What are the three components of OCR A Level Religious Studies?

OCR A Level Religious Studies (the most common specification) has three components examined across two papers: Philosophy of Religion (arguments for God's existence, religious experience, miracles, the problem of evil, religious language), Ethics (natural law, Kantian ethics, utilitarianism, free will and moral responsibility, conscience, sexual ethics, environmental and business ethics, euthanasia), and Developments in Christian Thought (or an alternative world religion — sources of wisdom and authority, God and the world, human nature, Jesus Christ, Christian moral principles, secularism, pluralism, liberation theology, gender and theology). Each component is examined in a separate essay section with two questions (you answer one). Each question is worth 40 marks. The entire A Level is examined in two 3-hour papers.

How are A Level Religious Studies essays marked?

OCR A Level Religious Studies essays are marked against two assessment objectives: AO1 (Selection and demonstration of knowledge and understanding of religion and belief — 16 marks) and AO2 (Critical analysis and evaluation of religion and belief, reaching a reasoned conclusion — 24 marks). AO2 carries significantly more marks than AO1. The most common failing is over-investment in knowledge and description (AO1) at the expense of sustained critical evaluation (AO2). Examiners use a levels-based mark scheme: the top level (Level 6, 34–40 marks) requires 'a confident and sophisticated knowledge and understanding, supported by well-chosen evidence and examples, with insightful, well-developed and sustained critical analysis and evaluation, forming a well-substantiated conclusion.' The key word is 'sustained' — evaluation must run throughout, not just appear in the conclusion.

Which philosophers and thinkers do I need to know for A Level RS Philosophy?

For OCR Philosophy of Religion, the core thinkers are: Anselm (ontological argument), Aquinas (cosmological and teleological arguments — Five Ways), Paley (teleological argument from design — watch analogy), Hume (criticisms of design and cosmological arguments, miracles), Kant (moral argument, criticisms of ontological argument), Swinburne (reformed epistemology, probability arguments for God), Wittgenstein (language games, religious language as non-cognitive), Flew (falsification), Hick (soul-making theodicy, universalism), Plantinga (free will defence, reformed epistemology). For each thinker, know: their argument or position in its strongest form, the strongest objection to it, and at least one scholar who defends or critiques them. The highest marks come from scholars engaging with scholars, not just presenting arguments in isolation.

How do I avoid being descriptive in Religious Studies essays?

The most effective technique is to evaluate as you introduce each argument, not after. Instead of: 'Aquinas presents the cosmological argument in his Five Ways. The argument claims that everything that exists has a cause. God is the uncaused cause. A criticism of this argument is...' — write: 'Aquinas's cosmological argument rests on the principle of sufficient reason — that there must be an explanation for every contingent thing's existence. The argument's force depends on the claim that an infinite regress of causes is incoherent. Russell's criticism — that the universe might simply be a brute fact with no explanation — directly challenges this premise. If Russell is right, the cosmological argument provides no support for theism; if Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason is defensible, the argument retains significant force.' The second version introduces the argument and its strongest objection simultaneously and evaluates which is more convincing, earning AO2 marks throughout.

What ethical theories do I need to know in depth for A Level Religious Studies Ethics?

OCR A Level Ethics requires in-depth knowledge of: Natural Law (Aquinas — final causes, primary and secondary precepts, double effect, proportionalism — Hoose); Kantian ethics (categorical imperative — universalisability, humanity formula, kingdom of ends; deontology vs consequentialism; applying to applied ethical issues); Utilitarianism (Bentham's act utilitarianism — hedonic calculus; Mill's rule utilitarianism and the quality of pleasures distinction; preference utilitarianism — Singer); free will and moral responsibility (compatibilism vs hard determinism, Locke, Hume, Kant on freedom); conscience (Aquinas — synderesis vs conscientia; Freud's superego; Newman; Butler). For each theory, you must know how it applies to at least two applied ethical issues (sexual ethics, euthanasia, environmental ethics, business ethics) and the main scholarly critiques.

← Blog

A Level Religious Studies Study Guide: Philosophy, Ethics, and Essay Technique

May 30, 202610 min readBy warpread.app

A Level Religious Studies is one of the most intellectually demanding A Levels offered, despite its reputation among students who have not studied it. It requires genuine philosophical rigour — the ability to reconstruct and evaluate abstract arguments about the nature of God, morality, consciousness, and language — alongside detailed knowledge of theological and ethical traditions spanning two millennia.

The students who reach top grades are those who treat it as a philosophy and ethics course taught through a religious lens, not as a course about what religious people believe.

Philosophy of Religion: arguments and their limits

The cosmological argument: Several versions exist — know at least Aquinas's Five Ways (specifically the Third Way: contingent beings require a necessary being) and Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason. The philosophical force of the argument depends on: (1) whether an infinite regress of causes is genuinely incoherent (Aquinas claims yes; Russell argues the universe might simply be a brute fact); (2) whether the concept of a 'necessary being' is coherent (Kant's objection: existence is not a predicate, so a 'necessary being' may be logically vacuous). Hick's response: necessary existence might be understood as the property of being self-explanatory, not as logical necessity.

