Q6
(a) Present an account of Design argument to prove the existence of God along with its criticism by David Hume. (20 marks) (b) Explain the main tenets of the Process Theodicy as an explanation of the problem of evil. (15 marks) (c) Distinguish between Natural Theology and Revealed Theology in the context of the Propositional view of Revelation. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) ईश्वर की सत्ता सिद्ध करने के लिए रचनामूलक (डिजाइन) युक्ति का डेविड ह्यूम द्वारा उसकी आलोचना सहित विवरण प्रस्तुत कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) अशुभ की समस्या की एक व्याख्या के रूप में सतत् प्रक्रियागत थियोडिसी के मुख्य सिद्धान्तों की व्याख्या कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) इल्हाम के प्रतिज्ञाप्यात्मक (प्रोपोजिशनल) मत के संदर्भ में प्राकृतिक धर्म-विज्ञान एवं रहस्योद्घाटित धर्म-विज्ञान के मध्य भेद स्पष्ट कीजिए। (15 अंक)
Directive word: Explain
This question asks you to explain. 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
Begin with a brief introduction acknowledging the three distinct but related themes in philosophy of religion. For part (a), present the Design argument through its analogical (Paley) and probabilistic (Swinburne) versions before detailing Hume's criticisms in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion; allocate ~40% of content here given 20 marks. For part (b), explain Whitehead and Hartshorne's Process Theodicy with its metaphysical revision of divine power; allocate ~30%. For part (c), distinguish Natural and Revealed Theology through the Propositional lens of B.B. Warfield and Carl Henry; allocate ~30%. Conclude by briefly noting how these three discussions interconnect around rational justification of religious belief.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Teleological/Design argument—analogical form (Paley: watchmaker analogy), probabilistic form (Swinburne: cumulative case), and Hume's criticisms (Dialogues Part II-VII: weak analogy, multiple designers, evil undermining benevolence, Epicurean hypothesis)
- Part (b): Process Theodicy—dipolar theism (God's consequent vs. primordial nature), genuine novelty and indeterminacy in creation, God's persuasive rather than coercive power, evil as inevitable byproduct of real freedom (Whitehead, Hartshorne)
- Part (c): Propositional view of Revelation—truth-claims as propositions; Natural Theology (reason alone: cosmological, teleological arguments) vs. Revealed Theology (scriptural propositions requiring divine authority); Warfield's inerrancy, Barth's rejection of natural theology
- Critical linkage: How Hume's critique of natural religion anticipates Process Theodicy's rejection of classical theism's omnipotence
- Indian philosophical resonance: Nyaya's īśvaravāṇī (divine word) as propositional revelation vs. anumāna (inference) in natural theology; optional comparison with Śaṅkara's māyāvāda on evil
- Evaluation: Whether Process Theodicy successfully evades Hume's dilemma of evil; whether Propositional view collapses distinction between natural and revealed theology
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | Precisely defines Design argument's analogical and inductive forms; accurately captures Hume's specific objections (weak analogy, regress of designers, Epicurean hypothesis); correctly identifies Process Theodicy's dipolar theism and metaphysical categories; sharply distinguishes Natural/Revealed Theology through propositional content without conflating with experiential/non-propositional views | Basic grasp of Design argument as 'order implies designer' and Hume as 'skeptic'; understands Process Theodicy as 'God is not all-powerful'; knows Natural Theology uses reason and Revealed uses scripture but misses propositional specificity; minor confusions between thinkers | Confuses Design with Cosmological argument; misattributes Hume's criticisms to Kant or treats Hume as atheist rather than skeptical theist; describes Process Theodicy as 'God is changing' without metaphysical grounding; conflates Propositional view with general revelation or confuses Natural Theology with natural religion broadly |
| Argument structure | 20% | 10 | Clear tripartite structure with explicit mark-weighted allocation (~500 words for a, ~375 each for b,c); each part has internal thesis-antithesis-synthesis or exposition-critique-assessment flow; smooth transitions showing how Hume's critique motivates Process Theodicy's revision; integrated conclusion addressing all three parts | Three separate sections present but uneven development (a overdeveloped, c underdeveloped); some internal organization within parts but abrupt shifts; minimal linkage between parts; conclusion merely summarizes without synthesis | No clear part demarcation or confused ordering; rambling exposition without argumentative progression; severe imbalance (e.g., 80% on a, cursory b and c); missing introduction or conclusion; treats as three unrelated short notes without unity |
