Teacher Resource Bank GCE Religious Studies Unit RST4A Section B Perceptions of Ultimate Reality June 2011 Examination Candidate Exemplar Work The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales (company number 3644723) and a registered charity (registered charity number 1073334). Registered address: AQA, Devas Street, Manchester M15 6EX.
2011 (June) Unit RST4A Section B Percetions of Ultimate Reality Example of Candidate s Work from the Examination Grade B 07 Examine how religious experience can be a source for knowledge about God/Ultimate Reality. (40 marks) AO1 Candidate Response Different types of religious experience tell us different things about God, some give more insight than others and some give conflicting ideas depending on different view points. However, almost all religious experiences are a source of knowledge about God or Ultimate Reality (U.R). The nature of a religious experience a personal interaction with the divine means that for the person or people involved, immediately. God s imminent and personal nature is revealed. In cases of miracles such as healing from a terminal illness (as has occurred at Lourdes) this also demonstrated God s omnibenvolence. The very fact that he has intervened shows his interest in his creation and his continuing interaction with us. This point is emphasised in the study of the Hebrew text of the Bible where the word for miracle can also be translated as sign. This clearly shows how miracles are signs of God s nature and are intended to be a source of knowledge about God or U.R. This point is also supported by the philosopher Hans Kung when he writes that it is the reality behind the narrative that is important in terms of the Bible stories telling us about God. However, the validity of miracles as a source of knowledge about God is questioned by the issue of consistency the scandal of particularity. This suggests that, because God/U.R. does not intervene on every occasion and appears to be very selective with those he helps, this gives conflicting information about his character. How can he be omnibenevolent and omnipotent if he chooses to ignore the suffering of many. Other types of religious experience also give information about God /U.R. Certain qualities of mysticism such as noetic and passive show God s/ U.R s divinity or magnificent and his power and transcendence. Different visions from different religions also help show how God/U.R expresses himself differently in different cultures. For example, Christians tend to see visions of Mary while Hindus would see Vishnu. This is merely the divine expressing itself in different forms and tells us something about his power. Near Death Experiences are also valuable sources of knowledge about God/UR. The fact that you have survived death, or experienced some sort of afterlife existence relates to the possibility of salvation or redemption to God. In the context of soul-deciding theodicy this is direct evidence of God s Grace as it is this which will save us after death. Religious experiences, can also provide great insight into the debate of an eternal or everlasting God. The fact that God can interact with the universe suggests that he is inside time/space. This suggests at an everlasting rather than eternal God, as this allows for God to act to influence events which have a beginning and an end such as religious experiences. An everlasting God is much more personal than the concept of an eternal God, however, his power seems to be limited if his existence is so intrinsically linked with the contingent universe. Religious experiences, if used as evidence for an everlasting God, seem to limit his power, and seem to cast doubt on whether he is worthy of worship. The verifiability of religious experiences also has a significant impact on how far they can be a source of knowledge about God/U.R. 1
Swinburne s principle of credulity can be used to argue that miracles should be believed to the same extent as any other experience which will also be entirely unique. This principle does stand up to some criticism and as such it seems fair to suggest that religious experiences should be believed, and could potentially be used as empirical evidence for proof of God s existence or in discussion of his characteristics. Religious experiences such as N.D.E and miracles require faith in order for the individual to accept the metaphysical explanation. However, the force of revelation of God or Ultimate Reality may cause the non-believer to experience a conversion. In this case the knowledge that is gained is the very existence of God himself. Even in the case of one who already believes. Faith can be strengthened and religious experiences can be used as rational, empirical support for belief. The healing at Lourdes have been used to counter Hume s criticism that all miracles are experienced only by those who are ill-educated and that sufficient documentation is significantly lacking. The 66 healings at Lourdes which have be verified by scientists and doctors have helped to provide strong empirical evidence against these claims, and to support the view that miracles are a revelation of God s power and love. Other public religious experiences also give knowledge about God/U.R for example the Eucharist. The transformation for the wine and bread reminds the congregation of the ongoing covenant with God and reminds us of his love and sacrificial nature (Jesus, after he renewed the covenant, sacrificed himself for the redemption of man). However, one main criticism of religious experiences as a source of knowledge about God/U.R is that the personal nature of many such as miracles makes them largely inaccessible. It is true that for the individual that experiences the event, may truths about God/U.R s existence and character are revealed. However, for those who have not themselves had