OCR_A Level Religious Studies _H573/01 Mark Scheme Oct 2021 | Philosophy of Religion

GCE

Religious Studies

H573/01: Philosophy of religion

Advanced GCE

Mark Scheme for Autumn 2021

Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations

OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA) is a leading UK awarding body, providing a wide range of

qualifications to meet the needs of candidates of all ages and abilities. OCR qualifications

include AS/A Levels, Diplomas, GCSEs, Cambridge Nationals, Cambridge Technicals,

Functional Skills, Key Skills, Entry Level qualifications, NVQs and vocational qualifications in

areas such as IT, business, languages, teaching/training, administration and secretarial skills.

It is also responsible for developing new specifications to meet national requirements and the

needs of students and teachers. OCR is a not-for-profit organisation; any surplus made is

invested back into the establishment to help towards the development of qualifications and

support, which keep pace with the changing needs of today’s society.

This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and students, to indicate the requirements

of the examination. It shows the basis on which marks were awarded by examiners. It does not

indicate the details of the discussions which took place at an examiners’ meeting before marking

commenced.

All examiners are instructed that alternative correct answers and unexpected approaches in

candidates’ scripts must be given marks that fairly reflect the relevant knowledge and skills

demonstrated.

Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the published question papers and the report

on the examination.

© OCR 2021

H573/01 Mark Scheme October 2021

2

Indicative content – Responses might include: Guidance

1. Evaluate Tillich’s approach to religious language.

AO1 Candidates may demonstrate knowledge and understanding

through the use of some of the following materials:

• Tillich’s view that religious statements ought not to be

understood literally but should be interpreted as being

symbolic

• his approach was that religious language can be understood

best using the same process that applies when understanding

the significance of symbols

• a symbol, for Tillich, participates in that to which it points – for

example, a flag participates in the honour of the nation it

represents; in the same way, a linguistic symbol participates at

a deeper level in the ultimate reality to which it points

• for Tillich, God is not spoken of literally, even in terms of the

name ‘God’ – all that can be said directly is that God is ‘Being

itself’ or ‘the Ground of Being’

• symbolic words are not established randomly but from the

sense of collective unconscious shared by the community –

and, as such, symbolic significance can alter over time

• a symbol transcends factual information and unlocks levels of

reality both about God and about ourselves – in a similar

manner to works of art.

AO2 Candidates may demonstrate evaluation and analysis through

the use of some of the following arguments.

• Some candidates might argue that Tillich’s approach to

religious language is strong because:

o by removing language from the literal, the ultimate and

ineffable nature of God is maintained

o it successfully develops prior attempts to understand

religious language because it removes God from human

spheres (unlike, for example, Aquinas’ analogy)

o it corresponds to the human understanding that there is

more to life than words can fully describe – such as art,

beauty and love

o it allows religious language to be understood, like all

language, to be continually evolving

o it successfully explains why non-religious people find it

difficult to understand and engage with religious

assertions

o it allows the symbolic to comprise different levels of

meaning for different people, thus acknowledging that

there are many ways to access or understand God.

• Some candidates might argue that Tillich’s approach to

religious language is weak because:

Some may compare

Tillich’s views of

religious language with

other cognitive or noncognitive approaches.

This is creditable where

the focus remains on

evaluating Tillich.

H573/01 Mark Scheme October 2021

3

Indicative content – Responses might include: Guidance

o the link between the symbol and that to which it points (or

in which it participates) is unclear

o religious statements are fundamentally different to art,

beauty and love because they seek to convey truth

o Tillich’s attempt to retain a sense in which religious

language is cognitive is contradicted by his focus on deep

understanding

o if symbolic language can change over time then there is

nothing to say that human understanding of God is

currently accurate

o if God is to be understood as ‘Being itself’, it is not clear

how symbols participate in this Being in any way that is

unique.

• Some candidates may combine these views and argue that

while Tillich’s approach is internally coherent and provides a

useful understanding of the language of the believer, by

removing it from the realms of fact, this understanding makes

the status of any religious statement questionable.

H573/01 Mark Scheme October 2021

4

Indicative content – Responses might include: Guidance

2. ‘Divine power is not limited’. Discuss.

AO1 Candidates may demonstrate knowledge and understanding

through the use of some of the following materials:

• the range of possible definitions of ‘divine power’ or

‘omnipotence’

• Anselm’s approach that divine power means that God has

unlimited power but God’s other attributes ensure that God

does not do things such as lie

• the view that God can only do what is logically possible and

what is logically possible for God would include not changing

the past and not sinning

• Swinburne’s approach that understanding God in the context

of logical possibility can be understood because God not

making a square circle is not possible because a square circle

is not a thing

• the suggestion that God has ‘self-limited’ in creating a limited

universe, perhaps only within the bounds of time

• exploration of relevant Scripture that shows a monotheistic

God’s power either as omnipotent or as almighty.