Christianity and Philosophy (AQA A-Level Religious Studies): Revision Notes
Christianity and Philosophy
What you need to know
This section explores the dialogue between Christian beliefs and philosophical arguments. You must consider seven key areas:
- God
- Self, death and afterlife
- Sources of wisdom and authority
- Religious experience
- The relationship between scientific and religious discourse
- The truth claims of other religions
- Miracles
Key evaluation criteria
When examining these topics, you need to assess:
- Reasonableness: Is the belief based on reason or consistent with reason?
- Meaningfulness: Are statements of faith meaningful, and to whom?
- Coherence: How coherent are the beliefs, and how consistent are they with other beliefs in the system?
- Relevance: What is the relevance of philosophical enquiry for religious faith, particularly regarding 'belief in' versus 'belief that'?
These four evaluation criteria form the foundation of critical analysis in Dialogues. You'll apply them repeatedly across different topics, so becoming familiar with each criterion will significantly strengthen your essays.
Approaching Dialogues questions
Understanding the format
Critical Exam Structure:
All Dialogues questions follow the same format: a statement followed by "Critically examine and evaluate this view with reference to the dialogue between Christianity and Philosophy"
Mark Distribution:
- Questions are unstructured (AO1 and AO2 are not separated)
- 10 marks available for AO1 (knowledge and understanding)
- 15 marks available for AO2 (analysis and evaluation)
- AO2 is worth 60% of total marks
- You choose one question from two options
Key principles for success
What Dialogues is about:
By the time you reach this section, you have already covered most required content from Philosophy, Ethics and Christianity. This means you are NOT required to learn vast amounts of new material. The focus is on what you do with the facts, not listing facts. Dialogues emphasises broad questions, not specification nitty-gritty.
Common Mistakes to Avoid:
- Don't simply memorise and list content
- Avoid making lists of arguments for and against (this is just AO1, not analysis)
- Don't worry about achieving a perfect 50/50 balance between Christianity and Philosophy
- You must refer to both Christianity and Philosophy, but the balance is your choice
Smart approach:
The most effective strategy is to use any relevant material from Christianity, Philosophy or Ethics that helps answer the question. Draw on a few themes or ideas in depth rather than attempting to include everything. Focus on critical analysis and evaluation, not description. Remember that Christianity and Philosophy are not necessarily opposed - many great philosophers have been Christians.
About Named Scholars:
Only scholars listed in the specification will appear in question prompts. However, you can include other relevant scholars in your answers if you wish. You can also engage in dialogue with scholars - for example, interrogate Hume on miracles or Aquinas on the Cosmological Argument.
The seven dialogue areas
God
This is an extensive topic because God is central to both Christianity and Philosophy of Religion.
Key areas where God appears:
Arguments for God's existence:
- Design argument (Paley, Hume)
- Ontological argument (Anselm, Gaunilo, Kant, Barth)
- Cosmological argument (Aquinas, Hume, Russell, Copleston)
Problem of evil and suffering:
- Challenges God's attributes of omnipotence, perfect goodness and omniscience
- Explores God's relation to time
- Questions about a timeless God knowing the entire future
Religious experiences:
- Experiences from God
- How God relates to the world
Christian sources of wisdom and authority:
- God underpins all these sources
Christian beliefs:
- Christian monotheism
- God as omnipotent Creator and controller
- God as transcendent and unknowable
- The doctrine of the Trinity
- Jesus as Son of God
- Christian beliefs about God and the afterlife
- Christian moral principles deriving from God
Exam Tip:
Dialogues questions are intentionally broad. Select material most relevant to the question asked. It's better to explore a few themes in depth than to list many facts superficially.
Specimen Question: "Christian statements about God are meaningless."
This requires engagement with Religious Language (verification, falsification, cognitive vs non-cognitive language) and Christian beliefs about God's nature.
