The word agency is sort of like consciousness, in the respect that it refers to emergent phenomenon so complex that it's difficult to break down. What it refers to is any entity with the ability to act, or with intentions. Agency detection is something humans are wired for. If we're sleeping in a tent, and a stick snaps, we immediately assume the cause was agency. Wild animals have agency in this respect. Most times we're referring to human agency. Before lightning was understood, the cause was thought to be an omniscient agency.

Intelligence with the will to act. The term is used often in naturalism, even though it has connotations in supernaturalism which include souls and other supernatural addons.

Flann wrote:What do you mean by the influencing desire Interbane?
If behaviour is determined by the comparative strength of various influences there can be no moral culpability.

Moral culpability is something determined by other humans. We determine if our fellow man has acted wrongly. In the sense that someone acted as a result of the sum of all influence, culpability is when the person's selfish desires(influences) such as greed or pride were too strong, outweighing other influences. This condition(inability to quell greed/pride) is not acceptable, since it leads to behavior that degrades society.

With respect to adam and eve, the story really can't grant any wisdom on free will. For one, why wouldn't god have warned adam of the serpent who was going to manipulate him into eating the apple? Who is to blame? Adam, or the serpent? If god foresaw the serpent's argument, why would he not have reframed his original command? Is a serpent truly more persuasive than god? Was there "something" in adam's decision that overruled both the argument from the serpent and the commands from god, and that is what he must be blamed for? If so, it cannot be neither good nor evil, since that came after eating the fruit. The more the story is analyzed, the more it's painfully obvious as nothing but myth. Morality is best understood through the lens of science and philosophy, not religion.

Interbane wrote:With respect to adam and eve, the story really can't grant any wisdom on free will. For one, why wouldn't god have warned adam of the serpent who was going to manipulate him into eating the apple? Who is to blame? Adam, or the serpent? If god foresaw the serpent's argument, why would he not have reframed his original command? Is a serpent truly more persuasive than god? Was there "something" in adam's decision that overruled both the argument from the serpent and the commands from god, and that is what he must be blamed for? If so, it cannot be neither good nor evil, since that came after eating the fruit. The more the story is analyzed, the more it's painfully obvious as nothing but myth. Morality is best understood through the lens of science and philosophy, not religion.

What we find in the account is attempted blame shifting. So Adam blames Eve and indirectly God with the words "The woman you gave to be with me gave it to me...." Eve then blames the serpent saying;The serpent deceived me and I ate."
God's response finds all culpable in varying degrees.
Such blame shifting is natural and there are degrees of blame attaching to all but ultimately does not change reality for each so as to be exculpating.
This is true in normal judicial proceedings today. A transgressor of the law may well be influenced by another person nevertheless the transgression in the clear knowledge of the law and moral truth is upheld notwithstanding the persuasions of others.
If a drug baron enticed someone with monetary reward for peddling his drugs, this would not excuse the street level peddler for breaking the law in the full knowledge of it and it's sanctions.

Flann 5 wrote:

Interbane wrote:With respect to adam and eve, the story really can't grant any wisdom on free will. For one, why wouldn't god have warned adam of the serpent who was going to manipulate him into eating the apple? Who is to blame? Adam, or the serpent? If god foresaw the serpent's argument, why would he not have reframed his original command? Is a serpent truly more persuasive than god? Was there "something" in adam's decision that overruled both the argument from the serpent and the commands from god, and that is what he must be blamed for? If so, it cannot be neither good nor evil, since that came after eating the fruit. The more the story is analyzed, the more it's painfully obvious as nothing but myth. Morality is best understood through the lens of science and philosophy, not religion.

What we find in the account is attempted blame shifting. So Adam blames Eve and indirectly God with the words "The woman you gave to be with me gave it to me...." Eve then blames the serpent saying;The serpent deceived me and I ate."
God's response finds all culpable in varying degrees.
Such blame shifting is natural and there are degrees of blame attaching to all but ultimately does not change reality for each so as to be exculpating.
This is true in normal judicial proceedings today. A transgressor of the law may well be influenced by another person nevertheless the transgression in the clear knowledge of the law and moral truth is upheld notwithstanding the persuasions of others.
If a drug baron enticed someone with monetary reward for peddling his drugs, this would not excuse the street level peddler for breaking the law in the full knowledge of it and it's sanctions.

