AQA A-Level Religious Studies: Philosophy of Religion Revision Guide

The Philosophy of Religion component of AQA A-Level Religious Studies is one of the most intellectually demanding papers you will sit. It requires you to engage with arguments that have occupied the greatest minds in Western philosophy for over two thousand years -- and to do so with precision, clarity, and genuine critical evaluation. This is not a subject where vague generalisations earn marks. The examiners want to see that you understand the internal logic of each argument, can identify exactly where and why it succeeds or fails, and can construct a sustained evaluative response under timed conditions.

This revision guide covers every major topic within the AQA Philosophy of Religion specification: arguments for the existence of God, arguments against the existence of God, religious experience, religious language, miracles, and the self, death and afterlife. For each area, the key thinkers, concepts, and evaluative points are set out clearly so that you can revise with confidence.

Arguments for the Existence of God

This is the foundation of the entire paper. You need to know three families of argument -- cosmological, teleological, and ontological -- and be able to explain, compare, and critically evaluate each one.

The Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument reasons from the existence of the universe to the existence of a cause or explanation that lies outside it. It is an a posteriori argument, meaning it starts from observation of the world rather than from abstract reasoning alone.

Aquinas' Five Ways (the first three): Thomas Aquinas presented five arguments for God's existence in his Summa Theologica. The first three are cosmological in nature. The First Way argues from motion: everything that is in motion must have been set in motion by something else, and this chain cannot extend to infinity, so there must be an unmoved mover. The Second Way argues from causation: every effect has a cause, and the chain of causes cannot be infinite, so there must be a first uncaused cause. The Third Way argues from contingency: everything in the universe is contingent (it might not have existed), but if everything were contingent then at some point nothing would have existed, and nothing can come from nothing, so there must be a necessary being that depends on nothing else for its existence. In each case, Aquinas identifies this being with God.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument: This version, associated with the medieval Islamic tradition and revived in modern philosophy by William Lane Craig, takes a slightly different approach. It argues that everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, and therefore the universe has a cause. Craig supports the second premise by arguing that an actual infinite series of past events is impossible -- the universe cannot have existed for an infinite amount of time -- and by appealing to scientific evidence from the Big Bang. The cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful, which Craig argues fits the description of God.

Key evaluations: Hume challenged the assumption that everything must have a cause, asking why the universe itself could not simply be a brute fact that requires no explanation. Russell famously stated that "the universe is just there, and that's all." Hume also argued that even if we accept that individual things within the universe have causes, it does not follow that the universe as a whole must have a cause -- to assume so is to commit the fallacy of composition. Against the Kalam argument, critics question whether the concept of "beginning to exist" applies to the universe in the same way it applies to objects within the universe, and whether the cause of the universe must necessarily be God rather than some other kind of entity.

The Teleological Argument

The teleological argument -- also known as the design argument -- reasons from apparent order, purpose, and regularity in the natural world to the existence of an intelligent designer. Like the cosmological argument, it is a posteriori.

Aquinas' Fifth Way: Aquinas observed that natural bodies that lack intelligence nevertheless act for an end, consistently behaving in ways that achieve the best result. Just as an arrow requires an archer to direct it, these unintelligent things require an intelligent being to direct them towards their purpose. That intelligent being is God.

Paley's Watch Analogy: William Paley's famous argument from 1802 asks us to imagine finding a watch on a heath. Unlike a stone, the watch has parts that are arranged for a purpose -- to tell the time. We would naturally infer that it had a maker. Paley argued that the natural world shows far greater complexity and purpose than any watch, and therefore it too must have a designer. He pointed to the human eye as a particularly striking example of apparent design.

Swinburne's Argument from Regularities: Richard Swinburne updated the design argument by focusing on temporal order rather than spatial order. He argued that the universe operates according to regular, predictable laws of nature, and that the simplest and best explanation for this regularity is a divine designer. Swinburne used the principle of Occam's Razor: rather than positing a multitude of unexplained regularities, we should posit a single explanation -- God -- that accounts for all of them.

Key evaluations: Hume mounted several critiques. He argued that the analogy between the universe and a designed artefact is weak, because we have no experience of universe-creation to compare with. He suggested that the apparent order could be the result of chance over a long enough period of time. He also raised the Epicurean hypothesis: in a universe of finite particles and infinite time, every possible combination will eventually occur, including one that appears ordered. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provides a powerful naturalistic explanation for biological complexity, undermining Paley's argument in particular. The existence of suffering, disease, and dysfunctional features in nature also counts against the claim that the world was designed by a benevolent and omnipotent intelligence.

