God, as shown by Anselm s use of a prayer to God and Descartes view that the idea of God is innate. Faith is a commitment beyond proof, but some people find the argument a useful support for their existing faith. Believers might use that argument to strengthen their understanding of the nature of God and their belief in God, but non-believers question the nature of the argument, especially as a sleight of hand. Other views The argument doesn t have validity for many believers (eg Aquinas rejection of trying to define God in relation to a man-made definition, or Gaunilo s rejection of the definition applying specifically to God.) Even for those people for whom the argument is valid, eg Russell, it doesn t affect faith anyway. Some people may accept the inner logic of the argument and find it difficult to reject it as proof of the existence of God and this might lead them to a faith position. Challenges non-believers to consider if their concept of God is adequate. Both arguments are rational a priori if one accepts the premises then the conclusion must logically follow. [20 marks] AO2 5

6 Question 2 Religious language 0 3 Explain the verification and falsification principles and the differences between them. Both verification and falsification assert that religious language is meaningless. Verification states that we know the meaning of a statement if we know the conditions under which the statement is true or false. As religious statements are dealing with issues that cannot be proved either true or false, they have no meaning. Religious language cannot be classed as analytic but there are no grounds for showing the truth of religious statements so they cannot be synthetic propositions. Ayer developed the idea of strong and weak verification strong when the evidence is verified by sense experience, weak when we know the conditions under which the truth could be verified, eg future developments or historical research. However, for Ayer religious language did not fit into either category. Flew developed the falsification principle from the verification principle on the same type of basis that religious language has no inherent meaning. Falsification states that there is nothing which religious believers would allow to count against religious statements so they cannot be shown to be false. If a statement cannot be shown to be meaningful when it is negative or false, it has no meaning when it is presented in a positive form. Falsification principle depends on the negative rather than the positive approach of the verification principle to show things are meaningless. Falsification does not demand proof that a statement is true, only that we need to know what kind of evidence we would accept to reject it as false. Maximum Level 5 if all aspects are not addressed. [30 marks] AO1 6

7 0 4 The verification and falsification principles show a good understanding of the nature of religious language. Assess this claim. In support If there is no empirical proof for a religious statement, nobody can guarantee that they understand what is being referred to, as the verificationists would claim. Since religious believers will not accept evidence against the existence of God, as falsificationists show, their comments about God and religion have no meaning so they can be dismissed. Scholars like Hick use the weak verification approach to show that eschatological verification shows that talk about God is relevant and meaningful. Other views There are many types of language, including cognitive and non-cognitive. Both verification and falsification only really focus on cognitive language, not on myths, performative language. Believers usually understand each other when talking about religious matters which show that they share the same language game. Since they understand each other religious language must have meaning. Verification and falsification show a particular view of life which refuses to acknowledged the existence of God but this viewpoint is not shared by religious believers and therefore not in their use of language. While believers would accept that talking about God is very difficult because of the nature of God, it is not meaningless, despite verification and falsification. [20 marks] AO2 7

8 Question 3 Body, soul and personal identity 0 5 Explain the evidence and arguments that support the existence of the soul. Evidence Out of body experiences suggest that there is a part of the individual that is linked to the body but exists beyond the body. Visions of dead people, eg the resurrected Jesus and Mary, suggest that they continue in another life which is not limited by the body, so there must be an eternal, non-physical part of each individual. When some people report Near Death Experiences (NDEs) they refer to a feeling of separation from the body the soul looks down on the body on the operating table, etc but can float free from it, suggesting that they are made up of two elements. Some refer to meeting dead relatives in NDEs who must still exist in some way as they are recognisable and can communicate but they are not in a physical existence. The fact that the evidence is produced by people of all ages, (including under 7s who have no idea about NDEs, OBEs, etc), sexes, religions and cultures, strongly suggests that the evidence is real not just a result of wishful thinking. Ghosts. Arguments Dualism: Arguments from Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Aquinas etc. Some people refer to the existence of heavenly beings, suggesting the spiritual realm beyond the physical realm. The only way physical beings could make contact with spiritual beings is if there is some aspect of the individual that is spiritual, that is a soul. The soul might be seen as the spiritual part of an individual which is linked to the physical but which is also distinct from the physical part of the individual. Old Testament argues for the soul as well as body. Early Christian views of the immortality of the soul. [30 marks] AO1 8

9 Question 3 Body, soul and personal identity 0 6 Neither evidence nor arguments for the existence of the soul are convincing. How far do you agree? In support So-called evidence is very limited and many would be suspicious of it. Evidence from NDEs is limited and subjective. Arguments may just be wishful thinking contrast between the immortal soul and the frailty of the human body. Arguments are only arguments; they do not provide proof. Scientific and psychological theories that weaken the arguments for the existence of a soul. Other views Powerful arguments for something more than the merely physical- the whole realm of the spiritual is based on the soul. Strong sense of the individual. There are too many accounts of NDEs and other such experiences to totally discount them. Evidence comes from wide range of people including former atheists and children. Arguments from a wide range of religious faith and religious experience. Religious teachings over many cultures and many centuries argue for a soul; they cannot all be wrong. Critics of both evidence and arguments have no more validity in their arguments than supporters of an existence of the soul. [20 marks] AO2 9

10 Question 4 The problem of evil 0 7 Explain the weaknesses of Hick s vale of soul-making theodicy and process thought as solutions to the problem of evil. This may be approached in two ways. Either as an examination of the weaknesses of both or as an examination of the weaknesses of Hick and an examination of Process Thought in general. Hick s vale of soul-making theodicy There are too many discrepancies in the amount of suffering different people have to face to allow for bland generalisations like Hick offers. How can it be fair for children who are dying of starvation to be compared with people living comfortable lives and expect them all to develop their souls? People might respond in different ways to the same challenges, each of which seems valid but not necessarily soul-making. The whole idea is based on an individualistic interpretation of one verse in Genesis. There is just too much evil, both natural and moral, to allow for it to be acceptable as opportunities for people to develop. Process thought God is limited because God is contained within the created order, not omnipotent. This demands a rejection of the classical definition of God. This type of God is not worthy of worship, so for many people would have no value at all. The idea of the fellow-sufferer would remove the Christian idea of the love of God freely shown through Jesus acceptance of death to free humanity from sin and evil. If God has little choice but to suffer, the mission of Jesus has less meaning. Process thought does not guarantee the success of good in the end which raises questions about how people can face suffering with no hope of eternal happiness. There is so much suffering in the lives of the majority of people that PT cannot give anything other than a bland statement that evil exists, not that evil is under control. Maximum Level 5 if not all aspects of the question are addressed. [30 marks] AO1 10

11 Question Hick s solution to the problem of evil is more valid than process thought. Assess this claim. In support Hick s solution explains how humans have free will to grow towards God and become in the likeness of God, in a more dynamic way than PT explains free will. The idea of an epistemic distance gives humans greater freedom and respect towards God than just admitting that God is in the mix with humanity. Hick and all Irenaean theodicies insist on the full qualities of God, not removing an essential element that would deny God of true divinity in many people s eyes. The idea of soul-making gives greater significance to life and to the role of negative and evil events. Other views PT is not dependent on out-dated, medieval ideas about the nature of God. Hick s solution is at least as dependent on a variation of scripture as PT PT is based on a valid variant translation of Genesis 1:1 but Hick s solution depends on an interpretation of Genesis 1:27. A God who is not totally outside the created order and who suffers along with humanity is far more accessible for many people than the classical definition of God, etc. [20 marks] AO2 11