This was a very fine response.

Flann wrote:This is true in normal judicial proceedings today. A transgressor of the law may well be influenced by another person nevertheless the transgression in the clear knowledge of the law and moral truth is upheld notwithstanding the persuasions of others.

The persuasions of others are most certainly taken into account. I'll explain this point later, in response to your comment on drugs.

External persuasions aside, you'll find that the internal influences on a person’s choices are what the punishment is for. Behavioral modification is meant to provide extra internal influence(in the form of past experience) to prevent the person from performing the same act again in the future.

But that is where the story of adam and eve differs. Adam has no past experience in order to weigh/judge/arbitrate the persuasions of others. Except what he was created with only moments before. God granted him the tools to arbitrate the persuasions, tools which failed him. Without any memory of having been punished in the past, what did Adam have to bring gods words into context? The threat would have simply been hollow. Did got not instill the proper respect for authority? That isn't something supernatural, it's something learned. Without past experience to learn it, it had to have been instilled. And the amount that was instilled was insufficient to overrule the persuasions of the serpent. Why did god leave him lacking? Was he setting adam up to fail?

The only argument you’re left with is an appeal to some “deciding locus” within Adam that is supernatural and makes moral decisions. But then, he was created with a deciding locus that chose the wrong course – evil. Why was he cursed with a faulty deciding locus? And how did it decide between a good and evil path if he had not yet eaten the apple? Or was the deciding locus purely random? Then how could he be culpable if his behavior was ultimately randomized?

These aren’t just difficult questions Flann. They story is a myth, and it’s plain to see unless you have emotional chains tying you to it.

If a drug baron enticed someone with monetary reward for peddling his drugs, this would not excuse the street level peddler for breaking the law in the full knowledge of it and it's sanctions.

But the law isn’t equivalent to morality. What if the person peddling the drugs had just lost his job, lost his insurance, had no family extended or otherwise with the exception of a kid in the hospital, no friends, and his child required a $10,000 dollar operation? He is offered the money in exchange for six months of peddling drugs. The law would still see this as illegal, but how would the public judge the person? It’s hypothetical, and there is no other way to acquire the money.

The influences do matter Flann. In fact, the combined sum of all influences is the ONLY thing that matters. As long as we understand that past experience and emotional predisposition is part of the list of influences.

[quote="Interbane"]But that is where the story of adam and eve differs. Adam has no past experience in order to weigh/judge/arbitrate the persuasions of others. Except what he was created with only moments before. God granted him the tools to arbitrate the persuasions, tools which failed him. Without any memory of having been punished in the past, what did Adam have to bring gods words into context? The threat would have simply been hollow. Did got not instill the proper respect for authority? That isn't something supernatural, it's something learned. Without past experience to learn it, it had to have been instilled. And the amount that was instilled was insufficient to overrule the persuasions of the serpent. Why did god leave him lacking? Was he setting adam up to fail? [/quote

I have to say that I find the favourite blame game in these forums is to blame God for everything even when it reaches absurd levels.
There is no basis to say that Adam was tempted moments after his creation and every reason to think otherwise. It says that God met regularly with Adam in the evenings. As for instilling respect,Adam knew he had been created by this God and that surely is significant.How could he not have respect given this reality?
He did not have a fallen nature so obedience was easier though God gave him the freedom and faculty to choose to obey or disobey. You are making assumptions that Adam could not have understood the concept of punishment but their own words indicate that they did.
So when Eve paraphrases God's words to the serpent,he replies "You will not surely die." To suggest incomprehension makes no sense and the conversation is meaningless.
God gave a simple and clear command in a perfect environment. You can talk about extenuating circumstances for addict pushers and that's true but we must compare like with like.

Flann wrote:I have to say that I find the favourite blame game in these forums is to blame God for everything even when it reaches absurd levels.

I can see how you think that. Consider my worldview. There is no such thing as outside the causal web. Which means that if we’re considering a scenario where god is a relevant character, he is the cause of a great deal of what happens, for better or worse. Clarifying causation in the hypothetical scenario isn’t playing a blame game. It's tracing causation backwards to a point where we cannot trace it further. I'm sorry if it seems like this means I'm blaming your god.

