Q5
Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Elucidate the personalistic and impersonalistic aspects of God. (10 marks) (b) Can religious beliefs be justified? Discuss. (10 marks) (c) Does religion influence the moral behaviour? Explain the interactive relation between religion and morality. (10 marks) (d) Discuss Wittgenstein's view about the non-cognitive nature of religious language. (10 marks) (e) What is Agnosticism? How do agnostics conceptualize the relation between religion and God? Discuss. (10 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) ईश्वर के वैयक्तिक एवं निर्वैयक्तिक पहलुओं की स्पष्ट रूप से व्याख्या कीजिए । (10 अंक) (b) क्या धार्मिक विश्वासों को तर्कसंगत सिद्ध किया जा सकता है ? विवेचन कीजिए । (10 अंक) (c) क्या धर्म नैतिक व्यवहार को प्रभावित करता है ? धर्म व नैतिकता के बीच अन्योन्यक्रियात्मक संबंध की व्याख्या कीजिए । (10 अंक) (d) धार्मिक भाषा के असंज्ञानात्मक स्वरूप के विषय में विट्टगेन्स्टाइन के विचारों का विवेचन कीजिए । (10 अंक) (e) अज्ञेयवाद क्या है ? अज्ञेयवादी धर्म व ईश्वर के बीच संबंध की अवधारणा किस प्रकार करते हैं ? विवेचन कीजिए । (10 अंक)
Directive word: Elucidate
This question asks you to elucidate. 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 'elucidate' demands clear, illuminating exposition with examples. Allocate approximately 30 words per sub-part (150 words total): for (a) contrast Saguna/Nirguna Brahman or Jehovah vs. Brahman; for (b) present Reformed Epistemology vs. evidentialism; for (c) use Indian context—dharma as both religious and moral; for (d) explain language-games and form of life; for (e) distinguish Huxley's agnosticism from atheism. Structure: brief definitional opening for each, analytical body with thinker-specific illustrations, and a synthesizing closing line on contemporary relevance.
Key points expected
- (a) Personalistic God: anthropomorphic attributes, Saguna Brahman, theistic traditions; Impersonalistic God: Nirguna Brahman, Absolute of Hegel/Bradley, Tao, Ein Sof—contrast illustrated with Indian examples
- (b) Justification strategies: Reformed Epistemology (Plantinga, proper basicality), cumulative case arguments (Swinburne), pragmatic justification (James), evidentialist challenge (Clifford), fideist response (Kierkegaard)
- (c) Religion-morality interaction: dharma as integrated concept in Indian thought, Durkheim's social morality, Kant's autonomous ethics challenge, contemporary Indian ethical pluralism
- (d) Wittgenstein's non-cognitivism: language-games, form of life, meaning as use, religious statements as expressive/prescriptive rather than fact-stating, critique of verificationism
- (e) Agnosticism: Huxley's coinage, suspension of judgment, epistemological humility; relation to religion—functional participation without metaphysical commitment, contrast with atheism and negative theology
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | Precise distinction between Saguna/Nirguna in (a); accurate exposition of Plantinga's proper basicality in (b); correct identification of Wittgenstein's later philosophy in (d); no conflation of agnosticism with atheism in (e) | Generally correct concepts with minor inaccuracies—e.g., vague 'God is personal' without philosophical specification, or confusing Wittgenstein's early and later views | Fundamental conceptual errors: treating agnosticism as 'weak atheism,' conflating Brahman with Ishvara without distinction, or misattributing verificationism to Wittgenstein |
| Argument structure | 20% | 10 | Each sub-part follows clear thesis-development pattern: for (b) presents justification thesis, then evidentialist challenge, then synthesis; for (c) establishes interactive thesis with dialectical progression | Adequate structure with some imbalance—e.g., (a) and (d) well-developed but (c) becomes descriptive rather than analytical; or uneven word distribution across parts | Disorganized response: listing points without logical flow, mixing sub-parts together, or providing only fragmented assertions without argumentative connections |
| Schools / thinkers cited | 20% | 10 | Appropriate Indian and Western thinkers: Shankara/Ramanuja for (a), Plantinga/Clifford/James for (b), Durkheim/Kant for (c), Wittgenstein with specific textual reference for (d), Huxley/Russell for (e) | Some relevant thinkers named but without specificity—e.g., 'some philosophers say' or generic 'Indian philosophers' without distinguishing Advaita from Vishishtadvaita | Missing essential thinkers or anachronistic/misattributed citations; e.g., citing Descartes for religious language or confusing Wittgenstein with logical positivists |
| Counter-position handling | 20% | 10 | For (b), addresses evidentialist critique; for (c), engages autonomy-of-ethics challenge; for (e), distinguishes from both atheism and fideism; demonstrates dialectical awareness across parts | Acknowledges opposing views superficially—e.g., mentions 'some disagree' without elaboration, or presents counter-position without substantive engagement | One-sided presentation only; e.g., (b) presents only Reformed Epistemology without Clifford's challenge, or (c) asserts religion-morality identity without addressing secular critique |
| Conclusion & coherence | 20% | 10 | Brief but effective closing for each sub-part: for (d), connects Wittgenstein to contemporary philosophy of religion; for (e), notes agnosticism's relevance to Indian secularism; overall five-part response hangs together thematically | Adequate conclusions but formulaic or repetitive; some sub-parts end abruptly without synthesis; thematic connection between parts on religious epistemology implicit but unstated | Missing conclusions for multiple sub-parts, or single generic conclusion that fails to address specific sub-part demands; parts read as disconnected fragments |
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 2023 Paper II
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) What is meant by justice as fairness? Explain Rawls' theory of justice. (10 mar…
- Q2 (a) Elucidate why the absolute nature of sovereignty was rejected by Laski. (20 marks) (b) Do you agree that duty and accountability must b…
- Q3 (a) Explain Historical Materialism and discuss its relevance in the context of social development and change. (20 marks) (b) Critically ana…
- Q4 (a) "Severity of punishment should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime." — Do you agree that while punishing a juvenile, the n…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Elucidate the personalistic and impersonalistic aspects of God. (10 marks) (b)…
- Q6 (a) Critically examine Plato's apriori proofs for the immortality of the soul. (20 marks) (b) In what sense is God both immanent and transc…
- Q7 (a) Critically examine the arguments of Nyaya for the existence of God. (20 marks) (b) Examine the significance of the concept of rebirth i…
- Q8 (a) "All evil is either sin or punishment for sin." – St. Augustine. Critically discuss. (20 marks) (b) Does religious pluralism invite int…