such an experience, religious experiences may not be a source of knowledge at all, as it may seem too subjective for them to base any beliefs about God/U.R on. For some, religious experiences give no knowledge of God/UR, however, for those who have experienced a miracle, vision or N.D.E themselves or who follow the principle of credulity and take the testimony of others as true, religious experience can be a source of great insight. They can demonstrate God s love, power, transcendence, immanence and personal involvement better then anything else. Commentary A level 6 answer, represented by a mark of 40. It is a good length for the time available (around 950 words). The opening statement is very focused and promises much for the rest of the answer. The information is well-selected and accurate. There are a number of places where statements are made that needed some development for example certain qualities of mysticism such as noetic and passive show God s divinity or magnificent (sic) and his power and transcendence. This is not a self explanatory statement but is presented as such. There is a good range of ideas and some very impressive unpacking of some ideas such as the idea of the everlasting God, even though the contrasting idea of an eternal God is not explicitly stated. 2
08 The personal nature of any religious experience means that it has no value beyond the individual. How far do you agree? (30 marks) AO2 Candidate Response The first point of contension with this claim is that religious experiences are not entirely personal but can be objective. This is according to Hume s definition of miracles as a transgression of a law of Nature by a particular volition of the deity or the interposition of some other invisible agent, which seems to allow for on objective miracle where a law of nature literally is broken by God/U.R. However, the nature of this definition (natural laws being descriptive and therefore impossible to break) means that this argument is fundamentally logically flawed and the first part of the claim must be agreed to be true religious experiences are indeed personal and therefore subjective. Having accepted that religious experiences are entirely subjective, is seems a strong argument to say that they have no value beyond the individual. This is according to the principle of Testimony which suggests that a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence (Hume) from which Hume goes on to say there will never be enough evidence (unless it is more mirculous that a miracle did not happen) and as such, testimony of religious experieces should not be accepted. However, this is a relatively weak argument as (although it seems logical and is accredited to a recognised philosopher). Hume himself does not appear to be proportioning his belief to the evidence he is dismissing miracles and religious experiences from the start. Swinburne argues that as all experiences are unique, the strongness of religious experiences cannot be used to differentiate between them and normal experiences as all experiences are 100% subjective and entirely different from each other anyway. As such, religious experiences should be treated with the same degree of scepticism as everyday experiences and no more. This relates to the principle of Credulity that if there is no reason to doubt a testimony, then it should be believed. As such, religious experiences should be taken as true, in certain circumstances and can indeed be valuable for others apart from the individual. This argument is strong as it stems from logical thinking as it recognises the subjective nature of all experiences, not just religious ones and it is with this irrefutable fact that the principle of Credulity is supported to reach the conclusion that religious experiences can have value beyond the individual. However, the idea of evidence to support religious experiences has been criticised. Persinger s helmet was used to stimulate religious experiences and this false simulation seems to weaken the argument that there is indeed empirical evidence for religious experiences. This experiment seemed relatively damning as it undermined all religious experiences with clear scientific data. As such, many people were persuaded that religious experiences have no value beyond the individual. Another criticism of the Principle of credulity is the ineffable quality of mysticism. This surely means that the experience cannot be expressed and as such cannot be communicated to others, meaning that it has no value beyond the individual. Although this critcism only addresses one type of religious experience it is strong as it is clear and logical and demonstrates how mysticism is bound to the individual by its very nature. Finally it can be argued that the personal nature of religious experiences gives them value for non-believers who can use them as examples of the subjective and unverifiable nature of belief. This is an extremely valid point as this idea is practiced in reality and there are several strong, scientific criticisms of personal, religious experiences which would appeal to the more ardent athiests. 3
The personal nature of religious experience has no value beyond the individual only if you follow Humes Principle of Testimony. However, this leads you down a blind alley route and is not practised in everyday life. More practical is the Principle of Credulity which does allow value for others as such the claim is largely false R.Es have great value for those beyond the individual. Commentary This is a level 4 answer, represented by a mark of 17. There is some reference to the value of religious experience but little developed treatment of it. The focus on miracle is confused particularly in the first paragraph where the reasoning does not support the conclusion reached. The key problem in using miracles as an example of religious experience is that the debate about whether the event happened or not, does not involve the key issue of if they happened were they a religious experience? There is no explicit attention to the value that other people s experiences do have in religion. 4
