📚 2026 OCR Philosophy Exam Changes and Trends for Year 12 | Year 12 OCR 哲学：2026年考试变化与趋势
As the academic landscape evolves, OCR has announced a series of targeted adjustments to the Year 12 Philosophy of Religion examination, effective from the 2026 assessment cycle. These changes are designed to deepen candidates' critical engagement with core philosophical arguments, refine the balance between knowledge and evaluation, and better prepare students for the demands of A Level study. This article unpacks the key modifications in exam structure, question style, mark schemes, and emerging thematic trends, providing a comprehensive guide for educators and learners navigating the new specification.
随着学术环境的演变，OCR 宣布对 Year 12 宗教哲学考试进行一系列有针对性的调整，自2026年评估周期起生效。这些变化旨在加深考生对核心哲学论证的批判性参与，优化知识与评价之间的平衡，并更好地为学生适应 A Level 学习要求做好准备。本文剖析考试结构、题型、评分标准以及新兴主题趋势等方面的关键变化，为正在应对新考试大纲的教育者和学习者提供一份全面指南。
1. Restructured Assessment Timings and Paper Format | 评估时间与试卷结构重塑
From 2026, the AS Philosophy of Religion paper (H173/01) will see a modest increase in duration from 1 hour 15 minutes to 1 hour 30 minutes. The total marks available remain 70, but the internal distribution across sections has been rebalanced. Previously, Section A carried 35 marks for two structured part-questions, and Section B carried 35 marks for one extended essay question. The new format retains two sections but now awards 40 marks to Section A and 30 marks to Section B, signalling a greater premium on concise, focused responses to core philosophical concepts.
从2026年起，AS 宗教哲学试卷（H173/01）的考试时长将从1小时15分钟小幅增加至1小时30分钟。试卷总分保持70分，但各部分的分数分配得到了重新调整。以往 A 部分为两道结构化分题共35分，B 部分为一道拓展论文题共35分。新格式仍保持两个部分，但 A 部分现为40分，B 部分为30分，这意味着对核心哲学概念作出简洁、有针对性的回答将获得更高权重。
The rationale behind this shift is to encourage students to demonstrate precise understanding and avoid the temptation of relying solely on pre-prepared essay templates for the largest question. Section A now contains three mandatory part-questions — one each on ancient philosophical influences, arguments for the existence of God, and the problem of evil — each broken down into (a), (b) and (c) sub-questions. Section B presents a choice of two evaluative essay titles, requiring candidates to construct a sustained argument on a broader theme such as religious language or religious experience.
这一转变的基本考量是鼓励学生展示精准的理解，并避免仅仅依赖预先准备的长论文模板来作答最大分值题目。A 部分现在包含三道必答分题——分别涉及古代哲学影响、上帝存在的论证和恶的问题——每道题又细分为 (a)、(b) 和 (c) 子题。B 部分则提供两道评价性论文题目供选择，要求考生就宗教语言或宗教经验等更广泛的议题构建持续的论证。
The extended writing time accommodates the additional sub-question in Section A without sacrificing space for high-quality analysis. Candidates are advised to allocate approximately 50 minutes to Section A and 40 minutes to Section B, ensuring no more than 20 minutes is spent on any single (c) sub-question, which typically requires evaluative comment.
延长的写作时间适应了 A 部分新增的子题，同时不影响高质量分析所需的时间。建议考生大约分配50分钟给 A 部分，40分钟给 B 部分，确保每道通常要求评价性论述的 (c) 子题用时不超过20分钟。
2. Revised Assessment Objective Weightings | 评估目标权重调整
A significant change for the 2026 series is the recalibration of Assessment Objective weightings. Under the previous specification, AO1 (Demonstrate knowledge and understanding) accounted for 60% of AS marks, while AO2 (Analyse and evaluate) accounted for 40%. The new weighting shifts to 50% AO1 and 50% AO2, bringing Year 12 into closer alignment with the full A Level and placing greater emphasis on the skill of philosophical critique from the very start of the course.