The Ontological Argument

The ontological argument is unique among arguments for God's existence because it is a priori -- it attempts to demonstrate God's existence through reason alone, without any appeal to experience or observation.

Anselm's Argument: In the Proslogion, Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." He then argued that something that exists in reality is greater than something that exists only in the mind. If God existed only in the mind, we could conceive of something greater -- namely, a God that also exists in reality. But that would contradict the definition of God as the greatest conceivable being. Therefore, God must exist in reality.

Descartes' Argument: Rene Descartes offered a different version in his Meditations. He argued that existence is a perfection, and since God is defined as the supremely perfect being, God must possess all perfections, including existence. Just as the concept of a triangle necessarily includes the property of having three sides, the concept of God necessarily includes existence.

Gaunilo's Critique: Gaunilo of Marmoutiers responded to Anselm by applying the same logic to the concept of a perfect island -- "the island than which no greater island can be conceived." If Anselm's reasoning were valid, it would prove the existence of a perfect island, which is absurd. Therefore, the reasoning must be flawed. Anselm replied that the argument only applies to a being whose non-existence is inconceivable -- that is, a necessary being -- and not to contingent things like islands.

Kant's Critique: Immanuel Kant offered what many consider the most devastating objection to the ontological argument. He argued that existence is not a predicate -- it is not a property that adds anything to the concept of a thing. To say that God exists does not add a new characteristic to the concept of God; it simply asserts that the concept has an instance in reality. A hundred real thalers (coins) contain not a penny more than a hundred imagined thalers. The ontological argument, Kant argued, treats existence as though it were a property like omnipotence or omniscience, and this is a fundamental error.

Arguments Against the Existence of God

The problem of evil is the most significant philosophical challenge to the existence of God, and you must understand it in depth.

The Problem of Evil

The problem of evil asks how the existence of suffering and evil in the world can be reconciled with the existence of a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

The Logical Problem of Evil (the Inconsistent Triad): The logical form of the argument, often associated with J. L. Mackie, states that the following three propositions cannot all be true simultaneously: God is omnipotent, God is omnibenevolent, and evil exists. If God is omnipotent, he has the power to eliminate evil. If God is omnibenevolent, he has the desire to eliminate evil. Yet evil exists. Therefore, either God lacks the power, lacks the will, or does not exist. This is known as the inconsistent triad.

The Epicurean Paradox: This ancient formulation, attributed to Epicurus, puts the problem succinctly: Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then where does evil come from? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

The Evidential Problem of Evil: The evidential form, associated with William Rowe, does not claim that God and evil are logically incompatible, but rather that the sheer amount and distribution of suffering in the world makes God's existence highly improbable. The emphasis here is on gratuitous suffering -- suffering that appears to serve no greater purpose, such as the suffering of an animal in a forest fire with no witnesses.

Hume's Critique: In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume argued that the evidence of the natural world does not point to a benevolent designer. He catalogued the suffering found in nature -- disease, predation, natural disasters -- and argued that an impartial observer, looking at the world without prior religious commitment, would never infer the existence of a good and powerful God.

Natural and Moral Evil

The distinction between natural evil and moral evil is important for the specification.

Natural evil refers to suffering caused by natural processes -- earthquakes, diseases, floods, droughts. It raises the question of why an omnipotent God would create a world with such destructive features built into its fabric.

Moral evil refers to suffering caused by the free choices of human beings -- murder, theft, cruelty, war. It raises the question of why God would give humans free will if he knew they would use it to cause suffering.

Theodicies

A theodicy is an attempt to justify God's goodness and power in the face of evil. You need to know two major theodicies in detail.

The Augustinian Theodicy: Augustine argued that God created a perfect world, and that evil entered through the free choices of angels (the fall of Lucifer) and humans (the fall of Adam and Eve). Evil is not a substance or a thing that God created -- it is a privation, an absence of good, in the same way that darkness is an absence of light. All humanity sinned "seminally" in Adam, and the suffering we experience is a just consequence of the Fall. Natural evil is also a consequence of the cosmic disruption caused by the Fall.

Criticisms of Augustine: the theory depends on a literal reading of Genesis that is difficult to reconcile with modern science. If God created a perfect world, it is hard to explain how perfect beings could choose to sin -- where did the desire to sin come from? The idea that all humans sinned in Adam raises questions about justice and personal responsibility.

The Irenaean Theodicy and Hick's Soul-Making Theodicy: Irenaeus proposed a fundamentally different approach. He distinguished between being made in the "image" of God (having the potential for goodness) and being made in the "likeness" of God (achieving moral and spiritual maturity). Humans were not created perfect but were created with the capacity to grow towards perfection.