Grade A 07 Examine how religious experience can be a source for knowledge about God/Ultimate Reality. (45 marks) AO1 Candidate Response A religious experience is an experience which happens to a person either spontaneously or from a long period of meditation, it is not seen as a substitution for God but a vehicle, they are encouraging and do not condemn the experiencer, they are mental events and therefore non-empirical making it hard for others to understand. They can be seen as a source of knowledge from God as they bring the experient closer to God through new knowledge of God. Revelations are the experiences which provide the most literal source of knowledge from God, they can be either extrovertive, gaining knowledge about the outside world, or introvertive, gaining knowledge about yourself. Revelations come in either a propositional or non-propositional form. A non-propositional revelation is not direct knowledge from God but rather a deeper understanding of him, or oneself, usually after a long period of meditation, a propositional revelation is the most direct of knowledge from God, this comes in the form of a proposition or commandment directly from God. Examples of this would be the 10 commandments being given to Moses, or the Qu ran being told to Mohammed. Davis says there are five features of a revelation; they are of short duration, new knowledge is acquired immediately, new knowledge is acquired from God, the new knowledge is known with utter conviction and that is often hard to put into words (ineffability) Thompson adds that it is seen as a gift from God, and that it is so powerful that the recipient is unlikely to be dissuaded. A revelation is a source of knowledge from God as it reveals God s nature in some way, can also reveal a commandment from God. Another form of religious experience is a mystical experience. Happold splits these in two, mystical experiences of love which come from loneliness and a desire to feel closer to God, and mystical experiences of knowledge which come from a desire to know more about our God. There are four features of a mystical experience; new knowledge acquired about God, sense of oneness with the divine, freedom from space and time and serenity and bliss, William James also says there are four qualities; noetic it is supernatural transiency, it does not last more than an hour or so, passivity feeling as though there is no time and ineffability it is almost impossible to put into words. Mystical experiences offer us insight into the deeper meaning of God, such as St John of the cross who put his experiences in poetry as he felt there were no words to describe it. He found that God was loving and cared and suffered with everyone, this kind of insight can be seen as an important source of knowledge about God. Thirdly, there are visions as a source of knowledge about God. There are three types of visions; an intellectual vision which comes from long periods of reflection and offers new found insight to God s nature, e.g. St John offers an imaginary vision, which is a vision seen in your minds eye which brings a closer understanding of God e.g. Julian of Norwich (she claimed to have had 16 in one day) and finally a corporal vision, this is a vision which is external from the mind, something which can be seen, e.g. St Bernadette saw the virgin Mary appear to her at Lourdes. These are sources of knowledge of God in that they bring a greater understanding of him, for example Julian of Norwich had an imaginary vision of a hazelnut, the hazelnut was the world and God loved the world indiscriminately and unconditionally, this in a time of plague and peasants revolutions was a remarkable and very important knowledge of God. 5
Finally, there is the experiece of a conversion, there are two types of conversions voluntary, which happens over a long period of time and is a voluntary action of the convert and involuntary which is something sudden which made them see God and convert e.g. Paul on the road to Damascus and the beam of light and voice which told him to become a Christian, he then become arguably the most important Christian ever in humanity. I think a conversion in itself is a source of knowledge about God. It tells us that he wants to save everyone and will intervene in our lives to do so, showing the love and care God has for us. Some would say however that religious experience cannot be a source for knowledge about God as it can be explained through psychological means. Ramachandran did an experiment which tested to see if religious experiences were a reaction to temporal lobe epilepsy, a harmless condition that some people are born with, he found that those with the condition responded more strongly (through sweating etc) to religious imagery than those without the condition. Persinger, another psychologist conducted a test where he stimulated the temporal lobe to see if he could induce a religious experience, over 90% of his experiments caused some sort of religious experience within the patients. Ramanchandran does say however, that the temporal lobe may have been made in this way so that God may communicate with us. A religious experience is a good source of knowledge of God in that it gives us more insight into his deeper nature, however it can also give us the word of God, in the case of a revelation, which is an extremely important source of knowledge as it is what many religions are based on, e.g. Islam, Buddhism and the 10 commandments in Christianity. Commentary This answer is JUST worthy of a level 6 mark represented by a mark of 36. It is more focused on the range of religious experiences than on how they bring knowledge of God which means that some of the answer is poorly focused. Even the examples (e.g the ten commandments) are not all focused on God. On the positive side, some sections are well-focused (e.g the section on Julian of Norwich) and in general the candidate does remain focused on the question. 6
