Five Things 2014`s A2 Philosophy Of Religion Candidates Should Know

The examiners` report on last summer`s A2 G581 Philosophy of Religion paper tells us quite a lot about what the OCR board expects from candidates` answers and, equally importantly, what they most dislike. I will try and highlight a few of the key areas where students may seek to strengthen, and pitfalls they might seek to avoid.

(The report itself is available here: http://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/145279-examiners-reports-june.pdf)

1. Don`t attempt "to answer questions different from those set".

Answer the question the board has set, not the one you wish had come up!

EXAMPLE: This year`s question on Religious Language was: "`Symbolic language is the best way to talk about God.` Discuss."

The main problem the examiner`s highlighted was that too many candidates were far too broad-brush in their approach, they knew about "Aquinas, Via Negativa, Verification and Falsification principles and Language Games but too many knew little on Tillich and symbol." This then was a question where the examiners evidently wanted candidates to talk about the theories of Paul Tillich - and with some nuance - but found that too many discussed just about every theory of religious language under the sun.

Look out for key words. "Symbolic language" is a dead give-away it is at the core of Tillich`s theory. That said, the examiner`s weren`t expecting candidates to entirely ignore other aspects of

2. Avoid "indifferent use of English" and make sure to pay "attention to the grammar of philosophical argument".

This is really a point about clarity. The examiners want to see candidates demonstrate an advanced understanding of the topics covered if they are to award top marks, and this requires a degree of linguistic precision. This holds for any subject with a substantial written component sloppy English inevitably results in a sloppy essay. If this is a problem for you then there are only really two remedies: read more and write more. Try to write any revision notes in good English, and pay attention to how arguments are presented in your reading material.

3. Avoid inserting irrelevant material. This is similar to the first point but is worth re-iterating: examiners will not be impressed if you decide to veer away from the question set and begin to talk in detail about another aspect of the course. This is not just a test of what you know but also how you reason.

EXAMPLE: The fourth question last year was `Critically assess Wiles` view of miracles.` The examiners found that many candidates briefly mentioned Wiles `before asserting Hume`s superiority and spending most of the time explaining Hume`, the report goes on to say that that `these responses often lacked critical analysis, and remained in the safety of descri ption` and that `the most disappointing answers were from those who knew a great deal about the topic of miracles but nothing about Wiles`. The point here is that while Hume and thinkers such as R.F. Holland are relevant to the question, their ideas must be used as tools to assess Wiles, not the other way round.

4. Revise the entire specification.

Although you may not plan to answer questions on certain topics, it is helpful to have a working understanding of the entire course just in case a question comes up which dovetails two or more aspects of the course. Last year the third question was "`The existence of evil cannot be justified if there is no life after death.` Discuss.", a statement which requires knowledge of both theodicies and the afterlife. It is also worth noting that occasionally the paper sometimes hone in on more difficult or obscure aspects of the syllabus, such as Tillich on symbolic language or Wiles on miracles. Being able to talk about these in detail and with skilful evaluation, when many other candidates may fall into the pitfalls listed above, will surely set in you good stead for high marks.

5. Try to understand how the course fits together.

This is especially important for questions which broach two topics but is also useful for injecting a little creativity into your essay.

The examiners` report remarks that when answering the question "`The existence of evil cannot be justified if there is no life after death.` Discuss." `the majority of responses seemed to be answers two halves - theodicies in one half and some thoughts on the afterlife in the other half.` The problem was that many candidates were unable to connect the dots between the two topics. An essay responding to this question should at some point tell us why the afterlife is relevant to the existence of evil, which many simply failed to do.

Seeing the connections between topics will also broaden your analytical capabilities more generally, although you must always take care not to conflate separate arguments and thinkers.