The ontological argument: Anselm's version in the Proslogion: God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" (TTWNGCCB). If God exists only in the mind, we can conceive of a greater being existing in reality — contradiction. Therefore God exists in reality. Kant's objection: existence is not a predicate (property) — you cannot add it to a concept to make it greater. Plantinga's modal version: in modal logic, if God's existence is possible (conceivable without contradiction) and God is necessarily existent, then God exists in all possible worlds including the actual world. Evaluation of Plantinga: does possibility here mean conceptual or metaphysical possibility?

The teleological argument: Paley's watch analogy — a watch's complex purposive design implies a designer; the universe exhibits similar (greater) design; therefore the universe has a designer. Hume's three objections (pre-Paley, in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion): (1) analogy is weak — universe not sufficiently like a watch; (2) if design requires a designer, the designer requires a greater designer (regress); (3) alternative explanations exist (Hume's anthropic principle anticipation). Darwin's evolution provides a mechanistic alternative. Swinburne's response: cumulative probabilistic argument — the universe's fine-tuning is improbable on the hypothesis of no God, more probable on the hypothesis of a God with good reasons to create.

Use the Cornell Notes Tool to structure each argument: main column = the argument step by step; cue column = the objection to each step; summary = your evaluation of which is more compelling and why.

The problem of evil: The logical problem (Mackie): If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, evil would not exist. Evil exists. Therefore such a God does not exist. Plantinga's Free Will Defence: God cannot create beings capable of moral good without the capacity for moral evil — omnipotence does not require the logically impossible. Limitation: only addresses moral evil, not natural evil. Hick's soul-making theodicy: evil is instrumentally necessary for the development of moral and spiritual virtues in an epistemic distance between God and humans (Irenean theodicy). Criticism: is the quantity and intensity of suffering proportionate to any spiritual purpose? Rowe's evidential problem of evil: even if God and evil are logically compatible, gratuitous evil makes God's existence improbable.

Ethics: theories, applications, and the AO2 split

Natural Law (Aquinas and the tradition): Everything has a final cause (telos) determined by its nature. Human beings' primary precepts (preserve life, reproduce, educate children, live in society, worship God) follow from the natural end of human reason. Secondary precepts are specific moral rules derived from primary precepts. The doctrine of double effect allows actions with both good and bad effects if: the act itself is not intrinsically evil, the agent intends only the good effect, the bad effect is not the means to the good effect, and there is proportionate reason. Evaluation: the concept of a fixed human nature is contested — evolutionary psychology and social constructivism both challenge it.

Kantian ethics: The categorical imperative in three formulations: universalisability (act only on maxims you could will to be universal laws — tests moral consistency), humanity formula (treat persons always as ends, never merely as means — grounds human dignity), kingdom of ends (act as a member of a moral community of rational beings). Kant's deontological ethic is anti-consequentialist: an act's rightness depends on its conformity to duty, not its outcomes. Strengths: absolute moral duties resist manipulation. Weaknesses: rigid application produces absurd results (lying to a murderer to protect an innocent person); difficulty in resolving conflicts between duties.

Utilitarianism: Bentham's act utilitarianism: the right act maximises overall happiness (hedonic calculus — intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, extent). Mill's rule utilitarianism: follow rules whose general observance maximises utility. Singer's preference utilitarianism: maximise preference satisfaction across all sentient beings. Evaluation: difficulty of measuring and comparing utility; potential to justify violations of individual rights for aggregate welfare; replaceability argument for animals (Singer) vs its implications.

Applied ethics: For sexual ethics (homosexuality, premarital sex, contraception), euthanasia (active vs passive, voluntary vs involuntary), and environmental ethics (anthropocentrism vs biocentrism, Gaia hypothesis), apply all three theories systematically. Know the key legal context (Sexual Offences Act, Suicide Act, etc.) and at least two scholarly positions within each debate.

Essay structure: the 40-mark answer

The OCR 40-mark essay structure: The question typically asks you to "assess" or "critically evaluate" a claim. Effective structure:

Introduction (4–5 sentences): Define key terms. State what the question is asking — what debate or controversy does it target? Indicate your line of argument.

Body (5–7 paragraphs): Each paragraph presents one argument or perspective, critically evaluated. The top level requires evaluation within each paragraph, not just at the end. Pattern: state the position → present the strongest version of the argument → raise the most significant objection → evaluate which is stronger → link back to the question.

Conclusion (3–4 sentences): Synthesise your arguments. State your evaluated conclusion — which position is better supported and why. Avoid weak conclusions ("there are many perspectives and no final answer"). Commit to a reasoned position, however qualified.

Common weaknesses to avoid:

Spending half the essay on AO1 knowledge and rushing the evaluation
Evaluating only at the end rather than throughout
Presenting a thinker's view without identifying what turns on the debate
Listing objections without evaluating which is most compelling

The Pomodoro Timer is excellent for timed essay practice — write a full 40-mark response in 45 minutes, then use the remaining time to review against OCR's descriptors. If you are also studying A Level Philosophy (where available), the philosophical skills in both courses are directly transferable.

Topics

A Level Religious Studies study guideA Level RS revisionOCR A Level Religious StudiesA Level philosophy of religionA Level ethics revisionA Level Religious Studies essaysA Level theologyA Level Religious Studies grade A

Revise smarter for A Levels

Structure your A Level notes with the Cornell Notes Tool, build active recall flashcard decks, and use the Pomodoro Timer to cover more ground in less time across each subject.

Open Cornell Notes →Free Active Recall course →