Philosophy 2021 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q7

(a) Discuss the role of reason and faith in religion. Can reason be a regulative force in the formulation of religious beliefs? Explain. (20 marks) (b) Give a critical account of moral argument to prove the existence of God. (15 marks) (c) Explain the concept of religious experience in the light of Vedāntic tradition. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) धर्म में तर्क एवं आस्था की भूमिका की विवेचना कीजिए । क्या तर्क धार्मिक विश्वासों के प्रतिपादन में नियामक तत्व हो सकता है ? व्याख्या कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) ईश्वर के अस्तित्व को सिद्ध करने के लिए नैतिक तर्क का आलोचनात्मक विवरण प्रस्तुत कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) वेदांती परंपरा के आलोक में धार्मिक अनुभूति की अवधारणा की व्याख्या कीजिए । (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Philosophy questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'discuss' requires a balanced, analytical treatment across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure as: brief introduction establishing the reason-faith dialectic → systematic treatment of (a) with regulative function analysis → (b) with critical evaluation of moral arguments (Kant, Newman) → (c) with Vedāntic analysis (Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja) → integrated conclusion showing how the three dimensions interconnect.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Distinction between reason as cognitive faculty and faith as fiducial commitment; regulative vs constitutive roles of reason in religion (Kantian framework)
  • For (a): Analysis of how reason functions regulatively—testing internal coherence, eliminating superstition, providing analogical support (Aquinas, Tillich, Radhakrishnan)
  • For (a): Limits of reason—fideism (Kierkegaard, Barth) vs rational theology; synthesis through 'faith seeking understanding' (Anselm)
  • For (b): Kant's moral argument (summum bonum, holy will, postulates of practical reason) and critical assessment of its autonomy-to-theism transition
  • For (b): Newman's Illative Sense and conscience as moral argument; critical evaluation regarding circularity and alternative naturalistic explanations
  • For (c): Vedāntic typology of religious experience—savikalpa/nirvikalpa samādhi; Śaṅkara's advaitic anubhava as transcending reason-faith dualism
  • For (c): Rāmānuja's viśiṣṭādvaita: bhakti as rationally informed experience; comparison with Śaṅkara on validity of pramāṇa
  • Synthesis: How Vedāntic experience integrates reason (śruti-based vicāra) and faith (śraddhā), offering resolution to (a)'s tension

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise delineation of 'regulative' vs 'constitutive' reason in (a); accurate exposition of Kant's moral postulates in (b); correct technical use of savikalpa/nirvikalpa, anubhava, and pramāṇa in (c); no conflation of Vedāntic schoolsBasic understanding of reason-faith distinction and moral argument structure; some accuracy in Vedāntic terminology but imprecise on school-specific differences; minor conceptual blurringConfuses regulative with constitutive functions; misrepresents Kant's argument as theoretical proof; conflates Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja; uses 'religious experience' generically without Vedāntic specificity
Argument structure20%10Clear thesis-antithesis-synthesis progression in (a); systematic presentation of moral argument with explicit critical evaluation in (b); phenomenological to epistemological analysis in (c); smooth transitions between parts showing thematic unityLogical flow within each part but weak inter-part connections; descriptive rather than analytical treatment of moral argument; adequate but not rigorous structure in Vedāntic expositionDisjointed treatment with no clear argument thread; mere listing of points; (b) becomes uncritical description; (c) lacks analytical depth; conclusion absent or repetitive
Schools / thinkers cited20%10For (a): Aquinas, Anselm, Kant, Kierkegaard, Barth, Tillich, Radhakrishnan; for (b): Kant, Newman, Rashdall, Sorley with critical commentary; for (c): Śaṅkara (BSBh), Rāmānuja (Śrībhāṣya), Vivekananda on practical Vedānta; appropriate Sanskrit termsMention of major figures (Kant, Śaṅkara) without nuanced deployment; some Indian thinkers but limited secondary scholarship; adequate but not rich citationGeneric references without specificity; omits key thinkers like Kant in (b) or Śaṅkara in (c); relies on vague 'some philosophers say'; no Sanskrit terminology
Counter-position handling20%10In (a): engages fideist critique (Barth, Kierkegaard) and rationalist excess; in (b): evaluates naturalistic alternatives (evolutionary ethics, moral realism without God), autonomy critique; in (c): addresses Shankaracharya vs. modern critiques (Freud, Marx, naturalistic explanations) and pramāṇa debateAcknowledges opposing views but superficially; some critique of moral argument but not systematic; limited engagement with naturalistic challenges to religious experienceOne-sided presentation; no critical evaluation of moral argument; ignores counter-arguments entirely; defensive or apologetic tone without scholarly balance
Conclusion & coherence20%10Synthesizes three parts: Vedāntic anubhava as integrating regulative reason and fiducial faith, transcending the Kantian moral argument's postulational structure; shows contemporary relevance (e.g., pluralism, science-religion dialogue); returns to thesis with enriched understandingBrief summary of each part without genuine synthesis; some attempt at connection but forced or superficial; adequate but not illuminating conclusionNo conclusion or mere restatement of points; parts treated as isolated essays; abrupt ending; no thematic integration or forward-looking perspective

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from Philosophy 2021 Paper II