General Discussion

Choose Your Own Topic

Read 1241 times

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24685 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Geological evidence for Christianity
« Reply #45 on: October 29, 2020, 07:15:22 am »
This is not the argument. We are determining whether the prayer is a necessary condition for intervention, not whether it is a sufficient condition.

Let me adjust it as follows:

1)  If prayer (assuming the right precursors) can change God's will to intervene to prevent a negative event, then it means God at the beginning of time has either a) already decided to intervene against the negative event regardless of the prayer such that the prayer was not necessary to God intervening, or b) the prayer itself was necessary to bring about God's intervention making the prayer necessary to avoid a negative outcome.
2) If (a) then prayer could not have changed the outcome and didn't play any causal role in the negative event occurring.  [From 1a]
3) If (b) then no praying was fully causally responsible for the outcome. [Since the decision to intervene completely depended on the prayer to prevent the negative outcome, not praying is causally responsible for bringing about the negative outcome.]
4) Thus, prayer is either causally effete (causally not responsible) or causally responsible for negative events. [From 2,3]
5) Therefore the person making the prayer either is wasting their time praying, or guilty of committing immoral actions and even as much as committing murder by not praying or not praying with the right precursors in allowing negative outcomes to occur.

Is this your argument? If so, then both 2 & 3 are false so the conclusion is not sound.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2020, 07:46:34 am by Harvey »

1

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 14579 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Geological evidence for Christianity
« Reply #46 on: October 29, 2020, 10:13:23 am »
Let me adjust it as follows:

1)  If prayer (assuming the right precursors) can change God's will to intervene to prevent a negative event, then it means God at the beginning of time has either a) already decided to intervene against the negative event regardless of the prayer such that the prayer was not necessary to God intervening, or b) the prayer itself was necessary to bring about God's intervention making the prayer necessary to avoid a negative outcome.
2) If (a) then prayer could not have changed the outcome and didn't play any causal role in the negative event occurring.  [From 1a]
3) If (b) then no praying was fully causally responsible for the outcome. [Since the decision to intervene completely depended on the prayer to prevent the negative outcome, not praying is causally responsible for bringing about the negative outcome.]
4) Thus, prayer is either causally effete (causally not responsible) or causally responsible for negative events. [From 2,3]
5) Therefore the person making the prayer either is wasting their time praying, or guilty of committing immoral actions and even as much as committing murder by not praying or not praying with the right precursors in allowing negative outcomes to occur.

Is this your argument? If so, then both 2 & 3 are false so the conclusion is not sound.

Why 2 is not true?

I have no idea what you mean by 'fully' causally responsible - it is one of the contributing causes. Still, the responsibility remains, as it decides the outcome.
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

2

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24685 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Geological evidence for Christianity
« Reply #47 on: October 29, 2020, 11:01:01 am »
Why 2 is not true?

Overdeterminism. The classic firing squad analogy is that a prisoner is executed by all the marksmen all shooting their bullets into the victims heart where each bullet is a sufficient cause of death but not any one bullet is necessary to bring about their death (since the other bullets would accomplish that). Thus, one might conclude that no single bullet played a causal role in the tragic outcome of the prisoner. But, of course, if no single bullet played a causal role in the prisoner's death then as a collective the bullets did not play a causal role in the prisoner's death. But, that's absurd hence 2 is false. We need a counterfactual view of causality where a single bullet plays a causal role in light of its participation in the outcome, but its causal role is part of a symphony of causes and not as a singular cause.

Quote from: Jabberwock
I have no idea what you mean by 'fully' causally responsible - it is one of the contributing causes. Still, the responsibility remains, as it decides the outcome.

In other words, if a person dies as a result of not praying, and they are fully causally responsible, then the line of causation goes through that individual's actions which they must bear full responsibility for whatever negative outcome that occurs since they literally had the ability to stop the unfortunate outcome but didn't take the appropriate prayer action to prevent.  But, 3 is false because we don't know God's will and while prayer is causally connected to God intervening, causal processes must be "direct" to bear this full causal responsibility (and hence moral responsibility). Otherwise we get into causes like the butterfly effect as being causally responsible for negative outcomes which makes moral responsibility into something completely absurd. For example, had you not walked down a street last week then a fellow citizen would have decided to stay in. Had he stayed in then he wouldn't have been in a severe accident and died. Thus, you are causally responsible for that person's death by bringing it about. Since you know that your actions of this type could bring about such consequences but still did nothing to prevent such events, you are morally implicated in that person's death regardless if you intended it to occur by walking down the street. Of course that's absurd. You have to be directly causally responsible in a very particular sense where the outcome must be highly likely based on your actions or non-actions.

