Q7
(a) State and evaluate Buddhism as a religion without God. (20 marks) (b) What kind of epistemic justifications are possible with regard to claims to revelation? Discuss with your own comments. (15 marks) (c) Present an exposition of ontological proof for the existence of God along with its criticism. (10+5=15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) बौद्ध-धर्म का प्रतिपादन एवं मूल्यांकन ईश्वर रहित धर्म के रूप में कीजिये । (20 अंक) (b) इल्हाम के दावों के सम्बन्ध में किस प्रकार की ज्ञानमीमांसीय प्रामाणिकता सम्भव है ? अपनी टिप्पणियों सहित विवेचना कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) ईश्वर की सत्ता के लिए सत्तामूलक युक्ति का आलोचना सहित निरूपण कीजिए । (10+5=15 अंक)
Directive word: Evaluate
This question asks you to evaluate. 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 'evaluate' in part (a) demands critical assessment, while (b) requires 'discuss' with original comments and (c) needs exposition plus criticism. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief introduction acknowledging Buddhism's unique status, then address each part sequentially with clear sub-headings, ensuring analytical depth in (a), balanced epistemic analysis in (b), and precise logical exposition in (c), ending with a synthesizing conclusion on non-theistic spirituality and rational theology.
Key points expected
- For (a): Accurate exposition of anatta (no-self), anicca (impermanence), and dukkha as core Buddhist doctrines replacing God-concepts; distinction between Theravada and Mahayana ontologies; evaluation of whether Buddha-nature/Tathagatagarbha constitutes functional theism
- For (a): Critical assessment of 'religion without God' thesis—comparative reference to Radhakrishnan's Hindu critique or Weber's sociology of religion; mention of Ambedkar's Navayana Buddhism as Indian context
- For (b): Clear classification of epistemic justifications for revelation—evidentialist (Swami Vivekananda's experiential validation), coherentist (Sri Aurobindo's integral epistemology), and proper basicality (Plantinga); critical evaluation of each with candidate's original stance
- For (c): Precise exposition of Anselm's ontological argument (Proslogion II-III) and its modal reformulation by Malcolm/Plantinga; Gaunilo's island objection, Kant's 'existence is not predicate', and Russell's theory of descriptions as criticisms
- For (c): Candidate's own critical assessment of whether ontological argument survives modal logic defenses or remains purely conceptual
- Cross-part coherence: Synthesis showing how Buddhist non-theism challenges revelation-based and rationalist theologies alike, or alternatively how all three represent distinct paths to ultimate concern
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | For (a), accurately distinguishes anatta from nihilism and nirvana from annihilation; for (b), correctly identifies internalist/externalist epistemic frameworks; for (c), precisely captures Anselm's 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived' without conflating versions | Basic definitions correct but conflates Buddhist schools or mixes up ontological with cosmological argument; epistemic categories present but underdeveloped | Fundamental errors like treating Buddha as God in (a), confusing revelation with intuition in (b), or presenting ontological argument as empirical in (c) |
| Argument structure | 20% | 10 | Each part builds logically: (a) moves from description to evaluation with clear criteria for 'religion'; (b) progresses from classification to critical assessment with original synthesis; (c) separates exposition from criticism analytically; smooth transitions between parts | Structure present but parts feel disconnected; evaluation in (a) superficial; (b) descriptive rather than argumentative; (c) exposition and criticism merged confusingly | No discernible structure; random points under each part; conclusion merely restates without integration |
| Schools / thinkers cited | 20% | 10 | For (a): Nagarjuna's Madhyamika, Vasubandhu's Yogacara, and contemporary scholars like Gombrich or Kalupahana; for (b): Indian thinkers (Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Gandhi) and Western epistemologists (Plantinga, Alston); for (c): Anselm, Descartes, Kant, and at least one contemporary modal logician | Mentions Buddha and basic figures (Anselm, Kant) but misses school distinctions or contemporary developments; limited Indian philosophical engagement | No named thinkers or schools; vague references like 'some philosophers'; anachronistic attributions |
| Counter-position handling | 20% | 10 | For (a): Engages substantively with Radhakrishnan's charge that Buddhism lacks spiritual fulfillment or Weber's 'world-rejecting' characterization; for (b): Considers skeptical challenge (Hume on miracles, Nietzsche on priestly deception); for (c): Takes seriously Kant's critique while assessing modal responses, not merely listing objections | Acknowledges opposing views but straw-mans or dismisses quickly; counter-positions mentioned without engagement | One-sided presentation; no recognition of scholarly debates; ignores obvious objections like Gaunilo's parallel |
| Conclusion & coherence | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes three parts into coherent reflection on rationality and transcendence—perhaps arguing that Buddhist non-theism, revealed epistemology, and ontological argument represent complementary rather than competing approaches to ultimate questions; or defends philosophical naturalism consistently across all three | Separate conclusions for each part without integration; generic closing statement about philosophy's value | No conclusion; abrupt end; or conclusion contradicts body of answer |
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 2024 Paper II
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Briefly discuss Plato's concept of justice. (10 marks) (b) Present a brief acco…
- Q2 (a) Delineate the central tenets of Humanism. How does advent of enlightenment in Europe pave the way for Humanism? Discuss. (20 marks) (b)…
- Q3 (a) Do you agree with the view that Aristotle was more successful than Plato in steering a middle course between 'Statism' and 'individuali…
- Q4 (a) Discuss gender equality as a necessary condition to achieve empowerment of women. Also examine the role of women empowerment in curbing…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Can there be a religion without morality? Discuss. (10 marks) (b) Write a note…
- Q6 (a) Is it necessary to adhere to the notions of immortality of soul and rebirth in order to have a robust conception of liberation? Give re…
- Q7 (a) State and evaluate Buddhism as a religion without God. (20 marks) (b) What kind of epistemic justifications are possible with regard to…
- Q8 (a) Distinguish between cognitivist and non-cognitivist account of religious language. Does the cognitivist account lead to any contradicti…