2026年考试系列的一个重大变化是评估目标权重的重新校准。在之前的大纲中，AO1（展示知识与理解）占 AS 分数的60%，而 AO2（分析与评价）占40%。新的权重调整至50% AO1 和50% AO2，使 Year 12 更紧密地衔接完整的 A Level，并从课程伊始就更加重视哲学批判的技能。
This parity means that students can no longer secure a strong grade through accurate description alone. Every response to a part (c) sub-question and the Section B essay will now be judged with an explicit dual focus: the clarity and relevance of knowledge (AO1) and the strength of critical analysis, including assessment of strengths, weaknesses, and alternative viewpoints (AO2). Mark schemes have been redesigned to reflect this balance, with descriptors that require integration of evaluation throughout the answer rather than in a final paragraph only.
这种等权重意味着学生无法仅通过准确的描述就获得优异成绩。现在，对于每道 (c) 部分子题以及 B 部分论文的作答，都将从明确的双焦点进行评判：知识的清晰度和相关性（AO1），以及批判性分析的力度，包括对优点、弱点和替代观点的评估（AO2）。评分方案已重新设计以体现这一平衡，其中的描述语要求评价要贯穿整个答案，而非仅仅出现在末尾段落。
For teachers, this demands a pedagogical shift towards 'evaluative scaffolding' — training learners to embed words such as 'however', 'a limitation of this argument is', 'from a contrasting perspective', and 'therefore this demonstrates' as organic components of their explanations. Classroom activities should now routinely include comparative grids, strength-weakness tables, and timed paragraph drills that mirror the new AO2 requirements.
对教师而言，这要求教学法转向“评价性支架”——训练学生将“然而”、“这一论证的一个局限性是”、“从相反的角度看”、“因此这表明”等词语作为解释的有机组成部分嵌入答案中。课堂活动现在应常规性地包括比较网格、优势-劣势表格以及模仿新 AO2 要求的限时段落训练。
3. Evolution of Question Types and Command Words | 题型与指令性动词的演变
In line with the increased AO2 weighting, OCR has refined the command words used in AS Philosophy of Religion questions. The familiar 'Explain' and 'Describe' terms are now largely confined to (a) and (b) sub-questions, while (c) sub-questions and the Section B essay will predominantly employ 'Critically evaluate', 'Assess', or 'To what extent do you agree?'. A notable addition is the phrase 'with reference to scholarly views', which now appears in at least one (c) sub-question per paper.
随着 AO2 权重的增加，OCR 对 AS 宗教哲学的问题指令性动词做了细化。大家熟悉的“解释”和“描述”等用语现在主要限于 (a) 和 (b) 子题，而 (c) 子题及 B 部分论文则主要采用“批判性评价”、“评估”或“你在多大程度上同意？”。一个值得注意的新增内容是“参照学者观点”这一短语，现在每份试卷中至少有一道 (c) 子题会出现该表述。
This 'scholarly views' requirement means students must be able to name, summarise, and utilise the ideas of key philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Anselm, Hume, and Mackie in their critical evaluations. It is no longer sufficient to present a generic counterargument; candidates must ground their evaluation in recognised academic perspectives. For instance, a question on the teleological argument might ask: 'Critically evaluate the claim that the teleological argument is undermined by scientific explanations, with reference to scholarly views.' A high-scoring response would explicitly engage with Hume's criticisms of the design argument and Paley's responses, rather than simply asserting that science poses challenges.