3

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 14579 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Geological evidence for Christianity
« Reply #48 on: October 29, 2020, 11:42:51 am »
Overdeterminism. The classic firing squad analogy is that a prisoner is executed by all the marksmen all shooting their bullets into the victims heart where each bullet is a sufficient cause of death but not any one bullet is necessary to bring about their death (since the other bullets would accomplish that). Thus, one might conclude that no single bullet played a causal role in the tragic outcome of the prisoner. But, of course, if no single bullet played a causal role in the prisoner's death then as a collective the bullets did not play a causal role in the prisoner's death. But, that's absurd hence 2 is false. We need a counterfactual view of causality where a single bullet plays a causal role in light of its participation in the outcome, but its causal role is part of a symphony of causes and not as a singular cause.

But that analogy obviously does not apply: if all shooters have refrained from shooting, then the prisoner would have survived. But in a) there is no such possibility - the intervention comes anyway. For your analogy to be correct, suppose the firing squad shoots the prisoner at the exact moment of his death caused by his previous consuming a poison. While you might argue that the cause of death might still be the shooting, he would still die anyway, so the firing squad is irrelevant as far as the outcome is concerned. So yes, the prayer is a waste of time, if it does not have any influence on the outcome of the event, i.e. if God would heal the person anyway.

Quote
In other words, if a person dies as a result of not praying, and they are fully causally responsible, then the line of causation goes through that individual's actions which they must bear full responsibility for whatever negative outcome that occurs since they literally had the ability to stop the unfortunate outcome but didn't take the appropriate prayer action to prevent.  But, 3 is false because we don't know God's will and while prayer is causally connected to God intervening, causal processes must be "direct" to bear this full causal responsibility (and hence moral responsibility). Otherwise we get into causes like the butterfly effect as being causally responsible for negative outcomes which makes moral responsibility into something completely absurd. For example, had you not walked down a street last week then a fellow citizen would have decided to stay in. Had he stayed in then he wouldn't have been in a severe accident and died. Thus, you are causally responsible for that person's death by bringing it about. Since you know that your actions of this type could bring about such consequences but still did nothing to prevent such events, you are morally implicated in that person's death regardless if you intended it to occur by walking down the street. Of course that's absurd. You have to be directly causally responsible in a very particular sense where the outcome must be highly likely based on your actions or non-actions.

But that is exactly the point of the argument! I do not feel responsible for walking down the street and deaths caused by it, because it is most likely to have no effect, and equally unlikely to have a negative effect or a positive effect.

But it is not what Christians believe about their prayers - they believe their prayers can have some effect and that the effect is likely positive. The responsibility is directly proportional to the effect your prayer is supposed to have. If you believe that your prayer actually can bring about something good, then you should feel responsible for the lack of it. If you believe that you are not responsible at all, then you must believe your prayer has no effect at all or it is as likely to cause something good as it is likely to cause something bad.
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

4

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24685 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Geological evidence for Christianity
« Reply #49 on: October 29, 2020, 01:48:22 pm »
But that analogy obviously does not apply: if all shooters have refrained from shooting, then the prisoner would have survived. But in a) there is no such possibility - the intervention comes anyway.

In terms of the analogy, each bullet to the heart represents a sufficient but not necessary cause of death. So, God would have saved person X even if the person hadn't prayed, but had all the other causes for them being saved had not happened, then prayer would have still been a sufficient cause for the negative outcome to not have occurred.

Quote from: Jabberwock
So yes, the prayer is a waste of time, if it does not have any influence on the outcome of the event, i.e. if God would heal the person anyway.

But, if every cause for avoiding a negative outcome is sufficient but not necessary for avoiding a negative outcome, then each of those causes is a causal influence in the sense that if any one of them is not a causal influencer then as a collective none of them are. But, that's absurd. So each of them must be a causal influencer in a symphonic sense as I mentioned.

Quote from: Jabberwock
]But that is exactly the point of the argument! I do not feel responsible for walking down the street and deaths caused by it, because it is most likely to have no effect, and equally unlikely to have a negative effect or a positive effect.

But it does have a real causal effect because seeing how pleasant you looked as you passed by is the actual reason they went outside and met their tragic end. I would consider you out for a walk as an indirect cause.
Indirect causes do not imply moral responsibility, but they don't release us completely of our causal reasponsibility.

