What do moderates think Jesus died for?

[Anomalocaris]

In a materialistic view there can be no free will and we're all just robots, following programming.

I think it's only reductionist materialists who say free will is impossible.  I am an emergentist materialist, who considers life, consciousness, and free will as emergent properties of complex arrangements of matter.

Emergence says complex system can possess properties which are not easy to predict from simple statement of properties of its constituent parts.  It does not say complex system can possess properties which can not be predicted from the priories of its constituent parts.

In principle There is nothing free about any emergent property.  Only that the constraints on emergent properties of complex systems are not as easy to deduce from simple statements of the properties of its constituents as simple properties of simple systems.

Emergence is therefore as misused in the argument for free will as quantum mechanics.

The difference between reductionist materialism and emergentist basically comes down to this:

Reductionist say there is no free will and everything you do is deterministic, and relatively easy to predict. When we acquire the capacity to predict them relatively soon, the delusion of free will will be dispelled for good.

Emergentists day there is no free will and everything you do is deterministic, and relatively hard to predict.  It will be a long time before we can even try to predict it so we can go about safely pretendinf free will is a real thing and not just a convenient conceit or cover for ignorance for quite a while longer.

---

In a materialistic view there can be no free will and we're all just robots, following programming.

I think it's only reductionist materialists who say free will is impossible.  I am an emergentist materialist, who considers life, consciousness, and free will as emergent properties of complex arrangements of matter.

---

If your neural state can be mapped precisely, it could well be that your choices made with what you conceive to be free will can be predicted with rigorous precision and accuracy long before you are even aware of the need to exercise your free will to make them.   Where is the free will in that case?

"In the history of science, Laplace's demon was the first published articulation of causal or scientific determinism, by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814. According to determinism, if someone (the demon) knows the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe, their past and future values for any given time are entailed; they can be calculated from the laws of classical mechanics. A desire to confirm or refute Laplace's demon played a vital motivating role in the subsequent development of statistical thermodynamics, the first of several repudiations developed by later generations of physicists to the assumption of causal determinacy upon which Laplace's demon is erected."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace's_demon

Another such repudiation was quantum mechanics.

In my opinion, the kind of determinism you are arguing for depends on an outmoded picture of material realities.  We now know they are often statistical rather than completely determined.  Thus even the underlying physics would allow for different choices with replays of circumstances.

1.  What you point out is unpredictability, not free will.  A dice has no free will.

2.  Determinism is not absolute.  Microscopic Uncertainty of the quantum type when aggregated yinto macroscopic systems becomes increasingly certain on the macroscopic scale.    The fundamental workings of nerve system is, by the standard of quantum mechanics, an totally macroscopic system.  Therefore one would expect not much more residual quantum uncertainty to the decision making process as, say to the behavior of a steam engine.