John Hick developed this into his soul-making theodicy. He argued that a world without suffering would be a world in which moral growth is impossible. Courage, compassion, generosity, and forgiveness can only develop in response to challenges, hardship, and genuine moral choices. God allows suffering because it is the necessary environment for the development of the soul. Hick also proposed the idea of an "epistemic distance" between God and humanity -- if God's existence were obvious and undeniable, genuine free choice and faith would be impossible.

Criticisms of Hick: the distribution of suffering seems disproportionate -- some people suffer far more than is necessary for moral growth, and some suffering (such as the suffering of infants) does not appear to produce any growth at all. The theodicy also raises questions about whether the end justifies the means, and whether a loving God would use suffering as an instrument of development.

Religious Experience

Religious experience is a topic where you must balance description with critical analysis. The specification requires you to understand different types of religious experience and the philosophical challenges they raise.

Types of Religious Experience

Mystical experience: William James, in The Varieties of Religious Experience, identified four key characteristics of mystical experience: ineffability (it cannot be adequately described in words), noetic quality (it conveys a sense of deep insight or knowledge), transiency (it is temporary), and passivity (the individual feels as though their will is in abeyance). Rudolf Otto described the experience of the "numinous" -- a sense of awe, mystery, and fascination in the presence of the divine, which he called the mysterium tremendum et fascinans.

Conversion experiences: these involve a dramatic and lasting change in belief, identity, or lifestyle -- for example, the conversion of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus. They may be sudden or gradual.

Prayer: prayer as a form of religious experience can range from a sense of communication with the divine to reported instances of answered prayer.

Revelation: this may be propositional (God reveals truths or doctrines, as in the giving of the Ten Commandments) or non-propositional (God reveals himself through events, relationships, or experiences that the individual interprets as divine).

The Challenge of Verifying Religious Experience

The central philosophical problem is whether religious experiences provide genuine evidence for God's existence or whether they can be explained by natural causes.

Swinburne's Principles: Richard Swinburne defended the evidential value of religious experience through two principles. The Principle of Credulity states that, in the absence of special considerations, we should believe that things are as they seem -- if someone appears to have experienced God, we should take that at face value. The Principle of Testimony states that, in the absence of special considerations, we should believe the reports of others.

Challenges: critics argue that religious experiences are subjective, culturally conditioned, and susceptible to natural explanations (psychological states, neurological conditions, wish fulfilment). The fact that different religions report different and incompatible experiences raises further doubts. If a Hindu mystic experiences Brahman and a Christian mystic experiences the Trinity, they cannot both be correct in their interpretation, which suggests the experience is shaped by prior belief rather than by an objective divine reality.

Religious Language

Religious language is one of the more technically demanding areas of the specification. The core question is whether statements about God are meaningful and, if so, how they function.

The Verification Principle

The logical positivists -- particularly A. J. Ayer -- argued that a statement is only meaningful if it is either a tautology (true by definition) or empirically verifiable (capable of being tested by observation or experience). Since statements about God -- such as "God is loving" or "God exists" -- cannot be empirically verified, the logical positivists concluded that they are not true, not false, but literally meaningless.

Criticisms: the verification principle appears to be self-defeating, since the principle itself is neither a tautology nor empirically verifiable. Ayer attempted to weaken the principle to allow for "strong" and "weak" verification, but critics argued that this either excluded too much or too little. The principle also struggles to account for historical statements, ethical statements, and statements about other minds.

The Falsification Principle

Antony Flew applied Karl Popper's falsification principle to religious language. He argued that a meaningful assertion must be capable of being falsified -- there must be some conceivable state of affairs that would count against it. Flew used the parable of the invisible gardener: two explorers discover a clearing in a jungle that looks tended, and one claims there is an invisible gardener. As each test fails to detect the gardener, the believer qualifies the claim (he is invisible, intangible, undetectable) until the original assertion "dies the death of a thousand qualifications." Religious statements, Flew argued, suffer the same fate -- believers will not allow anything to count against "God loves us," so the statement is not a genuine assertion.

R. M. Hare's Response: Hare introduced the concept of a "blik" -- an unfalsifiable way of seeing the world that is not an assertion but nevertheless profoundly affects how we interpret experience. Religious belief, he argued, functions as a blik rather than as a factual claim.

