Reddit mentions of Free: Why Science Hasn't Disproved Free Will

If you're talking about Libet's experiments, these don't eliminate free will. They show that actions are preceded by brain activity before the person is conscious of making the decisions to act. The problem with interpreting this as meaning the unconscious brain activity determines the act is that there are also experiments in which a person is able to override that previous brain activity at the last minute.

Another problem with interpreting Libet's experiment as eliminating free will is that the results were only recorded in case where a person moved their wrist. If a person's brain ramped up prior to moving their wrist, and then they did not move their wrist, it was not recorded.

You should check out Alfred R. Mele's book, Free: Why Science Hasn't Disproved Free Will.

If you're a compatibilist, then Libet's experiments wouldn't be a problem even if they did show that our actions are determined by antecedent conditions. Under compatibilism, we are responsible for our actions as long as we do them on purpose, and to do something on purpose is to act on your own antecedent desires, motives, plans, intentions, etc. That means your antecedent mental states do determine your actions, and that's precisely why you're responsible for them.

Christianity doesn't depend on libertarian free will, and a lot of Christianity doesn't support that idea anyway. According to Jesus, a person's decisions are determined by the condition of their heart. He said, "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart" (Luke 6:45). That sounds a lot more like compatibilism than libertarianism.

If you think that scientists are in a consensus about free-will not existing, then you haven't been reading enough! Also, Roger Penrose is considered one of the finest mathematicians currently living, so the fact that he doesn't have an answer to this is far more interesting to me than random internet user #1001.

Also, Philosophy has a huge amount to bring to the discussion, the arguments made by neuro-scientists have many fundamental flaws and weaknesses. Science still has a lot to learn from Philosophy, especially in the way we discuss elements of the mind which cannot easily be described and defined.

Try reading this book: https://www.amazon.com/Free-Science-Hasnt-Disproved-Will/dp/0199371628/?tag=stno-20

There's a good article about this book and why recent experiments don't really prove or disprove free-will at all here: http://www.strangenotions.com/why-science-hasnt-disproved-free-will-a-review-of-alfred-meles-free/

There are also other neuroscientists saying we DO have free-will. See here: https://news.dartmouth.edu/news/2013/03/neuroscientist-says-humans-are-wired-free-will

Like I said, if you pick and choose your sources, some people argue in favor of free-will, but there are just as many people poking holes in experiments that were done, and arguing on the other side of the argument that we do have free-will.

Massimo Pigliucci is fine from what I've seen. He's also an academic philosopher, but writes a lot of public stuff.

Nigel Warburton and David Emonds are now full-time public philosophers and I enjoy the things they do: from their short books to the Philosophy Bites podcasts and so on.

There are also a number of academic philosophers who have written public pieces, even if that's not the majority of what they do. Al Mele has a recent book on free will, Michael Lynch has one on epistemology in the internet age and the role of reason in democracy. There are certainly others I'm forgetting.

You can also check out Aeon's essays for dozens of good, ~3000 word pieces by professional philosophers aimed at a wide audience and on a variety of subjects.

EDIT: looking at your specific topics I would suggest checking out Lynch's In Praise of Reason and Pigliccui's A Short History of Truth. The former is very good; I haven't read the latter, but there's not a ton of good books on truth that are easy. You might also look at Simon Blackburn's Truth: A Guide.

With Robert Kane, I suggest starting with A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will and then following it with Four Views on Free Will, a collaborative debate which includes other philosophers; with one each defending libertarianism, compatibilism, incompatibilism, and revisionism. You'll get a much better feel for the debate rather than a lopsided bias.

Before any of that, I suggest that you listen to Alfred Mele's interview debunking a lot of the pseudoscientific [mis]interpretations which have accrued around the subject of free will, and which are essentially to our era what phrenology was back in its heyday. He's written a few books on the subject, of which Free: Why Science Hadn't Disproved Free Will Yet is the most accessible.

Neuroscientist Peter Ulric Tse's The Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial Causation is also invaluable as far as providing a scientific account.