这一“学者观点”要求意味着学生必须能够在批判性评价中说出、概括并运用柏拉图、亚里士多德、阿奎那、安瑟伦、休谟和麦基等关键哲学家的思想。仅仅呈现一个泛泛的反论点已经不够了；考生必须让自己的评价立足于公认的学术视角。例如，一道关于目的论论证的题目可能会问：“参照学者观点，批判性评价‘目的论论证被科学解释削弱’这一论断。”一份高分的答案会明确涉及休谟对设计论证的批评以及佩利的回应，而不是简单地断言科学带来了挑战。
Additionally, 'compare' questions have been introduced into Section B as an occasional alternative to the evaluative essay. A typical 'compare' question might be: 'Compare Aquinas' cosmological argument with the ontological argument as responses to the problem of infinite regress.' This demands a structured balance of similarities and differences, again underpinned by precise philosophical terminology.
此外，“比较”类题目已被引入 B 部分，作为评价性论文的偶发性替代。一道典型的“比较”题可能是：“比较阿奎那的宇宙论论证与本体论论证，作为对无穷回溯问题的回应。”这要求答案在相似点和不同点之间实现结构化的平衡，同样以精确的哲学术语为支撑。
4. Enhanced Depth in Core Themes: Ancient Philosophical Influences | 核心主题深度要求提升：古代哲学影响
The 2026 specification places renewed emphasis on the 'Ancient philosophical influences' topic, making it mandatory for both Section A and a potential Section B source based question. While candidates previously encountered Plato and Aristotle mainly through their arguments for the Forms and the Four Causes, the updated content requires a more nuanced grasp of their respective epistemologies and how these underpin later arguments for God's existence.
2026年考试大纲重新强调了“古代哲学影响”这一主题，将其设定为 A 部分和 B 部分可能的材料题的必考内容。尽管考生以往主要通过柏拉图的理型论和亚里士多德的四因说来接触这两位哲学家，但更新后的内容要求更细致地把握他们各自的认识论，以及这些认识论如何为后来关于上帝存在的论证提供支撑。
Specifically, students must now be able to explain Plato's Analogy of the Cave not only as an illustration of the Theory of Forms but also as an epistemological metaphor for the ascent from opinion (doxa) to knowledge (episteme). They should link this to the concept of a priori reasoning and its role in the ontological argument. Similarly, Aristotle's distinction between actuality and potentiality must be understood as foundational to the cosmological argument's rejection of infinite regress. A table summarising these connections is provided below.
具体而言，学生现在必须能够解释柏拉图的洞穴比喻，不仅将其作为理型论的说明，还要将其视为从意见（doxa）上升至知识（episteme）的认识论隐喻。他们应当将此与先验推理的概念及其在本体论论证中的作用联系起来。同样，亚里士多德对现实与潜能所作的区分，必须被理解为宇宙论论证拒绝无穷回溯的基础。下面提供一张总结这些关联的表格。
| Ancient Concept | Core Idea | Link to Later Argument |
|---|---|---|
| Plato's Form of the Good | Ultimate source of reality and knowledge | Parallels the ontological argument's concept of a perfect being |
| Aristotle's Unmoved Mover | Pure actuality, the final cause of all motion | Directly informs Aquinas' First Way (motion) |
| Analogy of the Cave | Journey from ignorance to wisdom | Symbolises a priori reasoning's access to transcendent truth |
Examiners will expect candidates to draw these connections explicitly. A typical (c) sub-question might ask: 'Assess the significance of Plato's Theory of Forms for philosophical arguments for the existence of God.' An answer that merely describes the Forms without linking them to Anselm or Descartes would be capped at a low AO2 mark.
考官将期望考生明确地建立这些关联。一道典型的 (c) 子题可能会问：“评估柏拉图的理型论对关于上帝存在的哲学论证所具有的重要性。”一个仅仅描述理型论而未将其与安瑟伦或笛卡尔联系起来的答案，其 AO2 得分将被限制在低分段。
5. The Problem of Evil: New Emphasis on Logical and Evidential Distinctions | 恶的问题：对逻辑与证据区分的新强调
One of the most significant content adjustments for 2026 is the explicit separation of the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil within the specification. Previously, these were often conflated under a general 'problem of evil' heading. Now, students must be able to define each version precisely and evaluate theodicies in relation to both.