Quote from: Jabberwock
But it is not what Christians believe about their prayers - they believe their prayers can have some effect and that the effect is likely positive. The responsibility is directly proportional to the effect your prayer is supposed to have. If you believe that your prayer actually can bring about something good, then you should feel responsible for the lack of it. If you believe that you are not responsible at all, then you must believe your prayer has no effect at all or it is as likely to cause something good as it is likely to cause something bad.

So, if the prayer is answered we can only claim an indirect causal role in the positive outcome. If we didn't pray then we are playing an indirect causal role of that negative outcome happening. In neither situation are we morally responsible since in both cases we're talking about playing an indirect causal role in the outcome (either positive or negative).
« Last Edit: October 29, 2020, 01:52:05 pm by Harvey »

5

kurros

  • *****
  • 11854 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Geological evidence for Christianity
« Reply #50 on: October 29, 2020, 02:25:59 pm »
Quote from: Jabberwock
]But that is exactly the point of the argument! I do not feel responsible for walking down the street and deaths caused by it, because it is most likely to have no effect, and equally unlikely to have a negative effect or a positive effect.

But it does have a real causal effect because seeing how pleasant you looked as you passed by is the actual reason they went outside and met their tragic end. I would consider you out for a walk as an indirect cause.
Indirect causes do not imply moral responsibility, but they don't release us completely of our causal reasponsibility.

Moral responsibility is associated with expectations and beliefs as well as "reasonable" behavior. No-one expects that their simple action of walking down the street will cause anyone to die, nor are they epistemically negligent in holding that belief. The fact that bizarre small chances of freak accidents exist is not their responsibility because they cannot reasonably predict or act to prevent such things (you might just as likely cause fatal freak accidents by staying home).

Prayer is not like that, or so it is claimed. Or do you think that prayers only extremely randomly have efficacy? Anyway this is what Jabberwock is saying. If you don't believe your prayer is likely to achieve anything (as in the walking down the street case) then why do it? But if you *do* believe it is at least somewhat effective then there is a moral responsibility that comes along with that.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2020, 02:27:30 pm by kurros »

6

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 14579 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Geological evidence for Christianity
« Reply #51 on: October 29, 2020, 02:32:40 pm »
But, if every cause for avoiding a negative outcome is sufficient but not necessary for avoiding a negative outcome, then each of those causes is a causal influence in the sense that if any one of them is not a causal influencer then as a collective none of them are. But, that's absurd. So each of them must be a causal influencer in a symphonic sense as I mentioned.

But this 'causal influencer' is irrelevant to my argument: in that case the prayer makes no difference for the outcome.

Quote
But it does have a real causal effect because seeing how pleasant you looked as you passed by is the actual reason they went outside and met their tragic end. I would consider you out for a walk as an indirect cause.
Indirect causes do not imply moral responsibility, but they don't release us completely of our causal reasponsibility.

No, the distinction between the cause being direct or indirect is irrelevant. Suppose that God told me: if you take a walk now, a man dies. If not, he stays safe. Would I be responsible then?

Quote
So, if the prayer is answered we can only claim an indirect causal role in the positive outcome. If we didn't pray then we are playing an indirect causal role of that negative outcome happening. In neither situation are we morally responsible since in both cases we're talking about playing an indirect causal role in the outcome (either positive or negative).

As above - whether the cause is direct or indirect has no bearing on the responsibility. The responsibility depends on the probability of a given effect. If a boss tells his lieutenant to kill a guy, then the lieutenant tells his underling, then the underling tells his buddy and the buddy hires a paid assassin who kills the guy - does the boss bear any responsibility for the act?
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

7

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24685 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Geological evidence for Christianity
« Reply #52 on: October 29, 2020, 03:14:37 pm »
But this 'causal influencer' is irrelevant to my argument: in that case the prayer makes no difference for the outcome.

This is only a (1a) scenario where a prayer is part of a symphony of causes. And, as a symphony, individual causes need not be irrelevant despite that the outcome would have happened any way. The causal influence might not be "that the event occurred" but in the details as to "how the event occurred." In any case, that's just (1a).

Quote from: Jabberwock
As above - whether the cause is direct or indirect has no bearing on the responsibility. The responsibility depends on the probability of a given effect. If a boss tells his lieutenant to kill a guy, then the lieutenant tells his underling, then the underling tells his buddy and the buddy hires a paid assassin who kills the guy - does the boss bear any responsibility for the act?

