Understanding the Eduqas RS markscheme Two Assessment Objectives

Understanding the Eduqas RS markscheme

Two Assessment Objectives

5 Bands of Response

5 Bands of Response A*/A B/C C/D D/E U

AO 1 Knowledge and Understanding

How far have you focused on selecting exactly the relevant content for this question?

How well does this show advanced level knowledge and understanding? Is it accurate and relevant? Do you show understanding, or do you make mistakes which show a lack of understanding?

Do you use technical vocabulary and key terms wherever possible? Do you use it correctly?

Do you draw on evidence from the Bible, creeds or church leaders?

Do you use accurate evidence to develop your points (e. g. statistics)? Do you show your understanding through well-chosen examples?

Do you show knowledge and understanding of the views of scholars and specific schools of thought? (e. g. Logical Positivism, Redaction Criticism)

Do you make brief relevant connections to other areas of this paper or other papers from the course?

Analyzing an answer Caroline Franks-Davis in her work ‘The Fundamental Force of Religious Experience’ explains three key ideas which question the validity and authenticity of religious experience. She also uses the work of Darwin, RF Holland Dawkins to help further express her ideas. Firstly she explains descriptive related challenges which is where the story is inconsistent or contradictory. It cannot be deemed to be liable. Franks-Davis expresses the fact that there must be some type of evidence which directly refers to the experience and allows it to make sense. Davis says that religious experiences are just misunderstandings and misconceptions. Davis gets this idea from scholar RF Holland which quotes ‘Religious experiences are just extraordinary occurrences which are interpreted in a religious fashion’ he also goes on to say that ‘religious experiences do not defy laws of nature but is just a misconception’ Secondly Davis goes on to explain subject related challenges which is where the person suffers from a mental illness or from a drug misuse. Davis explains that specific drugs can trigger delusions which then go on to be interpreted as a religious experience. Drugs such as LSD can cause this. Franks Davis uses evidence from William James which said that under the use of nitrogen oxide had ‘seen consciousness in a completely different format’. Lastly Davis explains object related challenges which is where the object of the religious experience is examined. The object is most likely to be God. Davis explains and expresses that it isn’t likely he exists so for an experience to happen because of God is extremely unlikely. In addition Caroline uses evolution theory from Darwin to show that God is not necessary to human existence. Dawkins quotes ‘Darwin made it possible for intellectual atheist’

Analyzing an answer Caroline Franks-Davis in her work ‘The Fundamental Force of Religious Experience’ explains three key ideas which question the validity and authenticity of religious experience. She also uses the work of Darwin, RF Holland Dawkins to help further express her ideas. Firstly she explains descriptive related challenges which is where the story is inconsistent or contradictory. It cannot be deemed to be liable. Franks-Davis expresses the fact that there must be some type of evidence which directly refers to the experience and allows it to make sense. Davis says that religious experiences are just misunderstandings and misconceptions. Davis gets this idea from scholar RF Holland which quotes ‘Religious experiences are just extraordinary occurrences which are interpreted in a religious fashion’ he also goes on to say that ‘religious experiences do not defy laws of nature but is just a misconception’ Secondly Davis goes on to explain subject related challenges which is where the person suffers from a mental illness or from a drug misuse. Davis explains that specific drugs can trigger delusions which then go on to be interpreted as a religious experience. Drugs such as LSD can cause this. Franks Davis uses evidence from William James which said that under the use of nitrogen oxide had ‘seen consciousness in a completely different format’. Lastly Davis explains object related challenges which is where the object of the religious experience is examined. The object is most likely to be God. Davis explains and expresses that it isn’t likely he exists so for an experience to happen because of God is extremely unlikely. In addition Caroline uses evolution theory from Darwin to show that God is not necessary to human existence. Dawkins quotes ‘Darwin made it possible for intellectual atheist’

Analyzing an answer Caroline Franks-Davis has three main challenges to the validity of religious experiences: description-related, subjectrelated and object-related. Beginning with description-related, which focuses on whether the accounts of these events can be trusted. She argues that the stories relayed may be inconsistent – such as St Teresa of Avila’s description of a religious experience in which she ‘saw’ Jesus at her side but then clarified that she did not really ‘see’ him. The description may also be implausible – contradicting with the qualities of the deity meaning that what the recipient is saying happened is out of character for the supernatural figure you are describing. This is exemplified in the case of the Yorkshire Ripper who claimed that God told him to murder prostitutes which is unlikely for a God who is supposedly benevolent and declared murder a sin in the Decalogue and elsewhere. Secondly, the subject-related challenge discusses the validity of the claimant themselves. One may question whether the subject is prone to telling lies or fabricating fantastical stories, or if their state of mind is altered by drugs or a mental illness. The scholar Sigmund Freud argues that all religious experiences are a result of psychological neurosis and that those that have them are in need of psychotherapy. The credibility of the subject is also challenged if their claim of the experience is not in accordance with their subsequent actions – for example if they declare that God told them to abandon their material desires but then they continue a consumerist and superficial existence. Finally, the challenge relating to the object, the supernatural being that was involved in the experience. Issues relating to this is that these beings may not actually exist, as is the belief of Ayer who is an atheist and believes that the claims of religious experience are not verifiable. There seems to be no significant proof of God’s existence- in fact some evidence, such as Darwin’s theory of evolution, suggests that life could exist as it is without a cosmic designer.