08 The personal nature of any religious experience means that it has no value beyond the individual. How far do you agree? (30 marks) AO2 Candidate Response I think that the value of a religious experience does not lie in its personal nature but in its credibility to others. Religious experiences are often ineffable, and cannot be put into words, this makes it difficult to be valuable to others, however they have been known to create big events which change lives. The argument that it has no value beyond the individual is argued on the lines that they are mental events, no one else can see them, therefore making it impossible to verify empirically. It also means that they are almost impossible to put into words, making it hard to show others how it made you feel, so it has little value to them. Another argument is that all the experiences vary too much, if they were more conformed people may listen, but as they are all so different, people can easily discredit it, making it hard to convince people each experience is personal and unique to that one person. Often religious experiences happen to those who are already religious, this makes it hard to have any value as they were already influenced by their religion, and therefore cannot express their experience in a way which would have meaning, especially to those outside of the religion. Religious experiences can be interpreted in non-religious ways, they are most likely to be interpreted in a psychological way. Freud called them neurotic illusions, while people are so sure they are all in their heads how can they have any value to anyone but the individual. Ramanchandran did an experiment believing that religious experiences were caused by temporal lobe epilepsy, he found that those with the condition reacted far more strongly to religious imagery (sweating etc) than those who do not have the condition. Persinger conducted an experiment also, in which he believed that he could create a religious experience in almost anyone by stimulating the temporal lobe, in 90% of his patients he caused some sort of religious experience using this technique. Although this does not prove that they have no value beyond themselves (as Ramanchadran said God may have made us this way so as to communicate with us) it does make people less believable when they have a religious experience. Dawkins argues that that the fact that he knows God does not exist proves that religious experiences have no value at all let alone beyond the individual. Many argue that they have no value as people just don t believe them, even within religion they are treated carefully, it took 13 years for the catholic church to validate the fatima apparitions. How can they have value if no one believes in them?. On the other hand however, there have been many examples where a religious experience has had a lot of value beyond the individual. The pragmatic theory argues that whole religions are based on religious experiences e.g. Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam. Therefore these experiences obviously had value beyond the individual. Religious experiences of being healed effect all the people around them as they can see evidence of it. Visions also have this effect as you can see the effect it has in people e.g. Bernadette at Lourdes who saw virgin Mary was made a saint. Many people believe the inductive theory that if you experience something that proves it exists, people see someone experiencing God and it has value as they believe it proves God s existence. 7
People do believe those who have religions experiences due to the principle testimony and principle of credulity, this is the idea that we should take the world as we see it, people don t tend to lie, especially religious people and up to 40% of the world have said to have had a religious experience so why should we ignore it when we have no evidence to the contrary. Julian of Norwich s visions have become famous since, she was the first women in the country to have a book published, in which she wrote about her religious experiences, people came from all over just to see her and hear her wisdom and experiences of God. This clearly had value much beyond her. St John of the cross also shared his experience through poetry, he has churches named after him, he is world known for his religious experience. Hindu examples of this would include Sri Rama Krishna who is said to have had great insights into the nature of God through meditation (revelation) and he inspired many people, especially Vivekananda his student who then spread the message of Hinduism across the world and created the Rama Krishna mission in his name. Muribai (sic) also had a religious mystical experience in which she was so overcome with joy she would dance on the street. Her heart is said to have melted into krishna s (the quatar) people pilgrimage to her birth and death place believing her to have experienced God in such a powerful way, they want to feel it. These examples show that religious experience has had value beyond the individual. Overall, I would conclude that while many see religious experience as not real and not provable it does not mean it has no value to anyone outside of the person who experienced it, the personal nature of these experiences do not stop the experiencer from trying to explain, and certainly in the case of a revelation, a religious experience can create a religion. Many people see these experiences as proof of God s existence and love. They give them hope when God cannot be seen, because you can feel him, it is encouraging to know he is there even if it is not your own experience. Commentary This is a level 6 answer represented by a mark of 26. It is well-focused and discusses a range of views although others are simply stated. A more polished answer (one not done under examination conditions for example) might have left out some of the ideas and treated selected ones in more depth. The final paragraph provides an effective conclusion to the wide ranging debate. 8