2026年考试大纲最重大的内容调整之一，是将逻辑的恶的问题与证据的恶的问题在课程大纲中明确区分开来。此前，这两者常常在广义的“恶的问题”标题下被混为一谈。现在，学生必须能够准确定义每一种类型，并针对这两类问题分别评价神正论。
The logical problem, as formulated by Epicurus and developed by Mackie, asserts that the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. The evidential problem, championed by Rowe, concedes that the coexistence of God and evil is logically possible but argues that the sheer quantity and distribution of suffering make God's existence highly improbable. Students will be expected to evaluate whether the Augustinian theodicy and the Irenaean theodicy are more successful in responding to one form of the problem than the other.
逻辑问题，正如伊壁鸠鲁所阐述并由麦基发展的那样，断言全能、全善的上帝的存在与恶的存在在逻辑上不相容。证据问题，由罗维所倡导，承认上帝与恶的共存逻辑上是可能的，但认为苦难的巨大数量和分布使上帝的存在极不可能。学生将要评价奥古斯丁神正论和爱任纽神正论是否在回应一种形式的问题上比回应另一种形式更成功。
For instance, the Augustinian theodicy's reliance on the Fall and original sin can be seen as a direct response to the logical problem, because it removes the contradiction by attributing evil to human free will rather than divine creation. However, it struggles against the evidential problem, because the existence of natural evil before the Fall — such as animal suffering — appears to contradict the claim that a perfect world was corrupted solely by human sin. The Irenaean theodicy, with its emphasis on soul-making, may fare better against evidential challenges but faces its own logical difficulties regarding the proportionality of suffering.
例如，奥古斯丁神正论依赖堕落与原罪，可被视为对逻辑问题的直接回应，因为它将恶归因于人类的自由意志而非神圣创造，从而消除了矛盾。然而，它在应对证据问题时却面临困难，因为堕落之前自然之恶的存在——如动物的苦难——似乎与“完美世界仅因人类罪恶而败坏”的说法相矛盾。强调灵魂塑造的爱任纽神正论可能在应对证据挑战时表现更佳，但其自身在苦难的相称性方面也面临逻辑困境。
Mark schemes for2026 will reward candidates who use the J.L. Mackie's inconsistent triad diagram and William Rowe's fawn analogy to illustrate the two distinct problems, demonstrating a sophisticated command of the philosophical literature.
2026年的评分方案将奖励那些使用麦基的不一致三元组图示和罗维的幼鹿类比来阐明这两个不同问题的考生，这展示了对哲学文献的精湛掌握。
6. Changes in Mark Schemes: Level-Based Holistic Judgment | 评分方案的变化：基于等级的融贯评判
The revised mark schemes reflect the holistic, essay-driven demands of the new specification. Each sub-question and essay is now assessed against a single set of level descriptors (Levels 1–5) rather than a rigid point-by-point tally. For the 15-mark (c) sub-question, the five levels emphasise: (1) basic knowledge, limited evaluation; (2) clear but general evaluation; (3) focused evaluation with some critical analysis; (4) thorough and sustained critical analysis; (5) well-integrated synthesis of knowledge and evaluation, engaging with scholarly views.
修订后的评分方案反映了新大纲对融贯、论文式写作的要求。现在，每一道子题和论文都根据一套单一的五等级描述语（1至5级）进行评判，而非按点逐项累加。对于15分的 (c) 子题，五个等级强调：（1）基础知识，评价有限；（2）清晰但笼统的评价；（3）集中且有若干批判性分析的评价；（4）透彻而持续的批判性分析；（5）知识与评价的完美融合，并涉及学者观点。
This change means that an answer with excellent factual knowledge but no genuine evaluation will be stuck at Level 2, whereas a response with a slightly less detailed factual base but robust, embedded evaluation can reach Level 4 or even 5. A crucial indicator for Level 4 and 5 is the presence of a 'sustained line of argument' — the answer must follow through on a critical perspective from beginning to end, rather than offering a series of disconnected comments.
