Let’s be real: Philosophy of Religion is a brain-melter. It’s the one subject where you can spend three hours arguing about whether a stone can be too heavy for God to lift, only to realize you’ve forgotten to define what “God” even means.
Below is the exam paper download link
Past Paper On Philosophy Of Religion For Revision
Above is the exam paper download link
If you’re currently drowning in a sea of Anselm, Aquinas, and William Paley, you’re likely feeling that pre-exam itch. The problem isn’t that you don’t understand the concepts; it’s that you don’t know how to squeeze those massive, 2,000-year-old ideas into a 45-minute essay.
The most effective “cheat code” for this isn’t a textbook—it’s a past paper. You need to see how the examiners phrase their traps before you walk into the room.
FAQ: Untangling the Knots of Religious Philosophy
Q: I’m struggling with the “Problem of Evil.” Is there a way to make my answer stand out? A: Most students just list the types of evil (moral and natural) and stop there. To get the top marks, you need to engage with Theodicies. Don’t just mention Augustine or Irenaeus; critique them. Ask yourself: “Does the ‘soul-making’ argument actually justify the suffering of an innocent child?” Examiners love it when you show that you aren’t just a parrot, but a critical thinker.
Q: How do I keep the three “Theistic Arguments” straight? A: Think of them by their starting points:
-
Ontological: Starts with a definition (God is the greatest possible being). It’s purely logical—no evidence needed.
-
Cosmological: Starts with the universe (Everything has a cause). It’s about the chain of existence.
-
Teleological: Starts with design (The world is complex, like a watch). It’s about the “fine-tuning” of nature.
Q: What is the most common mistake when writing about “Religious Language”? A: Forgetting the difference between Cognitive and Non-Cognitive language. If I say “God is good,” am I stating a fact that can be proven (Cognitive), or am I just expressing a feeling or a way of life (Non-Cognitive)? If you can master the verification and falsification principles (think AJ Ayer vs. Antony Flew), you’ve basically won the essay.
Q: Do I really need to learn the “Critiques” for every argument? A: Yes. In Philosophy, an argument without a critique is just a Sunday school lesson. For every point you make (e.g., Paley’s Watch), you must have a counter-point ready (e.g., David Hume’s “Epicurean Hypothesis”). Think of your essay as a boxing match—let the philosophers fight it out on the page.
Why “Passive Reading” Is Your Worst Enemy
You can read your notes until your eyes bleed, but that won’t help you under the flickering lights of the exam hall. Real revision is active.
-
The “Blind” Outline: Look at a past paper question and, without opening your book, jot down three scholars and three key terms related to it. If you can’t, that’s your study priority for tonight.
-
Define Your Terms: Can you explain “Necessary Existence” or “Incorporeal” in ten words or less? If you can’t define the jargon, your essay will look “fluffy.”
-
The Clock is Ticking: Philosophy is notorious for “time-theft.” You’ll spend so long on the intro that you’ll rush the conclusion. Practice writing one full 30-minute essay from the past paper below to get your pacing right.
-
Download Your Philosophy of Religion Past Paper
Stop guessing what might be on the exam and start looking at what actually shows up year after year. Familiarity breeds confidence, and confidence breeds high grades.