That's direct responsibility because the line of responsibility is like a set of dominos where the person who pushed the first domino had a reasonably good expectation that his command would be carried out. Now, if it was undecided what each officer would do, and the boss of the lieutenant (general?) understood that there was a review process and whatever he commanded might have been chosen by the review process regardless of whatever actions he took or did not take, then the general is only indirectly causally responsible and cannot be morally responsible since his actions have no verifiable relation with the oucome. He can feel justified that he took the morally justifiable action to recommend the killing of some enemy (e.g., bin Laden) but not take credit in terms of being morally responsible for bin Laden's death (which could be morally good or morally bad depending on if God is the Christian God or the God of the al Qaeda terrorists). Either way the general is not morally culpable for his indirect causal action which only roundaboutly led to bin Laden being killed.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2020, 03:16:46 pm by Harvey »

8

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 14579 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Geological evidence for Christianity
« Reply #53 on: October 29, 2020, 03:46:06 pm »
This is only a (1a) scenario where a prayer is part of a symphony of causes. And, as a symphony, individual causes need not be irrelevant despite that the outcome would have happened any way. The causal influence might not be "that the event occurred" but in the details as to "how the event occurred." In any case, that's just (1a).

They are irrelevant as far as the outcome is concerned, which is what the argument was about.

Quote
That's direct responsibility because the line of responsibility is like a set of dominos where the person who pushed the first domino had a reasonably good expectation that his command would be carried out. Now, if it was undecided what each officer would do, and the boss of the lieutenant (general?) understood that there was a review process and whatever he commanded might have been chosen by the review process regardless of whatever actions he took or did not take, then the general is only indirectly causally responsible and cannot be morally responsible since his actions have no verifiable relation with the oucome. He can feel justified that he took the morally justifiable action to recommend the killing of some enemy (e.g., bin Laden) but not take credit in terms of being morally responsible for bin Laden's death (which could be morally good or morally bad depending on if God is the Christian God or the God of the al Qaeda terrorists). Either way the general is not morally culpable for his indirect causal action which only roundaboutly led to bin Laden being killed.

But before you wrote about direct and indirect causes, not 'lines of responsibility', whatever you might mean by that. I still stand by my claim that it is the expectation of probability that decides the responsibility. Thus to believe that the lack of prayer entails no responsibility, you have to believe that it is very unlikely to positively affect the outcome.
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

9

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24685 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Geological evidence for Christianity
« Reply #54 on: October 29, 2020, 04:52:23 pm »
They are irrelevant as far as the outcome is concerned, which is what the argument was about.

Was my last 1-5 argument not correct? If 2 & 3 are false then your conclusions are not sound.

Quote from: Jabberwock
But before you wrote about direct and indirect causes, not 'lines of responsibility', whatever you might mean by that.

I had said:

Quote
You have to be directly causally responsible in a very particular sense where the outcome must be highly likely based on your actions or non-actions.

A "line of responsibility is like a set of dominos where the person who pushed the first domino had a reasonably good expectation that his command would be carried out."

In other words, if we know that by pushing that first domino that a series of events will occur where we have a reasonably good expectation that the last domino will fall per our expectations, then whatever damage caused by that last domino is our moral responsibility. But, if each domino represents a large complex set of events that are beyond our ability to predict or know how or if they will fall, then we can't reasonably be morally responsible for that damage unless our ability to know was appreciably above pure chance in terms of being able to predict which must be specific to our actions in terms of tipping that first domino.

Quote from: Jabberwock
I still stand by my claim that it is the expectation of probability that decides the responsibility. Thus to believe that the lack of prayer entails no responsibility, you have to believe that it is very unlikely to positively affect the outcome.

No, you merely cannot have a scientific level of confidence (or higher) that prayer will effect the results. But, to have that level of confidence we would need a direct causal influence over the final domino.

10

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 14579 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Geological evidence for Christianity
« Reply #55 on: October 29, 2020, 06:14:54 pm »
Was my last 1-5 argument not correct? If 2 & 3 are false then your conclusions are not sound.

Your 2 was:

2) If (a) then prayer could not have changed the outcome and didn't play any causal role in the negative event occurring.  [From 1a]

Half of it is true: the prayer could not have changed the outcome. Whether it plays an overdetermined causal role is not relevant for my argument - you would still waste your time for an outcome that was guaranteed.

And your 3 was:

3) If (b) then no praying was fully causally responsible for the outcome. [Since the decision to intervene completely depended on the prayer to prevent the negative outcome, not praying is causally responsible for bringing about the negative outcome.]