这一变化意味着，一份事实知识出色但缺乏真正评价的答案将止步于2级，而一份事实细节稍逊但具有坚实、嵌入性评价的答案，则可达到4级甚至5级。达到4级和5级的一个关键指标是存在“持续的论证主线”——答案必须从头到尾贯穿一个批判性视角，而非提供一系列互不关联的评论。
Exemplar materials released by OCR show that top-level essays for Section B often begin with a thesis statement in the introduction, use each paragraph to advance a specific aspect of the argument, and conclude with a reasoned overall judgment. The mechanistic 'one paragraph for, one paragraph against' structure is no longer the default route to high marks; instead, candidates are encouraged to weigh arguments interactively within paragraphs, using language such as 'While this seems persuasive, it overlooks...'
OCR 发布的样题材料显示，B 部分的高分论文通常在引言中提出论点陈述，每个段落推进论证的某一具体方面，最后以理性的总体判断作结。机械的“一段支持、一段反对”结构不再是获得高分的默认途径；相反，鼓励考生在段落内部进行交互性的权衡，使用诸如“尽管这看似有说服力，但它忽视了……”的语言。
7. Integration of Religious Language and Verification | 宗教语言与证实原则的整合
The topic of 'Religious language' has been elevated from an optional theme in Section B to a core element woven through the entire AS assessment. This does not mean it will appear on every paper, but examiners now have the flexibility to set questions on verification, falsification, and language games in Section A as short structured questions, reflecting its foundational importance for understanding how religious claims function.
“宗教语言”这一主题已从 B 部分的选修性主题提升为贯穿整个 AS 评估的核心要素。这并不意味着它会出现在每份试卷中，但考官现在可以灵活地在 A 部分设置关于证实原则、证伪原则和语言游戏的短结构化题目，这反映出它对于理解宗教主张如何运作具有基础性重要意义。
The key theories — Ayer's verification principle, the strong and weak forms, Hick's eschatological verification, Flew's falsification and the Wisdom's parable, and Wittgenstein's language games — must now be familiar to all candidates as potential assessment material from any part of the paper. A common 2026-style (b) question might be: 'Explain the verification principle and its challenge to religious belief, making reference to Ayer and Hick.' This requires concise explanation without the need for full evaluation, but still demands accurate terminology: the contrast between 'practical verifiability' and 'verifiability in principle' must be clear.
关键理论——艾耶尔的证实原则、强证实验与弱证实验、希克的末世证实、弗卢的证伪学说与智慧寓言，以及维特根斯坦的语言游戏——现在必须成为所有考生熟悉的内容，可能作为试卷任何部分的评估材料。一道典型的2026年风格 (b) 子题可能是：“解释证实原则及其对宗教信仰的挑战，提及艾耶尔和希克。”这要求简洁的解释而不需要完整评价，但仍然要求准确的术语：“实践的可证实性”与“原则上的可证实性”之间的对比必须清晰。
The integration of these theories with other themes is especially valued. For example, a candidate might note in a Section B essay on the problem of evil that the statement 'God exists' is not factually significant according to Ayer's verification principle, thus framing the entire debate as cognitively meaningless from a positivist stance. This application of religious language analysis to an ontological topic demonstrates the sophisticated interconnected thinking that the 2026 mark scheme rewards.
将这些理论与其他主题相整合尤其受到重视。例如，考生可能在关于恶的问题的 B 部分论文中指出，根据艾耶尔的证实原则，“上帝存在”这一陈述在事实意义上并不重要，从而从实证主义立场出发将整个辩论构建为认知上的无意义。这种将宗教语言分析应用于本体论议题的做法，展现了2026年评分方案所奖励的精湛关联性思维。
8. Digital Specimen Papers and Accessibility | 数字化样卷与可及性
While 2026 does not mark a wholesale shift to on-screen examinations, OCR has released a complete set of interactive digital specimen papers for the new AS Philosophy of Religion qualification. These are designed to familiarise students with the format and to support candidates who may require digital accessibility arrangements. The digital papers include features such as adjustable font sizes, a highlighter tool, and a built-in word counter, but the core requirement of typing extended prose remains unchanged.