Grade A* 05 Examine the views of both Marx and Freud on the role of the concept of God and on the influence of the concept of God on society. (45 marks) AO1 Candidate Response Marx and Freud were both secular thinkers who held a deep antagonism towards religion. Both were confirmed atheists before they produced their major psychological and sociopolitical theses and both sought to do away with the concept of God. In this sense, both Marx and Freud viewed the role of God and its influence on society as one of oppression; Marx believed the concept of God oppressed whole sections of society, whilst Freud concentrated more on the damaging effect it had on the individual. The concept of God, Marx thought, was controlled and manipulated by the ruling class, or bourgeoisie, in order to oppress the proletariat. The purpose of this oppression was to maintain the unjust social and economic conditions of the capitalist society. Marxist communism has its roots in Marx s disgust with the class gap that he saw in 19 th Century Europe and he saw the concept of God as a tool used to maintain this gap. The proletariat were in need of an illusion to distract them or at least numb the pain of their unjust situation and the concept of God and religion fulfilled the role of a social painkiller. The Bible promises blessed are the meek for they should inherit the Earth and it is these kind of statements that the ruling classes use to oppress the workers. The concept of God highlights these inequalities but it maintains them by offering and illusory solution, and it is this that led Marx to decide religion and God as the opiate of the masses. Marx believed that when the advent of socialism arrived which it inevitably would, as he traced history on an unstoppable path from feudalism to capitalism to socialism the role of the concept of God would become redundant. The classless utopia of a communist society would, he thought, have no need for a fool that serves only to keep the proletariat poor. Marx claimed that the desire to dispel the illusion (the concept of God) was nothing more than the desire to get rid of the conditions that made such an illusion necessary, namely capitalism. From this we can see that Marx believed the role of the concept of God to be that of the socio-economic oppressor and opiate. The influence of the concept of God in society was profound, Marx suggested. It was a tool that kept society unjust and class-based and as such was a stumbling block for the inevitable arrival of socialism. 19 th Century Europe, in which Marx studied, was deeply religious and there was, especially in Britain where Marx lived, a deep class divide. It is not hard to see how Marx connected the two and revealed the conclusion that the concept of God had a strong and negative influence on society. Freud was perhaps the first man to demonstrate that psychology was a discipline of intellectual rigour rather than an unsubstantiated and unscientific theory. His ideas about the concept of God were entirely negative and he saw the role that such a concept had as one of damaging mental health. For Freud, the concept of God was a method of man suppressing guilt that arose when the demands of the id were themselves suppressed. He argued that this role evolved from the times when humans lived in primeval hordes. These hordes he believed, were demonstrated by an alpha male, who was killed and eaten by other males. Taboos arose eventually, as did totems, and these were a way of expressing and dealing with guilt. Eventually these totems evolved into the more complex concepts of the deity that we have now, but the role remains the same: a mechanism to suppress guilt. Freud was able to transplant this idea onto Christianity which is conveniently based on the killing of the Father the crucifixion the partaking of his flesh through the Eucharist and the guilt that comes afterwards, in the form of penitence for sinning. 9
Freud s reductonist approach can be traced back to his belief in the universality of the Oedipus complex, which states that men are attracted to their mother and resentful towards their father. Whatever roots, Freud s view on the role of God was negative. He saw this guilt mechanism as actually maintaining and exacerbating mental health rather than curing it. The concept of God acts as a safety blanket against the fundamental desires of the id suppressed by the ego and suffering but it is a safety blanket that only temporarily covers up the problem rather than resolving it. Freud saw the influence of this concept of God in society as profound. He arrived at his thesis through hours and hours of time with mental health patients. The neurosis they suffered were the same that he saw in religious people and it is this concept of neurosis that finally encapsulates the Freudian view of the influence of God on society. For Freud, the concept of God damaged society by exacerbating mental anguish under the guise of forgiving guilt and instilling life with meaning. Commentary Level 7 Represented by a mark of 42. It is a short, concise, answer, which is clearly foused on the question and lacks only a little development to achieve full marks. For example, reference might have been made to Marx s idea that by attributing perfections to God, humanity persuades itself that