I have pointed out the issue with 'fully'. And the rest is true: it is causally responsible for the outcome, just like walking out and indirectly causing someone's death is causally responsible. It is not morally responsible only if I am  not aware of the consequence, but my awareness does not affect causality as such.

So the argument stands, even if I would put it somewhat differently.

Quote
In other words, if we know that by pushing that first domino that a series of events will occur where we have a reasonably good expectation that the last domino will fall per our expectations, then whatever damage caused by that last domino is our moral responsibility. But, if each domino represents a large complex set of events that are beyond our ability to predict or know how or if they will fall, then we can't reasonably be morally responsible for that damage unless our ability to know was appreciably above pure chance in terms of being able to predict which must be specific to our actions in terms of tipping that first domino.
[...]
No, you merely cannot have a scientific level of confidence (or higher) that prayer will effect the results. But, to have that level of confidence we would need a direct causal influence over the final domino.

But nobody is talking about 'scientific level of confidence'. The relation is simple: the more you believe that prayer has positive causal effect, the more responsible you are.  To be completely free of responsibility, you have to believe that the positive result is very unlikely. Nothing you wrote contradicts that.
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

11

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24685 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Geological evidence for Christianity
« Reply #56 on: October 29, 2020, 10:32:56 pm »
Your 2 was:
2) If (a) then prayer could not have changed the outcome and didn't play any causal role in the negative event occurring.  [From 1a]
Half of it is true: the prayer could not have changed the outcome. Whether it plays an overdetermined causal role is not relevant for my argument - you would still waste your time for an outcome that was guaranteed.

No, because as I said, an overdetermined cause could impact how the events occurred which in themselves might play a critical role for how those causal events are resolved in a pleasant and beneficial way
 
Quote from: Jabberwock
And your 3 was:

3) If (b) then no praying was fully causally responsible for the outcome. [Since the decision to intervene completely depended on the prayer to prevent the negative outcome, not praying is causally responsible for bringing about the negative outcome.]
I have pointed out the issue with 'fully'

I responded to that:

Quote
In other words, if a person dies as a result of not praying, and they are fully causally responsible, then the line of causation goes through that individual's actions which they must bear full responsibility for whatever negative outcome that occurs since they literally had the ability to stop the unfortunate outcome but didn't take the appropriate prayer action to prevent.  But, 3 is false because we don't know God's will and while prayer is causally connected to God intervening, causal processes must be "direct" to bear this full causal responsibility (and hence moral responsibility). Otherwise we get into causes like the butterfly effect as being causally responsible for negative outcomes which makes moral responsibility into something completely absurd.

Quote from: Jabberwock
And the rest is true: it is causally responsible for the outcome, just like walking out and indirectly causing someone's death is causally responsible. It is not morally responsible only if I am  not aware of the consequence, but my awareness does not affect causality as such.

Agreed, but 5 says:

Quote
5) Therefore the person making the prayer either is wasting their time praying, or guilty of committing immoral actions and even as much as committing murder by not praying or not praying with the right precursors in allowing negative outcomes to occur

"Guilty of committing immoral action and even as much as committing murder" does not follow if 3 is false.

Quote from: Jabberwock
But nobody is talking about 'scientific level of confidence'. The relation is simple: the more you believe that prayer has positive causal effect, the more responsible you are.  To be completely free of responsibility, you have to believe that the positive result is very unlikely. Nothing you wrote contradicts that.

No, it's not what you believe. If that were the case people with mental illnesses would be morally responsible for many things they believe. The reason why I put "at least" scientific level of confidence  as a criteria (for establishing moral responsibility) is because that's the level needed to establish our role in connecting our actions with the effects that we bring about. Without that we can't be responsible since otherwise we are going to take responsibility for things we are not responsible for, and not take responsibility for those things we are responsible for. Just because China thinks that the US  is responsible for the Covid-19 virus doesn't mean we are, right? We need scientific evidence to establish that.

12

kurros

  • *****
  • 11854 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Geological evidence for Christianity
« Reply #57 on: October 29, 2020, 11:29:50 pm »
No, it's not what you believe. If that were the case people with mental illnesses would be morally responsible for many things they believe.

I think you are missing the point. It is about what moral responsibility we should believe ourselves to have given the things we believe to be true. So those people with mental illnesses may well feel that they are morally responsible for some crazy stuff due to crazy things they believe, yet still be reasoning correctly so far as what their moral responsibility *would be* if those things were really true.