Approach:
- Define what "meaningfulness" means in the context of Religious Language
- Discuss verification and falsification principles
- Explore cognitive vs non-cognitive interpretations of religious statements
- Apply these to specific Christian claims about God's nature
- Evaluate whether these challenges succeed in rendering Christian statements meaningless
Self, death and afterlife
This topic provides a ready-made contrast between Christian and philosophical ideas.
Christian perspectives include:
- Meaning and purpose of life
- Different Christian understandings of resurrection (bodily vs spiritual)
- Biblical texts (1 Corinthians 15:42-44 and 50-54)
- Different interpretations of judgement, heaven, hell and purgatory
- Objective immortality in Process Theology
- The necessity of God's existence to grant life after death
Philosophical perspectives include:
- Nature and existence of the soul
- Descartes' Substance Dualism
- Body-soul relationship
- Possibility of continuing personal existence after death
- Modern Dualism (Swinburne)
- Hick's monist 'replica' theory
- Dennett's functionalist view (minds running on computer platforms)
- Physicalist/materialist rejections (Russell, Ryle)
- Parfit's views on personal identity
- Dual-Aspect Monism and Panpsychism
Key Debate Points:
Christians disagree on whether resurrection is bodily or spiritual. Hick attempts to show resurrection is logically possible, finding support from Cartesian Dualism and similar theories. However, physicalists and materialists reject these dualist approaches. A possible synthesis might be found in Dual-Aspect Monism and Process Theology, which attempt to bridge the divide between these positions.
Specimen Question: "Christian beliefs about life after death are reasonable."
This invites discussion of whether Christian resurrection beliefs can be supported by philosophical arguments about the soul and personal identity.
Approach:
- Outline Christian beliefs about resurrection and life after death
- Examine philosophical arguments that support these beliefs (e.g., Cartesian Dualism, Swinburne's modern dualism)
- Consider challenges from physicalism and materialism
- Evaluate whether "reasonableness" requires empirical evidence or logical coherence
- Reach a balanced conclusion about the reasonableness of these beliefs
Sources of wisdom and authority
For Christians, sources of wisdom and authority include:
Primary sources:
- God (the ultimate source)
- Special Revelation: scripture, religious experiences, Holy Spirit's ongoing work
- General Revelation: reason and conscience
- The Church:
- Catholicism: Apostolic Tradition, Apostolic Succession, Pope, Magisterium
- Protestantism: sola scriptura, authority of the pastor
Philosophical challenges to these sources:
The problem of evil:
- Challenges God's existence and therefore God's authority
- If God's authority is questioned, all other religious authority is questioned
Scientific authority:
- Challenges religious claims based on empirical evidence
Religious language:
- Logical Positivists question whether religious statements are meaningful
- Verification and falsification principles
Free will and moral responsibility:
- Questions about whether humans can be morally accountable
Ethical challenges:
- Bentham's rejection of Christian moral and political authority
Key Point:
Most religious authority stems from God. Any challenge to God's existence is automatically a challenge to all other forms of religious authority. This means that defending God's existence becomes crucial for defending the validity of religious sources of wisdom and authority.
Religious experience
Types of religious experience studied:
- Corporeal, imaginative and intellectual visions
- Rudolf Otto on the numinous
- William James on mystical experiences
- Walter Stace on non-sensuous and non-intellectual union with the divine
Philosophical analysis includes:
- Swinburne's principles of credulity and testimony
- Challenges of verifying religious experiences
- Scientific challenges and religious responses
Additional Relevant Areas:
Religious language: How are Christian religious experiences (visions, mystical experiences) expressed? Is the language cognitive or non-cognitive?
Self, death and afterlife: Are near-death experiences specifically religious, or can they be explained through other means?
These connections demonstrate how different topics in the course interconnect and can strengthen your analysis.
Specimen Question: "Religious experience gives Christians knowledge of God."
