“Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we have.”
“Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them.”
“We do not know what we intend to do until the intention itself arises. To understand this is to realize that we are not the authors of our thoughts and actions in the way that people generally suppose.”
None of these arguments is worth ****.
1) Free will requires that there be a finite set of at least two realisable options, an agent to select from the set and an evaluation system by means of which the agent can make a selection. Obviously the agent doesn't need to choose what options are in the set, what agent they are or what evaluation system they have. So, this kind of stuff over which we have no control, conscious or otherwise, is not a threat to free will.
2) In a non-determined world, there is mathematical randomness, but mathematical randomness isn't a threat to free will. The randomness which is a threat to free will is that of chance and this isn't implied by non-determinism. So the dilemma as posed is false.
3) We can demonstrate free will, whereas we cannot demonstrate determinism. We can show that all decisions being completed pre-consciously by a mechanical algorithm, is not possible. In short, there really is no free will issue, and religious neurotics like Harris fail to create one.