AQA
A-level
PHILOSOPHY
7172/2
Paper 2 Th e metaphysics of God and th e metaphysics of
mind
Mark scheme
June 2023
Version: 1.0 Final
, Section A
Metaphysics of God
0 1 What does Swinburne mean by ‘temporal order/regularity’ in his design argument?
[3 marks]
AO1 = 3
Marks Levels of response mark scheme
3 A full and correct answer, given precisely, with little or no redundancy.
2 Th e substantive content of th e answer is correct, but th ere may be some
redundancy or minor imprecision.
1 Relevant, but fragmented, points.
0 Nothing written worthy of credit.
Indicative content
Context
In ‘Th e Argument from Design’ Swinburne identifies “two kinds of regularity or order”:
“spatial order” (or “regularities of copresence”) and “temporal order” (or “regularities of
succession”).
Where “spatial order” is used as evidence in design arguments it is open to famous objections:
eg Hume’s critique of analogy and Darwin’s th eory of evolution by natural selection.
Swinburne thinks that “temporal order” is not vulnerable to those objections.
If students explain th e meaning of “temporal order” though reference to this distinction it
should not be classed as redundancy. It is important, however, that students do not confuse th
e two kinds of order in th eir explanations.
Awarding marks
Responses awarded maximum marks will contain (1) a reference to th e ‘temporal’ dimension
of this ‘order’, since this is th e most salient feature [NB: This must be in connection with a
relevant aspect of Swinburne’s design argument]; and (2) explain th e ‘order/regularity’ in terms
of some relevant feature of Swinburne’s design argument oth er than th e fact it concludes in
favour of a designer: eg “regularities of succession”, “simple patterns of behaviour of objects”,
th e “laws of nature”.
Students do not need to refer to God (or a designer) to access full marks. Some will, and that is
fine, but if th ey do th en th ey must of course represent Swinburne’s argument accurately: that
‘temporal order/regularity’ is best explained by a personal agent (or cause) and so a designer
(God) probably exists.
Examples of responses for 3 marks
Temporal regularity refers to th e order(s) of succession in nature/th e world.
Th e temporal arrangement (or regular patterns/behaviours) of physical objects / features of th
e universe (such as those explained by th e laws of nature).
Th e constancy/consistently in how events follow each oth er in time.
, Examples of responses for 2 marks
Th e laws of nature (which Swinburne thinks are best explained personally, by God).
NB: If students mention ‘fine tuning’, th ey can still get 2 marks if th ey are
connecting temporal order to th e laws of nature, but it is not a 3-mark response if th
ey do this, as Swinburne treats th em as separate (although of course related)
design arguments.
Th e regularity/order of events in time (which Swinburne argues is evidence for a designer).
Examples of responses for 1 mark
A temporal feature of th e universe that requires a designer (or personal agency) to explain it.
Th e kind of (temporal) order found in human activities (like dancing or singing) which require
a personal explanation.
NB: Examples are not asked for or required, but students should not be penalised for redundancy if th
ey make use of relevant ones.
If students only refer to human activities in th eir examples of ‘temporal order/regularity’, this
should not be penalised so long as th ey have not defined ‘temporal order/regularity’ in terms
of human activities alone. Th e latter is clearly too narrow a definition for Swinburne’s
purposes but is worthy of some credit.
Notes:
Swinburne gives various examples of natural temporal order/regularity: eg: “behaviour in accordance
with th e laws of nature – for example, Newton’s law of gravitation”.
Swinburne also gives examples of human order/regularity: eg. “regularities of succession produced by
men are th e notes of a song sung by a singer or th e movements of a dancer’s body when he
performs a dance in time with th e accompanying instrument”.
This indicative content is not exhaustive: oth er creditworthy responses should be rewarded with
reference to th e generic mark scheme.
A-level
PHILOSOPHY
7172/2
Paper 2 Th e metaphysics of God and th e metaphysics of
mind
Mark scheme
June 2023
Version: 1.0 Final
, Section A
Metaphysics of God
0 1 What does Swinburne mean by ‘temporal order/regularity’ in his design argument?
[3 marks]
AO1 = 3
Marks Levels of response mark scheme
3 A full and correct answer, given precisely, with little or no redundancy.
2 Th e substantive content of th e answer is correct, but th ere may be some
redundancy or minor imprecision.
1 Relevant, but fragmented, points.
0 Nothing written worthy of credit.
Indicative content
Context
In ‘Th e Argument from Design’ Swinburne identifies “two kinds of regularity or order”:
“spatial order” (or “regularities of copresence”) and “temporal order” (or “regularities of
succession”).
Where “spatial order” is used as evidence in design arguments it is open to famous objections:
eg Hume’s critique of analogy and Darwin’s th eory of evolution by natural selection.
Swinburne thinks that “temporal order” is not vulnerable to those objections.
If students explain th e meaning of “temporal order” though reference to this distinction it
should not be classed as redundancy. It is important, however, that students do not confuse th
e two kinds of order in th eir explanations.
Awarding marks
Responses awarded maximum marks will contain (1) a reference to th e ‘temporal’ dimension
of this ‘order’, since this is th e most salient feature [NB: This must be in connection with a
relevant aspect of Swinburne’s design argument]; and (2) explain th e ‘order/regularity’ in terms
of some relevant feature of Swinburne’s design argument oth er than th e fact it concludes in
favour of a designer: eg “regularities of succession”, “simple patterns of behaviour of objects”,
th e “laws of nature”.
Students do not need to refer to God (or a designer) to access full marks. Some will, and that is
fine, but if th ey do th en th ey must of course represent Swinburne’s argument accurately: that
‘temporal order/regularity’ is best explained by a personal agent (or cause) and so a designer
(God) probably exists.
Examples of responses for 3 marks
Temporal regularity refers to th e order(s) of succession in nature/th e world.
Th e temporal arrangement (or regular patterns/behaviours) of physical objects / features of th
e universe (such as those explained by th e laws of nature).
Th e constancy/consistently in how events follow each oth er in time.
, Examples of responses for 2 marks
Th e laws of nature (which Swinburne thinks are best explained personally, by God).
NB: If students mention ‘fine tuning’, th ey can still get 2 marks if th ey are
connecting temporal order to th e laws of nature, but it is not a 3-mark response if th
ey do this, as Swinburne treats th em as separate (although of course related)
design arguments.
Th e regularity/order of events in time (which Swinburne argues is evidence for a designer).
Examples of responses for 1 mark
A temporal feature of th e universe that requires a designer (or personal agency) to explain it.
Th e kind of (temporal) order found in human activities (like dancing or singing) which require
a personal explanation.
NB: Examples are not asked for or required, but students should not be penalised for redundancy if th
ey make use of relevant ones.
If students only refer to human activities in th eir examples of ‘temporal order/regularity’, this
should not be penalised so long as th ey have not defined ‘temporal order/regularity’ in terms
of human activities alone. Th e latter is clearly too narrow a definition for Swinburne’s
purposes but is worthy of some credit.
Notes:
Swinburne gives various examples of natural temporal order/regularity: eg: “behaviour in accordance
with th e laws of nature – for example, Newton’s law of gravitation”.
Swinburne also gives examples of human order/regularity: eg. “regularities of succession produced by
men are th e notes of a song sung by a singer or th e movements of a dancer’s body when he
performs a dance in time with th e accompanying instrument”.
This indicative content is not exhaustive: oth er creditworthy responses should be rewarded with
reference to th e generic mark scheme.
