Philosophy of Religion asks whether belief in God is reasonable, how arguments for/against God work, and what follows for faith, miracles and religious experience. At A Level, success comes from pairing accurate AO1 (arguments, scholars, key terms) with decisive AO2 (analysis, counter-arguments, and justified conclusions).

Core arguments you need to know

1) Cosmological arguments (existence depends on a first cause)

• Aquinas’ Third Way / First Cause: From contingency/change to a necessary, uncaused cause.
• Kalam (modern form): Whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began; therefore the universe has a cause.
• Key challenges: Infinite regress possible? Why a personal first cause? Quantum causation; “Who made God?”
• Useful scholars: Aquinas, Craig (Kalam), Hume (critique), Russell (brute fact).

2) Teleological/design arguments (order and purpose)

• Paley’s watchmaker: Complexity and purpose imply a designer.
• Fine-tuning/anthropic considerations: Cosmic constants appear “just right” for life.
• Key challenges: Hume’s analogy, problem of poor design, chance/multiverse, natural selection.
• Useful scholars: Paley, Hume, Dawkins; Swinburne on simplicity/probability.

3) Ontological arguments (from concept to existence)

• Anselm: God = that than which nothing greater can be conceived; existence in reality > in understanding.
• Objections: Gaunilo’s perfect island parody; Kant’s “existence is not a predicate”.
• Later developments: Modal versions (necessary existence).

4) Evil and suffering

• Logical vs evidential evil: Is God + evil inconsistent, or just improbable?
• Theodicies/defences: Augustine (privation, free will); Irenaeus/Hick (soul-making); Plantinga (Free Will Defense).
• Key challenges: Natural evil, dysteleology, gratuitous suffering, animal pain.

5) Religious experience & miracles

• Religious experience: William James (noetic, ineffable, transiency, passivity); Swinburne (principles of credulity/testimony).
• Challenges: Psychological/neurological accounts, conflicting claims, verification/falsification concerns.
• Miracles: Hume’s uniform experience argument vs Swinburne’s cumulative case.

Essay technique that earns marks

• Plan in 4 minutes: Thesis → 3–4 paragraph points → a named scholar/source next to each → a counter for each → final line of judgement.
• Paragraph frame (PEEL/PEACE): Point → Evidence (scholar/premises) → Analysis/Application → Counter → Evaluate/Conclude.
• Sentence stems for AO2: “While X explains…, it underestimates…; by contrast Y better accounts for…; therefore…”.
• Scholars to remember (examples): Aquinas, Anselm, Hume, Kant, Swinburne, William James, Plantinga, Hick, Dawkins, Craig. Keep one-line theses and a micro-quote or key term.

Mini examples you can adapt

Teleological (fine-tuning): The apparent calibration of constants is some evidence for design (AO1: anthropic data; Swinburne on simplicity). However (AO2), multiverse hypotheses reduce the force of the inference unless independent support is given; therefore design works best as part of a cumulative case, not a proof.

Evil (soul-making): Hick’s vale-of-soul-making explains moral growth (AO1) but struggles with natural and gratuitous evils (AO2). If growth could occur with less suffering, the defence weakens; therefore theodicy is partially successful.

Common pitfalls (and fast fixes)

• Listing arguments without a stance: End every paragraph with a mini-conclusion.
• Name-dropping: Tie each scholar to how your conclusion changes.
• Vague language: Use premises, probability, analogy, necessary/contingent, evidential/logical—mark-scheme vocabulary.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which arguments are most likely to appear?

Cosmological, teleological/fine-tuning, ontological, evil & suffering, and religious experience/miracles are frequent. Prepare one strong paragraph for each with a counter and judgement.

How many scholars should I include?

Quality over quantity: one precise scholar per paragraph is enough if it drives evaluation toward a clear conclusion.

Do I need exact quotations?

No—short paraphrases or keyword snippets are fine if accurate and linked to your judgement. Long quotations waste time.

What earns top-band AO2?

Explicit weighing: present the strongest counter, explain its impact on the conclusion, and justify your final stance with reasons.

Related guides