AQA AS RELIGIOUS STUDIES 7061/1 Paper 1 Philosophy of Religion and Ethics Mark scheme June 2023

AS RELIGIOUS STUDIES 7061/1 Paper 1 Philosophy of Religion and Ethics Mark scheme June 2023 Version: 1.0 Final Mark schemes are prepared by the Lead Assessment Writer and considered, together with the relevant questions, by a panel of subject teachers. This mark scheme includes any amendments made at the standardisation events which all associates participate in and is the scheme which was used by them in this examination. The standardisation process ensures that the mark scheme covers the students’ responses to questions and that every associate understands and applies it in the same correct way. As preparation for standardisation each associate analyses a number of students’ scripts. Alternative answers not already covered by the mark scheme are discussed and legislated for. If, after the standardisation process, associates encounter unusual answers which have not been raised they are required to refer these to the Lead Examiner. It must be stressed that a mark scheme is a working document, in many cases further developed and expanded on the basis of students’ reactions to a particular paper. Assumptions about future mark schemes on the basis of one year’s document should be avoided; whilst the guiding principles of assessment remain constant, details will change, depending on the content of a particular examination paper. Further copies of this mark scheme are available from Methods of Marking It is essential that, in fairness to students, all examiners use the same methods of marking. The advice given here may seem very obvious, but it is important that all examiners follow it as exactly as possible. 1. If you have any doubts about the mark to award, consult your Team Leader. 2. Refer constantly to the mark scheme throughout marking. It is extremely important that it is strictly adhered to. 3. Remember, you must always credit accurate, relevant and appropriate answers which are not given in the mark scheme. 4. Do not credit material that is irrelevant to the question or to the stated target, however impressive that material might be. 5. If a one-word answer is required and a list is given, take the first answer (unless this has been crossed out). 6. If you are wavering as to whether or not to award a mark, the criterion should be, ‘Is the student nearer those who have given a correct answer or those who have little idea?’ 7. Read the information on the following page about using Levels of Response mark schemes. 8. Be prepared to award the full range of marks. Do not hesitate to give full marks when the answer merits full marks or to give no marks where there is nothing creditable in an answer. 9. No half marks or bonus marks are to be used under any circumstances. 10. Remember, the key to good and fair marking is consistency. Do not change the standard of your marking once you have started. Levels of Response Marking In AS Religious Studies, differentiation is largely achieved by outcome on the basis of students’ responses. To facilitate this, levels of response marking has been devised for many questions. Levels of response marking requires a quite different approach from the examiner than the traditional ‘point for point’ marking. It is essential that the whole response is read and then allocated to the level it best fits. If a student demonstrates knowledge, understanding and/or evaluation at a certain level, he/she must be credited at that level. Length of response or literary ability should not be confused with genuine religious studies skills. For example, a short answer which shows a high level of conceptual ability must be credited at that level. (If there is a band of marks allocated to a level, discrimination should be made with reference to the development of the answer.) Levels are tied to specific skills. Examiners should refer to the stated assessment target objective of a question (see mark scheme) when there is any doubt as to the relevance of a student’s response. Levels of response mark schemes include either examples of possible students’ responses or material which they might use. These are intended as a guide only. It is anticipated that students will produce a wide range of responses to each question. It is a feature of levels of response mark schemes that examiners are prepared to reward fully, responses which are obviously valid and of high ability but do not conform exactly to the requirements of a particular level. This should only be necessary occasionally and where this occurs examiners must indicate, by a brief written explanation, why their assessment does not conform to the levels of response laid down in the mark scheme. Such scripts should be referred to the Lead Examiner. Assessment of Quality of Written Communication Quality of written communication will be assessed in all components and in relation to all assessment objectives. Where students are required to produce extended written material in English, they will be assessed on the quality of written communication. The quality of written communication skills of the student will be one of the factors influencing the actual mark awarded within the level of