Analyzing an answer Caroline Franks-Davis has three main challenges to the validity of religious experiences: description-related, subjectrelated and object-related. Beginning with description-related, which focuses on whether the accounts of these events can be trusted. She argues that the stories relayed may be inconsistent – such as St Teresa of Avila’s description of a religious experience in which she ‘saw’ Jesus at her side but then clarified that she did not really ‘see’ him. The description may also be implausible – contradicting with the qualities of the deity meaning that what the recipient is saying happened is out of character for the supernatural figure you are describing. This is exemplified in the case of the Yorkshire Ripper who claimed that God told him to murder prostitutes which is unlikely for a God who is supposedly benevolent and declared murder a sin in the Decalogue and elsewhere. Secondly, the subject-related challenge discusses the validity of the claimant themselves. One may question whether the subject is prone to telling lies or fabricating fantastical stories, or if their state of mind is altered by drugs or a mental illness. The scholar Sigmund Freud argues that all religious experiences are a result of psychological neurosis and that those that have them are in need of psychotherapy. The credibility of the subject is also challenged if their claim of the experience is not in accordance with their subsequent actions – for example if they declare that God told them to abandon their material desires but then they continue a consumerist and superficial existence. Finally, the challenge relating to the object, the supernatural being that was involved in the experience. Issues relating to this is that these beings may not actually exist, as is the belief of Ayer who is an atheist and believes that the claims of religious experience are not verifiable. There seems to be no significant proof of God’s existence- in fact some evidence, such as Darwin’s theory of evolution, suggests that life could exist as it is without a cosmic designer.

Improving an answer Caroline Franks-Davis has three main challenges to the validity of religious experiences: description-related, subjectrelated and object-related. Beginning with description-related, which focuses on whether the accounts of these events can be trusted. She argues that the stories relayed may be inconsistent – such as St Teresa of Avila’s description of a religious experience in which she ‘saw’ Jesus at her side but then clarified that she did not really ‘see’ him. The description may also be implausible – contradicting with the qualities of the deity meaning that what the recipient is saying happened is out of character for the supernatural figure you are describing. This is exemplified in the case of the Yorkshire Ripper who claimed that God told him to murder prostitutes which is unlikely for a God who is supposedly benevolent and declared murder a sin in the Decalogue and elsewhere. Secondly, the subject-related challenge discusses the validity of the claimant themselves. One may question whether the subject is prone to telling lies or fabricating fantastical stories, or if their state of mind is altered by drugs or a mental illness. The scholar Sigmund Freud argues that all religious experiences are a result of psychological neurosis and that those that have them are in need of psychotherapy. The credibility of the subject is also challenged if their claim of the experience is not in accordance with their subsequent actions – for example if they declare that God told them to abandon their material desires but then they continue a consumerist and superficial existence. Finally, the challenge relating to the object, the supernatural being that was involved in the experience. Issues relating to this is that these beings may not actually exist, as is the belief of Ayer who is an atheist and believes that the claims of religious experience are not verifiable. There seems to be no significant proof of God’s existence- in fact some evidence, such as Darwin’s theory of evolution, suggests that life could exist as it is without a cosmic designer.

Improving an answer In ‘The Evidential Force of Religious Experience’ Caroline Franks-Davis outlines three main challenges to the validity of religious experiences: description-related, subject-related and object-related. Her intention is not to discredit these experiences (as will be made relevant in the evaluation question) but to categorise the different ways sceptics can challenge the evidential force of the experiences as has become increasingly common in our more secularised Post-Enlightenment worldview. Beginning with description-related, which focuses on whether the accounts of these events can be trusted. She argues that the stories relayed may be inconsistent – such as St Teresa of Avila’s description of a religious experience in which she ‘saw’ Jesus at her side but then clarified that she did not really ‘see’ him. The supposedly ineffable nature of these experiences mean that accounts are often contradictory – for example the Bible records three separate and different accounts of St Paul’s conversion and 4 accounts of the resurrection. The description may also be implausible – contradicting with the qualities of the deity meaning that what the recipient is saying happened is out of character for the supernatural figure you are describing. This is exemplified in the case of the Yorkshire Ripper who claimed that God told him to murder prostitutes which is unlikely for a God who is supposedly benevolent and declared murder a sin in the Decalogue and elsewhere. Secondly, the subject-related challenge discusses the validity of the claimant themselves. One may question whether the subject is prone to telling lies or fabricating fantastical stories, or if their state of mind is altered by drugs or a mental illness. Even when a subject’s character might seem unimpeachable, the fact that many mystic experiences emerge out of meditative practice which is known to alter consciousness may mean that accounts are less trustworthy. The scholar Sigmund Freud argues that all religious experiences are a result of psychological neurosis and that those that have them are in need of psychotherapy. ; indeed he gives an entirely psycho-sexual account of Teresa’s famous ecstasies. The credibility of the subject is also challenged if their claim of the experience is not in accordance with their subsequent actions – for example if they declare that God told them to abandon their material desires but then they continue a consumerist and superficial existence. This charge is sometimes laid against church leaders in evangelical mega-churches. Finally, the challenge relating to the object, the supernatural being that was involved in the experience. Issues relating to this is that these beings may not actually exist, as is the belief of Ayer who is an atheist and believes that the claims of religious experience are not verifiable. There seems to be no significant proof of God’s existence- in fact some evidence, such as Darwin’s theory of evolution, suggests that life could exist as it is without a cosmic designer. The fact that the alleged object of these experiences is a supernatural, immaterial, simultaneously immanent and transcendent being seems fantastical to many; we don’t tend to accept claims of other fantastical beings without evidence so why here? Furthermore there is such plurality of descriptions of this object between religions and experiences that it’s difficult to know which concept of ‘God’ is being experienced – in fact such conflicting claims provide yet another line of criticism.