尽管2026年并非全面转向机考，但 OCR 已经为新的 AS 宗教哲学资格发布了一整套交互式数字样卷。这些样卷旨在让学生熟悉格式，并为可能需要数字可及性安排的考生提供支持。数字试卷包含可调整字号、高亮工具和内置字数统计等功能，但输入长篇散文的核心要求保持不变。
Importantly, the digital platform does not alter the assessment criteria. However, it has prompted a shift in classroom preparation: teachers are now encouraged to conduct timed practice using word-processing software, so that students develop the keyboarding speed and editing skills necessary to craft a 500–600-word Section B essay within 40 minutes. Schools that have piloted the digital mocks report that students often produce more fluent, coherent essays when typing, but also tend to over-write, leading to time management issues.
重要的是，数字平台并未改变评估标准。然而，这促使了课堂准备方式的转变：现在鼓励教师使用文字处理软件进行限时练习，以便学生发展必要的键盘输入速度和编辑技能，从而在40分钟内撰写出500至600字的 B 部分论文。试点过数字模拟考试的学校反映，学生在打字时通常能写出更流畅、连贯的论文，但也容易出现超字数问题，导致时间管理困难。
The digital specimens are also invaluable for exploring the 2026 question styles. Each paper includes a short walkthrough video explaining how to interpret command words and allocate time. The availability of these resources on the OCR website means that independent study has become more effective, as learners can sit a full practice paper, receive automated indicative feedback, and review examiner commentary on sample responses.
数字样卷对于探索2026年题型也是无价之宝。每份试卷都包含一个简短的操作指导视频，解释如何解读指令性动词和分配时间。这些资源在 OCR 网站上的提供意味着自主学习变得更加有效，因为学习者可以完成一整份练习卷，获得自动的指示性反馈，并查阅考官对样篇回答的评语。
9. Transition to A Level: Emphasis on Synoptic Links | 向 A Level 过渡：强调综合连接
A key trend in the 2026 design is the deliberate strengthening of synoptic threads between the AS and A Level components. The Year 12 course now explicitly foreshadows themes that will be developed in the Year 13 topics of 'Religious Experience' and 'Miracles'. For example, when studying the problem of evil, students are encouraged to consider how the concept of gratuitous suffering might later intersect with discussions of petitionary prayer and divine action.
2026年设计的一个关键趋势，是有意强化 AS 与 A Level 组成部分之间的综合连接线索。Year 12 课程现在明确预示了将在 Year 13 “宗教经验”和“神迹”等主题中深入发展的内容。例如，在学习恶的问题时，鼓励学生思考无谓苦难这一概念日后将如何与求告祈祷和神性行动等讨论交织在一起。
This synoptic approach is also reflected in assessment. The 2026 Section B essay titles sometimes include a bridge clause, such as 'and consider why this issue remains significant for discussions of religious experience.' While full knowledge of religious experience is not required at AS, this signals to students that philosophical questions do not exist in isolation. A response that briefly acknowledges, 'This tension would also challenge the evidential value of religious experiences if the problem of evil suggests a hidden God,' would demonstrate outstanding contextual awareness and could push the answer into the highest level of the mark scheme.