This requires discussion of:
- Ways Christianity sees religious experience bringing knowledge of God
- Natural explanations for such experiences (psychological, neurological)
- Whether religious experiences can be verified through Swinburne's principles
- Scientific challenges to religious interpretations
- The distinction between subjective certainty and objective knowledge
The relationship between scientific and religious discourse
Key areas covered:
How science has influenced Christianity:
- Emphasis on reason and evidence in science
- Specific scientific discoveries (Darwin's evolution, Big Bang theory)
- Science as stimulus to Christian ethical thinking
- 'God of the gaps' problem
- Creationist views
Contemporary responses:
- John Polkinghorne on compatibility of religion and science
- Different Christian responses to genetic engineering
Additional relevant philosophical areas:
Arguments for God:
- Christian appeals to science/observation in Design Argument (Paley) and Cosmological Argument (Aquinas)
Religious experiences:
- Scientific objections to accounts of religious experiences
Religious language:
- Verification and falsification principles challenging meaningfulness of religious language
Miracles:
- Hume's inductive argument against miracles
Self, death and afterlife:
- Scientific accounts of immortality (Functionalism)
Important Concept: 'Belief in' vs 'Belief that'
H.H. Price's distinction between 'belief in' and 'belief that' is particularly relevant here. Faith as 'belief in' (trust, commitment) differs from 'belief that' (factual claims). This distinction helps explain how religious faith might operate differently from scientific knowledge claims.
Specimen Question: "Science is an enemy of Christian faith."
This requires balanced discussion of:
- Areas where science challenges Christian beliefs (evolution, cosmology, neuroscience)
- Areas where science and Christianity are compatible (Polkinghorne's work, Big Bang cosmology)
- Whether scientific method necessarily conflicts with faith
- Different ways of understanding religious and scientific discourse (NOMA, dialogue models)
- The distinction between 'belief in' and 'belief that'
Consider: Does the question assume an adversarial relationship that may not exist?
The truth claims of other religions
The main material for this comes from Christianity, migration and religious pluralism, which addresses whether believers can challenge other religions' beliefs without attacking their own.
Key philosophical approach: R.B. Braithwaite
Braithwaite offers a non-cognitive approach to religious pluralism. His view is that different cultures and religions respond to and interpret God in different ways. Each religion has different revelations (Muhammad in Islam, Paul in Christianity, Siddhartha Gautama in Buddhism), and these different beliefs are non-cognitive interpretations sharing a common denominator.
Braithwaite's theory:
Religious language is not literal but found through its use. Religious statements are used conatively (relating to will and intention) and express a believer's intention to act morally.
What becoming a Christian involves (according to Braithwaite):
- Intending to follow the Christian moral code and putting principles into action
- Adopting Christian 'stories' by which the moral code is expressed
Example: "God is love"
According to Braithwaite:
- This is put into practice through an agapeistic lifestyle (Situation Ethics)
- Stories of Jesus (forgiving the adulterous woman, healing lepers, feeding 5000) become commands to forgive, care for sick, feed hungry
- Believers don't have to accept stories as literally true - they need to act on them
- Even the resurrection story brings hope, so Christians should bring hope to the hopeless
Testing the theory:
Believers' intentions can be tested empirically. If someone adopts an agapeistic lifestyle, we can see they practise what they preach.
Application to all religions:
- Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs can be judged by whether they put moral principles into practice
- Ethical beliefs are basically similar across religions
- Different stories are vehicles for expressing the same moral truths
- World religions are different but equally valid expressions of ethical intention
Evaluation of Braithwaite's Theory:
Strength: Most believers think their views are cognitive/factual, but world religions contradict each other, so they cannot all be factually correct. Braithwaite offers a way to respect all religions without logical contradiction.
Weakness: Most believers do not think their religious views amount to non-cognitive moral intention - they believe their assertions are factual and true. Braithwaite's theory may fail to capture what religious believers actually mean by their claims.
Miracles
There is little agreement among philosophers or Christians about the nature or existence of miracles.
Different perspectives:
Biblical literalist view:
- Biblical miracles were actual historical events
- Based on beliefs about the authority of the Bible
David Hume's rejection:
- Miracles can be explained by gullible human psychology
- Inductively, miracles must always be the least likely explanation of what has occurred
Maurice Wiles' rejection (as a Christian):
- If God performs miracles for some, why not for all?