There is no basis to say that Adam was tempted moments after his creation and every reason to think otherwise. It says that God met regularly with Adam in the evenings. As for instilling respect,Adam knew he had been created by this God and that surely is significant.How could he not have respect given this reality?

So the only interaction Adam had was with God in the time following his creation. His character, the strength of his moral resolve, were all able to be traced back to god. No one and nothing else, because there was no one else who influenced him or educated him. Again, I’m not “blaming” god, I’m tracing the lines of influence backwards, and they happen to end on god. This may not sit well with you, but don’t play the same game and blame me.

He did not have a fallen nature so obedience was easier though God gave him the freedom and faculty to choose to obey or disobey. You are making assumptions that Adam could not have understood the concept of punishment but their own words indicate that they did.
So when Eve paraphrases God's words to the serpent,he replies "You will not surely die." To suggest incomprehension makes no sense and the conversation is meaningless.
God gave a simple and clear command in a perfect environment. You can talk about extenuating circumstances for addict pushers and that's true but we must compare like with like.

So from everything you’re saying, there is absolutely no reason Adam should have chosen to eat the apple. And yet he did. What’s missing here?

Did his hand twitch, the apple falling into his mouth, and a spasm of his jaw make him chew? If there was no reason for Adam to have chosen to eat the apple, then he would not have chosen to eat the apple. To make a choice, there must be a reason, whether it be influence(justified or undue), a random whimsy, unsatiable hunger, etc.

So why would Adam have eaten the apple? There is no answer you can give that we cannot explore further to reveal causation. And those lines of causation trace back to Adam’s past, however brief it was. If his choice was made outside the web of causation, then it was made by some supernatural deciding locus. If the supernatural deciding locus is outside the web of causation, then it is by definition unaltered since god created it. Which means, it was created with the knowledge that the wrong decision would be made.

Interbane wrote: So why would Adam have eaten the apple? There is no answer you can give that we cannot explore further to reveal causation. And those lines of causation trace back to Adam’s past, however brief it was. If his choice was made outside the web of causation, then it was made by some supernatural deciding locus. If the supernatural deciding locus is outside the web of causation, then it is by definition unaltered since god created it. Which means, it was created with the knowledge that the wrong decision would be made.

I think sometimes you over complicate things Interbane.
I'm sure Adam had a reason.
The key point though is that he is a rational moral being created in the image of God. He understood many things including his freedom to eat from all the other trees but not the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.We are not told his reason which does not mean he didn't have one.
Once Eve had eaten the fruit she was fallen having transgressed the command and I suspect Adam was putting loyalty and acquiescence to her above obedience to God.He may also have desired to have the knowledge of good and evil. So while we are not given a look inside his head I think he had reasons.
Ultimately as a moral sentient being he made a choice that was his choice. He could have done otherwise.That is the essence of moral decision making and having responsibility for it.
The command was simple and clear and the consequence plainly warned of.
Undoubtedly God knew he would make this choice and God has his own reasons and purposes in permitting the fall.
I think focusing on causal influences and factors can never be divorced from the integrity of the person and their own faculties to judge morally and decide and be accountable.
The webs of causation thesis sometimes undermines the concept of moral responsibility in decision making which in a way is what makes us human and not machines.

Flann wrote:I think sometimes you over complicate things Interbane.

What do you mean when you say I overcomplicate things? Do you mean to say Adam didn’t have a reason that he ate the apple? Or that his reason wasn’t the culmination of his experience in the garden of eden up until that point ? Or that this very reasoning isn’t pertinent?

Flann, reality is infinitely more complicated than you’re giving it credit for. What I think is happening is that rather than explore your beliefs and expose a potential fault, you would hide them behind a veil of simplicity.

Examining something in detail is not the same as overcomplicating it. You can be honest, and I'll honor your answer and stop discussing this; are you afraid a detailed examination will taint your faith?

Ultimately as a moral sentient being he made a choice that was his choice. He could have done otherwise.

He could have done otherwise only if the reasoning behind his choice were different. His reasoning could only be different if his past experience or mental makeup were different, or if the influences upon his decision at that moment in time were different.

There was some influence upon his reasoning that superseded god’s command. Was it his newfound loyalty toward eve, as you suggest? Why was he created in such a way that his loyalty towards eve was stronger than his obedience to god? Or was his loyalty towards eve a byproduct of his desire for her, a desire which was instilled into him by god? We’re back to the same issue; why was his desire for a woman stronger than his obedience to god?

