Looks like the guy finally thought about it and came to a few good conclusions.
Biology and free will
As a materialist he is remarkably consistent.
I’ve always tried to avoid thinking about free will, realizing that that way lies madness. As a materialist, I couldn’t see any way that our thoughts and behavior, which come from our neurons and muscles, which themselves result from the interaction between our genes and our environment, could truly be influenced by our “will.” Yes, there may be quantum uncertainties, but I don’t see how those can be influenced by our minds, or play any role in the notion that our decisions are freely taken. [b]But if you don’t believe in free will, you might be tempted to stop thinking so hard about what you do, and start questioning the idea of moral responsibility. The end result is nihilism. [/b] [b]Although Pink gives a useful summary of the history of philosophical arguments about free will, he completely neglects science, eventually claiming that free will is a reality largely because we feel that we have it. Pink’s neglect of physics, chemistry, and biology—that is, the whole area of naturalism and determinism— is inexcusable.[/b]Nevertheless, like all humans I prefer to think that I can make my own decisions. I decided to adopt an uneasy compromise, believing that there’s no such thing as free will but acting as if there were. And I decided to stop thinking about the issue, deliberately avoiding the huge philosophical literature on free will.
Further down:
And if you accept this definition, there’s no way to respond to the question of “Do we have free will?” except with a vigorous “No!” [b]If you answer, “yes,” then you’re tacitly accepting a mind/body duality and a species of vitalism that has no part in science or naturalism.[/b] As I see it,[b] you can no more be consistently scientific and believe in free will[/b] than you can be consistently scientific and believe in a theistic God.Coyne realises a few things: 1) Materialism and naturalism from a mechanistic point of view do not allow for free will.
- Coyne understands that this leads to moral nihilism (so much for trying to use naturalism or materialism in a debate about morals) and that it undercuts reason itself. Thoughts (e.g. reasoning and using logic) are only epiphenomena and are nothing but mechanistic processes that are not linked to reason in any way.
Of course, normal people would find these views a bit troubling if they take reason and rationality serious. Coyne’s solution to these views… don’t think about it. I suppose that is probably the best way to deal with it from his perspective :-.