- This creates an unanswerable problem of evil
Philosophical considerations:
- Definition of miracles varies widely
- Tension between natural law and divine intervention
- Questions about God's consistency in acting in the world
- Whether miracles can provide evidence for God's existence
Exam Tip:
Draw on examples of miracles in Christianity when answering questions on this topic. Consider different interpretations:
- Literal historical events
- Symbolic meaning
- Natural events with religious significance
Understanding these different approaches will allow you to develop more nuanced analysis.
Scholars for Philosophy chapters
Understanding which scholars are required for study and which are mentioned for illustration is important:
Scholars Required for Study (May Appear in Questions):
- Design argument: Paley, Hume
- Ontological argument: Anselm, Gaunilo, Kant
- Cosmological argument: Aquinas, Hume, Russell
- Evil and suffering: Hick, Griffin
- Religious experiences: Otto, James, Stace, Swinburne
- Religious language: Hick, Hare, Wittgenstein, Tillich, Aquinas
- Miracles: Hume, Wiles
- Self, death and afterlife: Descartes
Other Scholars Referred To (Can Be Used But Won't Appear in Question Prompts):
- Design: (none additional listed)
- Ontological: Barth
- Cosmological: Copleston
- Evil: Mackie, Plantinga
- Religious experiences: St Teresa of Ávila, Freud
- Religious language: Ayer, Hume, Popper, Flew, Ramsey, Pseudo-Dionysius, Maimonides, Buber, H.H. Price
- Miracles: Augustine, Aquinas, Flew, Holland, Tillich, Ward, Hick, Mackie
- Self, death and afterlife: Plato, Aristotle, Ryle, Hume, Fox, Penrose & Hameroff, Nagel, Jackson, Campbell, Locke, Parfit, Hick, Price, Swinburne, Stevenson, Dennett, Bohr, Jung, Whitehead, Griffin
Essay writing guidance
Word count approximations
Target Word Counts:
- AO1 (knowledge): approximately 420 words
- AO2 (analysis and evaluation): approximately 630 words
- Total: approximately 1050 words
Practice counting words at the end of essays to develop a sense of appropriate length. This helps you maintain the correct balance between knowledge and analysis.
Structure options
You can either:
- Separate AO1 from AO2 in your answer (two distinct parts)
- Combine them throughout your essay
Both approaches are equally acceptable. The mark scheme separates them for examiner benefit, but your answer doesn't have to follow this structure.
Planning an answer
Step 1: Identify relevant AO1 content
Sketch out evidence and ideas that explain:
- What the debate in the question is about
- Key facts relevant to the question
- Main positions on the issue
Step 2: Plan your AO2 approach
Work out:
- What case you will set out to make
- How you will use your AO1 sketch to illustrate your analysis
- What evaluation you will offer
Step 3: Write focused essays
- Stay focused on the specific question asked
- Don't try to include everything you know about the topic
- Select material most relevant to the question
- Develop a few themes in depth rather than many superficially
Critical Writing Principle:
The most common mistake in Dialogues essays is trying to include too much content. Remember: depth over breadth. A few well-developed arguments with thorough evaluation will score much better than a long list of superficial points.
Remember!
Key Takeaways for Dialogues Success:
- Dialogues is primarily about critical analysis and evaluation, not learning new content
- Most material comes from your study of Philosophy, Ethics and Christianity
- Focus on broad questions and what you do with the facts
- Don't simply list arguments for and against - that's just knowledge (AO1)
- You must refer to both Christianity and Philosophy, but the balance is flexible
- Use any relevant material from your course, regardless of which component it came from
- Only scholars in the specification will appear in question prompts
- AO2 (analysis and evaluation) is worth 60% of the marks
- Key evaluation words: reasonable, meaningful, coherent, consistent, relevant
- Questions about 'meaning' and 'meaningfulness' specifically relate to Religious Language
- The distinction between 'belief in' and 'belief that' is important for understanding religious faith