MARK SCHEME – A-LEVEL RELIGIOUS STUDIES – 7062/1 – JUNE 2021

Levels of Response: 10 marks A-Level – AO1 Level 5 9–10 • Knowledge and critical understanding is accurate, relevant and fully developed in breadth and depth with very good use of detailed and relevant evidence which may include textual/scriptural references where appropriate • Where appropriate, good knowledge and understanding of the diversity of views and/or scholarly opinion is demonstrated • Clear and coherent presentation of ideas with precise use of the appropriate subject vocabulary Level 4 7–8 • Knowledge and critical understanding is accurate and mostly relevant with good development in breadth and depth shown through good use of relevant evidence which may include textual/scriptural references where appropriate • Where appropriate, alternative views and/or scholarly opinion are explained • Mostly clear and coherent presentation of ideas with good use of the appropriate subject vocabulary Level 3 5–6 • Knowledge and critical understanding is generally accurate and relevant with development in breadth and/or depth shown through some use of evidence and/or examples which may include textual/scriptural references where appropriate • Where appropriate, there is some familiarity with the diversity of views and/or scholarly opinion • Some organisation of ideas and coherence with reasonable use of the appropriate subject vocabulary Level 2 3–4 • Knowledge and critical understanding is limited, with limited development in breadth and/or depth shown through limited use of evidence and/or examples which may include textual/scriptural references where appropriate • Where appropriate, limited reference may be made to alternative views and/or scholarly opinion • Limited organisation of ideas and coherence and use of subject vocabulary Level 1 1–2 • Knowledge and critical understanding is basic with little or no development • There may be a basic awareness of alternative views and/or scholarly opinion • Isolated elements of accurate and relevant information and basic use of appropriate subject vocabulary 0 • No accurate or relevant material to credit Levels of Response: 15 marks A-Level – AO2 Level 5 13–15 • A very well-focused response to the issue(s) raised • Perceptive discussion of different views, including, where appropriate, those of scholars or schools of thought with critical analysis • There is an appropriate evaluation fully supported by the reasoning • Precise use of the appropriate subject vocabulary Level 4 10–12 • A well-focused response to the issue(s) raised • Different views are discussed, including, where appropriate, those of scholars or schools of thought, with some critical analysis • There is an appropriate evaluation supported by the reasoning • Good use of the appropriate subject vocabulary Level 3 7–9 • A general response to the issue(s) raised • Different views are discussed, including, where appropriate, those of scholars or schools of thought • An evaluation is made that is consistent with some of the reasoning • Reasonable use of the appropriate subject vocabulary Level 2 4–6 • A limited response to the issue(s) raised • Presentation of a point of view relevant to the issue with some supporting evidence and argument • Limited attempt at the appropriate use of subject vocabulary Level 1 1–3 • A basic response to the issue(s) raised • A point of view is stated, with some evidence or reason(s) in support • Some attempt at the appropriate use of subject vocabulary 0 • No accurate or relevant material to credit 0 1 . 1 Examine the logical problem of evil and how it influences people’s belief in God. [10 marks] Target: AO1.2: Knowledge and understanding of religion and belief including influence of beliefs, teachings and practices on individuals, communities and societies. Note: This content is indicative rather than prescriptive and students are not obliged to refer to all the material contained in the mark scheme. Any legitimate answer will be assessed on its merits according to the generic levels of response. The logical problem of evil is formed by putting together three statements: God is omnipotent; God is omnibenevolent; evil exists. Taken together, these statements lead to a logical inconsistency: an omnipotent God would be able to remove evil; an omnibenevolent God would wish to remove evil; yet evil exists. There seems to be a contradiction here: if God is both able and willing to remove evil, then evil should not exist. Many people believe that a God who allows evil is not worthy of worship, so is not really God. Some people are influenced in this way to deny that God is allpowerful. For example, Process theologians believe that God exists panentheistically with the universe, and cannot be separated from matter, so God’s power is limited by matter, which has the ability to resist God. Some reject this, arguing that a limited God is not worthy of being believed in or worshipped. Others prefer to argue that God allows evil to exist because a universe with evil in it is of more value than a universe without evil. Some are influenced to accept one or more versions of the free will defence, which argues that freedom is a higher order good: if God compelled people to believe in him, then this kind of belief would be worthless. Some might accept Hick’s soul-making theodicy: God allows evil to exist because being at an epistemic distance from God allows people to choose God and the good freely. Maximum Level 3 if only one aspect is covered. 0 1 . 2 The design argument fails to prove the existence of God.’ Evaluate this claim. Target: AO2: Analyse and evaluate aspects of, and approaches to, religion and belief, including their significance, influence and study. Note: This content is indicative rather than prescriptive and students are not obliged to refer to all the material contained in the mark scheme. Any legitimate answer will be assessed on its merits according to the generic levels of response. Note that answers may, but need not, be limited to consideration of the following specification content: Paley’s analogical argument; criticisms: Hume. Answers may present, analyse and evaluate some of the following arguments: The design argument is inductive, so is an argument based on probability rather than proof, and in that sense cannot prove the existence of God; so even if Paley’s watchmaker exists, the argument cannot prove that the watchmaker is God. However, some argue that an inductive argument is as close to a proof as humans can achieve. Design arguments in general make a convincing case, for example those based on the anthropic principle and the fine-tuning argument. Hume puts forward a series of convincing arguments to show that the design argument fails. For example, he comments that the universe is more like a vegetable than a machine, and this is backed up by evolutionary theory in which nature designs itself without reference to God. However, evolution does not explain itself. Its processes are dependent on the laws of physics, biology and chemistry, and those laws may depend on the existence of a higher being, God. Hume suggested that the cause of the appearance of design in the universe needs only to be proportional to the effect. Even if the universe appears to be designed, there is too much evil in the world for the designer to be the omnibenevolent God of classical theism. However, others argue that