response. In reading an extended response, the examiner will therefore consider if it is cogently and coherently written, ie decide whether the answer: • presents relevant information in a form that suits its purposes • is legible and that spelling, punctuation and grammar are accurate, so that meaning is clear • is suitably structured and that the style of writing is appropriate. LEVEL DESCRIPTORS Levels of Response: 15 marks AS-Level – AO1 Level 5 13–15 • Knowledge and understanding is accurate and relevant and is consistently applied to the question. • Very good use of detailed and relevant evidence which may include textual/scriptural references where appropriate. • The answer is clear and coherent and there is effective use of specialist language and terminology. Level 4 10–12 • Knowledge and understanding is mostly accurate and relevant and ismostly applied to the question. • Good use of relevant evidence which may include textual/scriptural references where appropriate. • The answer is mostly clear and coherent and specialist language and terminology is used appropriately. Level 3 7–9 • Knowledge and understanding is generally accurate and relevant and is generally applied to the question. • Some use of appropriate evidence and/or examples which may include textual/scriptural references where appropriate. • The answer is generally clear and coherent with use of specialist language and terminology. Level 2 4–6 • Knowledge and understanding is limited and there is limited application to the question. • Limited use of appropriate evidence and/or examples which may include textual/scriptural references where appropriate. • Limited clarity and coherence and limited use of specialist language and terminology. Level 1 1–3 • Knowledge and understanding is basic. • Isolated elements of accurate and relevant information. • Basic use of appropriate subject vocabulary. 0 • No accurate or relevant material to credit. Level 5 13–15 Levels of Response: 15 marks AS-Level – AO2 • A very well-focused response to the issue(s) raised. • Reasoned and evidenced chains of reasoning supporting different points of view with critical analysis. • Evaluation is based on the reasoning presented. • The answer is clear and coherent and there is effective use of specialist language and terminology. Level 4 10–12 • A well-focused response to the issue(s) raised. • Reasoned and evidenced chains of reasoning, with some critical analysis, supporting different points of view. • Evaluation based on some of the reasoning. • The answer is largely clear and coherent with specialist language and terminology used appropriately. Level 3 7–9 • A general response to the issue(s) raised. • Different points of view supported by evidence and chains of reasoning. • The answer is generally clear and coherent with use of specialist language and terminology. Level 2 4–6 • A limited response to the issue(s) raised. • A point of view relevant to the issue(s) with limited supporting evidence and chains of reasoning. • Limited clarity and coherence and limited use of specialist language and terminology. Level 1 1–3 • A basic response to the issue(s) raised. • A point of view is stated with some evidence or reasons in support. • Some clarity and coherence and basic use of appropriate subject vocabulary. 0 • No accurate or relevant material to credit. Question 1 . Explain how Process Theodicy responds to the problem of evil. [15 marks] Target: AO1.1: Knowledge and understanding of religious, philosophical and / or ethical thought and teaching. Note: This content is indicative rather than prescriptive and students are not obliged to refer to all the material contained in this mark scheme. Any legitimate answer will be assessed on its merits according to the generic levels of response. In Process Theodicy the relationship between God and the universe is panentheistic. Griffin rejects the belief that God is transcendent, claiming instead that the universe is in God or that God is the soul of the universe. This means that God cannot intervene transcendentally in the universe to prevent evil but rather is the fellow sufferer who understands. God experiences the entire pain and suffering of the universe. Griffin uses the analogy of the ‘I’ that experiences the pains of the body. In Griffin’s Process Theodicy, God is responsible for suffering and evil, but not culpable. This is due to the rejection of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, which he argues is a mistranslation of the Hebrew text in Genesis. God created order from an already-existing chaos, as opposed to creating all things from nothing. As a result, this chaos cannot be forced into order but merely persuaded into greater order and complexity. The evolution of life on Earth is one example of this persuasion. Process Theodicy responds to the problem of evil by claiming that the order of creation justifies the evil and suffering in the universe. Increased levels of complexity can bring about increased levels of happiness and richness of experience for all entities in the universe. Griffin argues that the potential benefits of creation mean that God is justified in taking the risk that humans might reject God. [15 marks] AO1.1