Basil Mitchell's Response: Mitchell accepted that religious statements are genuine assertions and that evidence does count against them. He used the parable of the resistance fighter who trusts a stranger who claims to be on his side, even when the stranger is sometimes seen helping the enemy. The believer acknowledges the evidence against God's goodness (the existence of evil) but maintains trust based on a prior commitment. The evidence counts against the belief but does not decisively refute it.

Analogy

Thomas Aquinas argued that religious language functions through analogy. We cannot speak of God univocally (using words with exactly the same meaning as when applied to humans) because God is infinitely beyond us, but nor do we speak equivocally (using words with completely different meanings), because that would make religious language unintelligible. Instead, we speak analogically. Aquinas distinguished between the analogy of attribution (God is the cause of goodness in creatures, so we can attribute goodness to God in a primary sense) and the analogy of proportion (God's goodness is proportional to God's nature, just as human goodness is proportional to human nature).

Symbol

Paul Tillich argued that religious language is symbolic. Symbols, unlike signs, participate in the reality to which they point. A national flag does not merely indicate a country -- it evokes feelings of loyalty, identity, and belonging. Religious symbols function similarly: they open up levels of reality and experience that cannot be accessed through literal language alone. For Tillich, God is not a being among beings but "the ground of being," and all language about God is necessarily symbolic (except, he argued, the statement "God is being-itself").

Criticisms: if religious language is purely symbolic, it is unclear what the symbols actually refer to and whether they communicate any objective truth. There is also a risk of subjectivism -- different people may interpret the same symbol in radically different ways.

Language Games

Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that meaning is determined by use within a particular context or "form of life." Different areas of human activity -- science, ethics, religion, everyday conversation -- operate as distinct "language games," each with its own rules. Religious language makes sense within the religious form of life, and it is a mistake to judge it by the criteria of another language game (such as science). To say "God is loving" is not a scientific hypothesis; it functions as an expression of trust, commitment, and a way of seeing the world.

Criticisms: if religious language is simply a self-contained language game, it is insulated from external criticism, and there is no way to assess whether its claims are true or false. This may protect religious language from the verification and falsification challenges, but at the cost of making it non-cognitive -- that is, not really making claims about reality at all.

Myth

Some theologians, notably Rudolf Bultmann, argued that much of religious language is mythological. Myths are not falsehoods but narrative frameworks that convey deep truths about human existence, meaning, and values. Bultmann's programme of "demythologisation" sought to strip away the mythological elements of the New Testament (such as a three-tiered universe) in order to uncover the existential truths beneath them.

Miracles

The topic of miracles brings together questions of definition, evidence, and the relationship between religion and science.

Definitions

Aquinas: Thomas Aquinas defined a miracle as an event brought about by God that nature could not produce. This is a clear and absolute definition -- a miracle is a supernatural intervention that goes beyond the natural order entirely.

Hume: David Hume defined a miracle as "a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity." This definition has the advantage of clarity but also sets up a framework in which miracles are, by definition, extraordinarily unlikely.

Hume's Critique of Miracles

Hume's argument against believing in miracles is one of the most important in the specification. He presented two related lines of attack.

The in-principle argument: a miracle, by definition, is a violation of a law of nature. Laws of nature are established by uniform experience. Therefore, the evidence against a miracle is, by its very nature, as strong as any evidence could be. A wise person proportions belief to evidence, and since the evidence for the regularity of nature will always outweigh the testimony for any particular miracle, it is never rational to believe in a miracle on the basis of testimony.

The in-practice arguments: Hume also raised practical objections. Miracle reports tend to come from uneducated people in "ignorant and barbarous nations." There is a natural human tendency to exaggerate and to seek out the marvellous. Different religions all claim miracles, and since their claims are mutually exclusive, they cancel each other out.

Swinburne's Defence of Miracles

Richard Swinburne responded to Hume by arguing that Hume's reasoning is too restrictive. If we only ever believed what was consistent with past experience, we could never revise our understanding of the laws of nature. Swinburne applied his Principle of Credulity (we should believe things are as they seem unless we have good reason not to) and his Principle of Testimony (we should trust the testimony of others unless we have specific grounds for doubt) to miracle claims. He also argued that miracles are not violations of natural law but rather events in which God, as the sustainer of nature, chooses to act in an unusual way.

Self, Death and the Afterlife

This final section of the specification addresses fundamental questions about personal identity and what, if anything, survives death.

Dualism

Dualism is the view that a human being is composed of two distinct substances -- a physical body and a non-physical mind or soul.