这种综合方法也反映在评估之中。2026年 B 部分的论文题目有时会包含一个衔接从句，例如“并且思考为什么这一问题对于宗教经验的讨论依然重要”。虽然 AS 阶段并不要求完整掌握宗教经验的知识，但这向学生发出信号：哲学问题并非孤立存在。一份能简要认识到“如果恶的问题暗示了一位隐藏的上帝，那么这种张力也将挑战宗教经验的证据价值”的答案，将展示出卓越的语境意识，并可能将答案推至评分方案的最高等级。
For schools, this means that schemes of work should incorporate 'forward-looking boxes' or 'bridge moments' — short discussions during lessons that signpost how the current topic connects to future study. This not only aids retention but also motivates learners by giving them a sense of the intellectual journey they are embarking upon.
对于学校而言，这意味着教学计划应包含“前瞻性方框”或“桥接时刻”——即在课堂上进行简短讨论，标示当前主题如何与未来的学习相连接。这不仅有助于记忆保持，还能通过让学生感知自己所踏上的智识旅程而激发其学习动机。
10. Trend: Comparative Philosophy and Global Perspectives | 趋势：比较哲学与全球视野
Although the OCR specification remains rooted in the Western philosophical tradition, the 2026 question papers introduce a subtle but important trend: the inclusion of comparative prompts that invite candidates to consider non-Western or continental alternatives where relevant. This is not a mandatory content addition, but optional stimuli that allow candidates to demonstrate wider reading and critical reach.
尽管 OCR 考试大纲仍然植根于西方哲学传统，但2026年试卷引入了一个微妙而重要的趋势：纳入比较性提示，邀请考生在适当情况下考虑非西方或欧陆的替代观点。这不是强制性内容增添，而是允许考生展示广博阅读和批判性视野的可选性刺激材料。
For instance, a Section B essay on the nature of God might include a stimulus that quotes a passage from Pseudo-Dionysius on negative theology, or refer to the Hindu concept of Nirguna Brahman. The question does not require knowledge of these traditions, but it rewards candidates who can engage with the idea that apophatic theology raises similar issues across cultures. An answer that notes, 'The via negativa, also found in some Eastern traditions, reinforces the claim that God's transcendence prevents positive description,' would be credited as showing a sophisticated grasp of the topic's broader implications.
例如，一道关于上帝本性的 B 部分论文可能包含一段引用伪狄奥尼修斯否定神学的刺激材料，或提及印度教的“无属性梵”概念。题目并不要求掌握这些传统知识，但它奖励那些能够探讨“否定神学在不同文化中引发相似问题”这一观点的考生。如果答案指出“否定之路也见于一些东方传统，这强化了‘上帝的超越性禁止肯定性描述’这一主张”，就会被认可为展现了对该主题更广泛含义的精湛把握。
This trend aligns with OCR's broader commitment to diversity in the curriculum and prepares students for university-level philosophy, where intercultural dialogue is increasingly the norm. Classroom libraries are therefore encouraged to include accessible texts such as 'Eastern Philosophy: The Basics' or extracts from Nasr's Islamic philosophical works to enrich discussion of key themes.
这一趋势与 OCR 对课程多样性的更广泛承诺相一致，并使学生为大学水平的哲学学习做好准备，因为跨文化对话在大学里日益成为常态。因此，鼓励课堂书架纳入《东方哲学基础》之类的通俗读本，或选自纳斯尔伊斯兰哲学著作的节选，以丰富对关键主题的讨论。
11. Trend: The Rise of Applied Ethics and Contemporary Issues | 趋势：应用伦理学与当代议题的兴起
While the AS Philosophy of Religion paper does not formally cover ethics, the 2026 papers increasingly frame philosophical questions within contemporary ethical contexts. This is most visible in the problem of evil, where prompts may reference modern instances of suffering — such as pandemics, environmental crises, or genocide — to ground abstract debates in lived reality. Candidates should be prepared to address the emotional and existential dimensions of philosophical problems, not merely their logical structure.
尽管 AS 宗教哲学试卷并不正式涵盖伦理学，但2026年的试卷越来越多地将哲学问题置于当代伦理背景之中。这在恶的问题上表现得最为明显
Published by TutorHao | Year 12 哲学 Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
或截图后用「扫一扫 → 相册」选择本图