it cannot achieve them and should not aspire towards them. 06 Religion has no satisfactory answer to the challenges of secular thinkers about God/Ultimate Reality. Assess this claim. (30 marks) AO2 Candidate Response To examine the response of religion to the challenges made by secular thinkers it is necessary to decide what is meant by satisfactory. The fact is that whilst some of the charges made by secular thinkers have stuck, religion has been able to respond in earnest to the more antagonistic views. Satisfactory must be taken to mean a response successfully defends the challenges, and in this sense the statement must be refuted. Religion has responded to the views of Marx and Freud in action as well as in word and does not really need to defend itself against Jung, Feuerbach and Durkheim because neither of their views are wholly incompatible with a religious concept of God and they don t come close to successfully disproving the objective existence of a deity. The religious response to Marx has been anything other than unsatisfactory. It is undoubtedly true that religion has, at times, been a tool of oppression against the working classes. In this sense, religion seems to have no answer to Marx s critique, but religion has in fact responded by progressing in a way that Marx didn t believe it could; a fault that shows the statement is incorrect. But first it is necessary to examine how religion could respond to the many flaws in Marx s theory that really blunt his attack. Marx was a materialist and yet his communist utopia is concerned with metaphysical ideals such as freedom and creativity. Similarly he seems to be replacing one concept of God with another, socialism and this can be seem most acutely when the socialist world was ruled over by Stalin. These points suggest that Marx s challenge doesn t even merit a response. However, religion has successfully responded by actively seeking justice and equality in the face of oppressive Marxism. John Paul II played a crucial role in Poland in defeating the oppression of the USSR and liberating the people, whilst the recent rise of the Russian Orthodox church from the ashes of the Soviet Union suggests that contrary to Marx s challenge, religion and socialism have swapped roles. Religion is now the champion of the poor and of equality, whilst socialism is a tool of oppression. 10
Feuerbach s views on the concept of God may deny the objective existence of God, but strangely, they are not wholly incompatible with religious belief. His view that God is a projection of the best of humanity and a fusion of the divine and the human can be linked, it could be argued with the religious idea that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. Durkheim, for example, would say that this idea is absurd, but advances in quantum mechanics suggest that it is not wholly ridiculous to say two seemingly opposing things are both true. Although this is tenuous it is not completely ridiculous, and as such, religion can be said to have responded to the challenges made by Feuerbach. Freud and Durkeim are two secular thinkers who try to explain the origin of belief in God and thereby negate the need for it. Freud may be correct in suggesting that belief in God is a way of dealing with guilt just as Durkeim may be correct in saying that religions belief is a way of dealing with guilt, just as Durkheim may be correct in saying that religious belief is a way to bind society together and give it rule and order. Religion cannot really respond to these ideas, suggesting the statement must be affirmed, but the point is that religion is not trying to respond to them. Religious belief is concerned with something entirely different, trust, faith and love. Freud, Marx and Durkheim miss the point when they try to explain away the origins of belief. For many people faith is about an authentic leap into the dark (as suggested by Kierkegaard) and this, to an extent, is not incompatible with the existentialism of athiest writers such as Sartre or Camus. Besides, as Tillich points out in his work on religious symbols, such symbols (like the totem in Freud and Durkheim) develop over time. Belief in primeval hordes may be as Freud or Durkheim suggest, but it is not this way anymore, thus the statement is refuted. The point is that religion is concerned with faith and trust and in attempting to destroy this, Marx and Freud have fundamentally misunderstood it. Mitchell s Stranger parable is useful here in showing how authentic trust is key as opposed to Marx s materialism. This opens up the debate on faith and reason and seems to affirm Tertullian s question of what Athens has to do with Jerusalem. This suggests that the statement has to be incorrect as these secular thinkers have fundamentally misunderstood the concept of God. Religious language is relevant here too. As mentioned, Mitchell s strange parable and fusion of trust and cognitive reality works equally well in responding to the rigid positivism of Ayer and Flew. These two seek to show that talking about God Ultimate Reality is meaningless, but Hick undermines Ayer and Mitchell highlighs the flaw of such a rigid way of thinking. Once again, religion has responded successfully to the challenges posed by secular thinkers. It seems, therefore, that the statement that religion has no satisfactory response must be rejected. Not only can religion point out numerous holes in these secular theses particularly in Marx and Freud but it can also claim that it has been fundamentally misunderstood. These secular thinkers have attempted to use science to understand or undermine something that is concerned with the metaphysical, an endeavour which, however admirable in its intentions, is bound to fail. Commentary Level 7 full marks. Under examination conditions it would be unreasonable to require any more. 11