Plato: Plato argued that the soul is immortal and distinct from the body. In the Phaedo, he presented several arguments for the soul's immortality, including the argument from recollection (we have knowledge of perfect Forms that we could not have acquired through bodily experience, so the soul must have existed before birth) and the argument from affinity (the soul resembles the eternal, unchanging Forms rather than the changing, perishable body). For Plato, the body is a temporary prison for the soul, and death is the liberation of the soul from the body.

Descartes: Rene Descartes argued for substance dualism through his famous cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am"). He reasoned that he could doubt the existence of his body but could not doubt the existence of his mind (since the very act of doubting proves a thinking thing exists). Since the mind and body have different essential properties -- the mind is non-extended and thinking, the body is extended and non-thinking -- they must be different substances. The mind can, in principle, exist without the body.

Criticisms of dualism: the most persistent problem is the interaction problem -- if mind and body are entirely different substances, how do they interact? How does a non-physical decision cause a physical arm to move? Gilbert Ryle criticised dualism as a "category mistake," famously calling the Cartesian soul "the ghost in the machine." Modern neuroscience has also raised serious challenges, showing strong correlations between mental states and brain states, which suggests that the mind is not independent of the body.

Materialism

Materialism is the view that human beings are entirely physical. There is no separate soul or non-physical mind -- all mental states are identical with or reducible to brain states.

Identity theory holds that each type of mental state is identical with a specific type of brain state. Functionalism defines mental states not by what they are made of but by what they do -- their functional role in the system. Both approaches reject the existence of a soul and imply that death is the permanent end of personal existence.

Criticisms: materialism struggles to account for the subjective quality of conscious experience -- what it is like to see red, to feel pain, to experience joy. This is sometimes called the "hard problem of consciousness." It also raises difficulties for the concept of an afterlife, since if we are entirely physical, there is nothing that could survive the destruction of the body.

Personal Identity

The question of personal identity asks what makes a person the same person over time and, crucially, what would need to be preserved for a person to continue to exist after death. John Locke argued that personal identity is constituted by continuity of consciousness -- specifically, memory. If a resurrected being has the same memories as the person who died, it is the same person. Others argue that bodily continuity is necessary, while some philosophers question whether the concept of personal identity after death is coherent at all.

Resurrection vs Immortality of the Soul

Resurrection is the view, central to Christianity and Islam, that after death the whole person (body and soul, or a transformed body) is raised to new life by God. It is compatible with a more holistic view of the person and avoids some of the problems of dualism, but it raises its own difficulties -- how can a decayed or destroyed body be reconstituted, and would a replica truly be the same person? John Hick explored this through his "replica theory," imagining that God could create an exact replica of a deceased person in another space, but critics questioned whether a replica is genuinely the same individual or merely a copy.

Immortality of the soul is the view, rooted in Plato's philosophy, that the soul naturally survives death because it is immaterial and indestructible. This avoids the problem of bodily continuity but relies on the coherence of dualism, which, as noted above, faces significant philosophical challenges.

Exam Strategy for Philosophy of Religion

Success in AQA A-Level Religious Studies depends as much on how you write as on what you know. The highest marks go to students who engage in genuine critical evaluation rather than simply describing what different thinkers have said.

Structure your essays clearly. Begin with a brief introduction that sets out the question and indicates your line of argument. Present the key arguments and counterarguments in a logical sequence. End with a justified conclusion that follows from the analysis you have presented.

Always evaluate as you go. Do not save all your evaluation for the end. After presenting a thinker's argument, immediately engage with the strengths and weaknesses. This creates a sustained, analytical tone throughout your essay.

Use precise terminology. Terms such as a priori, a posteriori, contingent, necessary, univocal, equivocal, and analogical are the building blocks of this subject. Use them accurately and consistently.

Engage with the dialogue between thinkers. The specification is full of thinkers who respond directly to one another -- Gaunilo responds to Anselm, Kant responds to Descartes, Hick develops Irenaeus. Show that you understand these connections.

Manage your time. Know how many minutes each question is worth and stick to your plan. It is better to write a focused, well-structured shorter essay than a rambling, unfocused longer one.

Prepare with LearningBro

If you are revising for AQA A-Level Religious Studies and want structured, exam-focused practice, LearningBro offers courses designed to test your understanding across every area of the specification:

• AQA A-Level Religious Studies: Philosophy of Religion -- covers all the core topics in the Philosophy of Religion component with targeted revision questions.
• AQA A-Level Religious Studies: Philosophy of Religion -- Advanced -- takes your revision further with challenging questions designed to push you into the top mark bands.

Use these courses alongside your own notes and past papers to build the depth of knowledge and evaluative skill that examiners are looking for. The more you practise applying your knowledge under exam-like conditions, the more confident and effective you will be on the day.