Likewise we atheist don't think anyone *actually* has any moral responsibility for failing to save anyone with prayer, because it is obvious to us that prayer does absolutely nothing (except perhaps some meditative type benefits for the person doing it). Nevertheless, Christians should feel a moral responsibility to pray for people, if they really believe what they say they believe.

It's about internal consistency, not what is actually true.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2020, 11:35:53 pm by kurros »

13

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 14579 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Geological evidence for Christianity
« Reply #58 on: October 30, 2020, 02:58:02 am »
No, because as I said, an overdetermined cause could impact how the events occurred which in themselves might play a critical role for how those causal events are resolved in a pleasant and beneficial way

If the outcome is different depending on whether there was a prayer or not, then the prayer is necessary for the particular outcome, so it is no longer a). Overdetermination requires that the result is the same.
 
Quote
Quote from: Jabberwock
And your 3 was:

3) If (b) then no praying was fully causally responsible for the outcome. [Since the decision to intervene completely depended on the prayer to prevent the negative outcome, not praying is causally responsible for bringing about the negative outcome.]
I have pointed out the issue with 'fully'

I responded to that:

Quote
In other words, if a person dies as a result of not praying, and they are fully causally responsible, then the line of causation goes through that individual's actions which they must bear full responsibility for whatever negative outcome that occurs since they literally had the ability to stop the unfortunate outcome but didn't take the appropriate prayer action to prevent.  But, 3 is false because we don't know God's will and while prayer is causally connected to God intervening, causal processes must be "direct" to bear this full causal responsibility (and hence moral responsibility). Otherwise we get into causes like the butterfly effect as being causally responsible for negative outcomes which makes moral responsibility into something completely absurd.

Quote from: Jabberwock
And the rest is true: it is causally responsible for the outcome, just like walking out and indirectly causing someone's death is causally responsible. It is not morally responsible only if I am  not aware of the consequence, but my awareness does not affect causality as such.

Agreed, but 5 says:

Quote
5) Therefore the person making the prayer either is wasting their time praying, or guilty of committing immoral actions and even as much as committing murder by not praying or not praying with the right precursors in allowing negative outcomes to occur

"Guilty of committing immoral action and even as much as committing murder" does not follow if 3 is false.

Quote from: Jabberwock
But nobody is talking about 'scientific level of confidence'. The relation is simple: the more you believe that prayer has positive causal effect, the more responsible you are.  To be completely free of responsibility, you have to believe that the positive result is very unlikely. Nothing you wrote contradicts that.

No, it's not what you believe. If that were the case people with mental illnesses would be morally responsible for many things they believe. The reason why I put "at least" scientific level of confidence  as a criteria (for establishing moral responsibility) is because that's the level needed to establish our role in connecting our actions with the effects that we bring about. Without that we can't be responsible since otherwise we are going to take responsibility for things we are not responsible for, and not take responsibility for those things we are responsible for. Just because China thinks that the US  is responsible for the Covid-19 virus doesn't mean we are, right? We need scientific evidence to establish that.

You simply misunderstand my point. Let us take your example: I am walking out which leads to a chain of events that results in someone's death. Now there are two cases:

1. Before I walk out, I have no idea what the chain of events might bring about. Am I responsible for the death?
2. Before I walk out, God says to me: if you walk out now, an innocent man dies. If you stay, he will be safe and sound. Am I responsible for the death, if I walk out?
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

14

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24685 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Geological evidence for Christianity
« Reply #59 on: October 30, 2020, 06:50:58 am »
Overdetermination requires that the result is the same.

In our firing squad example the prisoner dies regardless if he's hit by ten bullets or one bullet. But, if he's hit by ten he might experience more pain, or different parts of his body might experience reactions that may not have occurred if only one bullet killed him. So, there's nothing about overdeterminism that requires the same exact process of dying, but the death is the same outcome, though.
 
Quote from: Jabberwock
You simply misunderstand my point. Let us take your example: I am walking out which leads to a chain of events that results in someone's death. Now there are two cases:

1. Before I walk out, I have no idea what the chain of events might bring about. Am I responsible for the death?
2. Before I walk out, God says to me: if you walk out now, an innocent man dies. If you stay, he will be safe and sound. Am I responsible for the death, if I walk out?

1: no.
2; If I said yes and then later I told this story here, would you, Wonderer, Belorg, Kurros, etc. hold me morally responsible if later I left my building and used a news story to prove I did a morally reprehensible thing? Of course not. You would tell me not to feel guilty because there is no scientific evidence establishing my guilt even if God existed. Right?