We can continue to explore this, and it will become increasingly clear that god not only permitted the fall, but was fully responsible for it. That is the only conclusion that makes sense in the end. I’d be more than happy to continue, if you wish.

If so, let’s try a thought experiment. Try to think of one reason(any reason you can think of) that Adam might have chosen to disobey god and eat the apple. Let’s start with whatever pops into your head and work down the list, exploring each one in turn.

I think you are asking for blanks to be filled in which we don't know.
What he was thinking. What we are told is that he was made in the image of God and created with the freedom to obey or disobey.
Do you think human laws prohibiting murder assume that people are incapable of obeying them?
Adam as created did not have the inclination towards evil that we have.
We are responsible for how we respond to our desires. So persuasion by others or the attractiveness or possible gain of an evil act never excuse it.It is a moral choice.
You are insinuating that he could not have obeyed the command. According to your philosophy we always do what we are most inclined to do based on webs of causation.
But when we are inclined for whatever reasons to commit murder say,we violate our own moral sense of right and wrong. So capitulating to a morally wrong choice is a moral action. The inclination is not accepted as justification. Revenge may be a motive and inclination. Any assumption that this person cannot but obey the inclination towards revenge undercuts the entire basis of moral responsibility.
He could not do otherwise as the webs of causation dictated that he must murder.If that is true then he can not be responsible.He can say because xyz influenced me therefore I was most inclined to do it and therefore I am not responsible for doing it.
That's the logic of your position.There's a causal fatalism in your philosophy.
I don't know why this is so difficult. We are moral agents with consciences. We make moral choices for which we are responsible. We are responsible for how we respond to a desire for revenge. Some go along with it others don't. That's what it means to make moral choices.
So by saying that what God permitted caused Adam to disobey you are making this argument.Adam was not responsible for his disobedience,God was.Try telling your children that when they disobey you.
That's O.K it was my fault not yours!
If God permits the serpent to tempt Eve it's God's fault. Despite the clear command and warning of the consequence Eve had no choice.
This doesn't wash. Influences are not a justification. The judicial systems would collapse if the plea "I was tempted to do it was exculpatory".

Flann wrote:I think you are asking for blanks to be filled in which we don't know.

I'm not asking you to settle on anything, of course we don't know. The thought exercise is to illustrate something very pertinent. If we do this only as an exercise, and not in the vain hope of recreating what happened, would you be willing? Try to think of any reason Adam could have had to eat the apple in spite of god's order not to.

Do you think human laws prohibiting murder assume that people are incapable of obeying them?

I think you're talking apples and I'm talking oranges. Are the people who commit said murders raised in isolation with the creator of the universe?

You are insinuating that he could not have obeyed the command.

No, I'm saying that his decision to disobey was not made in a vacuum. It was deliberated as a convergent chain of different lines of thought that all trace back to his past experience.

According to your philosophy we always do what we are most inclined to do based on webs of causation.

The alternative is that our behavior is outside the web of causation, and that understanding breaks down.

Any assumption that this person cannot but obey the inclination towards revenge undercuts the entire basis of moral responsibility.

No, the assumption undercuts your false understanding of what moral responsibility actually is. When people commit murder, they weigh their desire for revenge against their knowledge that what they are considering is wrong. The consideration of the crime manifests via moral emotions. Whichever influence is greater is what direction their action takes. We as a society hold them morally culpable even if their action was inevitable. Because culpability is more to do with behavioral modification than mere "punishment for misdeeds". A secondary side effect is that the victims feel that justice is done. Punishment in this sense is a social palliative. It is required for behavioral modification.

Try telling your children that when they disobey you.

If I created the dispositions of my children, to include the strength of their hunger, their willingness to obey, their tendency to rebel, their intelligence, their lust for women, etc, then you would have a point. Especially if I raised them in a vacuum where I was the only one that interacted with them. Especially if I were omniscient.

This doesn't wash. Influences are not a justification. The judicial systems would collapse if the plea "I was tempted to do it was exculpatory".

Influences are not a justification. There are many influences that we reasonably expect people to resist. This washes, Flann, but you're not understanding my position. Carrier gave a very thorough overview of how our judicial system thinks in terms of Compatibilist free will. The temptations that we run into in life are no excuse.