| Schools / thinkers cited | 20% | 10 | For (a): Paley, Aquinas (quinque viae), Swinburne, Tennant; Hume's Dialogues with Philo/Cleanthes/Demea voices. For (b): Whitehead (Process and Reality), Hartshorne, Griffin, Cobb—specific doctrines cited. For (c): Warfield (inspiration and inerrancy), Carl Henry (God, Revelation and Authority), Barth (Nein! to natural theology), Aquinas (nature/grace distinction). Optional: Indian thinkers like Udayana (Nyāyakusumāñjali) or Rāmānuja | Mentions Paley and Hume by name; names Whitehead for Process Theodicy; identifies 'Bible' for revealed theology and 'reason' for natural theology without specific theologians; some correct names but vague attributions or minor anachronisms | No named thinkers or confused attributions (e.g., Kant for Design argument, Leibniz for Process Theodicy); generic references like 'some philosophers believe'; anachronistic mixing of historical periods; omits Hume entirely or attributes Dialogues to Treatise |
| Counter-position handling | 20% | 10 | For (a): Hume's criticisms presented as internal critique—analogical weakness, problem of evil within design framework, regress objection—followed by Design argument's possible responses (Swinburne's probabilistic cumulative case). For (b): Acknowledges classical theist critique (Process Theodicy denies divine perfection), free will theodicy alternative, and Process reply. For (c): Presents Barth's rejection of Natural Theology, neo-Thomist response, and assesses whether Propositional view itself survives critique | Mentions Hume's criticisms without systematic presentation; notes that 'some disagree' with Process Theodicy; acknowledges that Natural Theology has critics; superficial treatment without dialectical engagement | One-sided exposition with no criticism of Design argument, no acknowledgment of Process Theodicy's controversial status, or no recognition that Propositional view is contested; treats all positions as equally valid without tension; strawman representations of opposing views |
| Conclusion & coherence | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes three parts: Hume's destruction of classical natural theology's Design argument opens space for Process Theodicy's revision of divine nature, while Propositional view's sharp distinction is challenged by Process metaphysics's emphasis on divine becoming; offers independent assessment of whether rational theism survives these transformations; returns to contemporary relevance (science-religion dialogue, Indian philosophy of religion) | Brief summary of three parts without synthetic insight; generic statement about 'philosophy helps understand religion'; no independent critical stance; conclusion merely restates what was said | Missing conclusion or completely disconnected final paragraph; conclusion contradicts body; no attempt to connect the three themes; abrupt ending; introduces entirely new content in conclusion |
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 2025 Paper II
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) "Corrupt practices reveal an inherent tension between particularistic and unive…
- Q2 (a) Present a detailed account of the debate between Gandhi and Ambedkar on the issue of caste discrimination. (20 marks) (b) Evaluate Marx…
- Q3 (a) Can one's right to life be absolute ? Answer with reference to the idea of Capital Punishment. (20 marks) (b) How does the reconciliati…
- Q4 (a) How are both equality and liberty inadequate as social and political ideals without justice ? Discuss. (20 marks) (b) Can Theocracy be…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss Cārvāka's critique of the belief in the existence of suprasensible enti…
- Q6 (a) Present an account of Design argument to prove the existence of God along with its criticism by David Hume. (20 marks) (b) Explain the…
- Q7 (a) How does the Vedantic view of Religious Pluralism address the conflicting truth claims of different faiths ? Answer with reference to S…
- Q8 (a) Evaluate the nature and object of Religious Experience as explained by Radhakrishnan in 'The Hindu View of Life'. (20 marks) (b) Is it…