Advanced Higher RMPS: Essay Structure

As Advanced Higher is marked ‘holistically’, I’ve found that candidates can find the jump from Higher – with it’s very rigid structure – difficult. As a result, I’ve been thinking about how to structure an Advanced Higher essay to be able to help those candidates, whilst not losing the rigour of an AH level essay. I think we sometimes presume that colleagues in the English department have covered argumentative essay writing – but I guess as with any inductive argument, the phrase ‘not necessarily’ is still true.

Advanced Higher RMPS does still have some things in common with Higher… the examiners do not want to read endless knowledge and understanding and they do want the candidate to answer the question (not the one you wanted to see!) But unlike Higher, if the candidate includes lots of irrelevant knowledge that does not fit with their line of argument… it won’t just be ignored and don’t be surprised if their mark isn’t as high as expected. Selecting relevant information to support the premise of an essay is a skill that is far more impressive that providing 15 biblical quotes to make the same point repeatedly… promise.

Begin by thinking…

When I see a question like ‘To what extent is the teleological argument successful?’ I initially think what my very short answer would be e.g. it’s not.

Then I try to think of three arguments to support that response e.g. it’s a poor analogy, there’s other explanations for the appearance of design, even if we accept the analogy then it results in a poor designer. That then, gives me the structure of my essay.

I then see what that looks like outlined in an essay plan – some sections I write out to help formulate my ideas but on the most part, I just sketch out the gist of my ideas. Of course, my overall aim is to see if I can support my line of argument. This is a way I would suggest that people revise rather than always writing out fully essays. Here’s one that I’ve created on the presumption of atheism:

Essay Structure

– ‘Atheism should be presumed.’ To what extent do you agree?

Introduction

Define
Presumption is when someone forms a believe on the basis of experience or evidence, contrasted with assumption which is to believe with no reason. In relation to atheism, philosopher Anthony Flew once said that “the onus of proof is on the man who affirms, not the man who denies.” In other words, if someone claims something exists – like God – then they must provide evidence.

Explain the debate:
This leads to the idea that atheism (not believing in God) should be the starting point, and belief in God must be proven, or else atheism should be ‘presumed’ on the basis of their being no evidence.

Premise
In this essay, I will examine the question..

Chapter one First Argument: The Celestial Teapot (Bertrand Russell)

Outline the argument
Bertrand Russell gave the famous example of a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. He said that if someone claimed this teapot existed but it was too small to detect, we would rightly dismiss the idea until evidence appeared. In the same way, if someone claims that God exists but cannot offer proof, then … This suggests that belief without evidence is not neutral – it should be treated like any other unfounded claim. Therefore, atheism should be the “default” until …

Strengths:
This is persuasive because we don’t usually believe things just because someone says so. In science, law, and everyday life, we expect… It seems reasonable to treat belief in God like any other claim. We don’t believe in unicorns or fairies without evidence, so why should..

Weaknesses:
However, critics might say that belief in God is not the same as belief in a teapot. Religious claims are often tied to…

Further critique:
Also, if someone believes they’ve had religious experiences, they may think the burden of proof has been met – even if others disagree. So the idea of a “default” starting point may not be…

Mini conclude
I find Russell’s analogy useful for showing why blind belief isn’t enough, but I think it’s harder to dismiss God than it is to dismiss…

Chapter Two: The Psychological Simplicity of Atheism

Outline the argument:
Atheism is simpler than theism. It doesn’t require belief in invisible beings, miracles, or an afterlife. It just accepts the world as it appears and doesn’t add anything extra. This makes it more rational as a starting point because…

Philosophers often use Occam’s Razor – the idea that the simplest explanation is usually the best – to support atheism over…

Strengths:
It avoids unnecessary complexity. Instead of imagining divine causes, we can explain things using…

Weaknesses:
However, some argue that simplicity doesn’t always equal truth. Just because an idea is simple doesn’t mean it is…

Further critique:
Also, for many religious believers, God is not an extra idea – God is the most basic reality, the ground of being itself. In that case, atheism might actually leave out something essential, not simplify it.

Mini conclude
I think atheism does offer a clear and economical way of looking at the world, but whether it is right depends on…

Chapter Three: Religion Is Harmful – Sam Harris

Outline the argument

Some philosophers take a different approach and argue that atheism should be adopted on the basis on the harmful aspects of religion – offering as reasoned logic to presume atheisms. For example, Sam Harris in his book ‘A Letter to a Christian Nation’ says that religion spreads division, violence, and holds back progress.  

Strengths

There’s some truth to this. We can point to wars, discrimination, and anti-science attitudes linked to religion. Harris argues that secular values like reason and compassion are better guides.

Weaknesses

On the other hand, religion isn’t always harmful. It has inspired art, charity, and helped people find meaning in hard times. Not all religious people are extreme or violent.

Further critique

Also, even if some religions cause harm, that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. The question of belief is separate from whether religion is good or bad.

Mini conclude

I agree that religion has done harm, but I’m not sure that’s a reason to presume atheism. It might be a reason to change religion, or rethink it – not to reject belief in God completely.

Conclusion: Should Atheism Be the Starting Point?

Instead of summarising each argument again, I want to focus on three key questions this essay raises:

1. Should atheism really be the default position?
In many ways, yes. It seems fair to say that if someone claims something big – like the existence of a God – then the burden of proof should lie with them. This keeps belief grounded in…

2. Are religious claims too complex or special to fit this model?
Possibly. Religious belief is different from belief in teapots or unicorns because it often comes with deep personal experience and moral commitment. For some people, it isn’t about proof, but about….

3. Can atheism explain everything?
Not entirely. While atheism is simpler and avoids untestable claims, it may struggle to explain questions like why there is something rather than nothing, or where meaning comes from. This doesn’t prove theism is true, but it suggests that atheism might not be the full picture either. Final View

Personally, I agree that atheism should be the starting point in any philosophical or logical discussion. But I don’t think that means belief in God is irrational – only that it needs to be justified. The burden of proof matters, and in that sense, Flew and Russell are right. However, religious belief operates in a different space – one where personal experience, trust, and tradition also carry weight. So, while atheism should be presumed in debate, the question of God is more than just logic alone.

If you’d like to learn more about my approach to structuring essays and would like help on other topics – I am available for one-off tutoring sessions – just drop me a line via contact me: LauraEmily85@gmail.com