“But recently I have learned from discussions with a variety of scientists and other non-philosophers (e.g., the scientists participating with me in the Sean Carroll workshop on the future of naturalism) that they lean the other way: free will, in their view, is obviously incompatible with naturalism, with determinism, and very likely incoherent against any background, so they cheerfully insist that of course they don't have free will, couldn’t have free will, but so what? It has nothing to do with morality or the meaning of life. Their advice to me at the symposium was simple: recast my pressing question as whether naturalism (materialism, determinism, science...) has any implications for what we may call moral competence. For instance, does neuroscience show that we cannot be responsible for our choices, cannot justifiably be praised or blamed, rewarded or punished? Abandon the term 'free will' to the libertarians and other incompatibilists, who can pursue their fantasies untroubled. Note that this is not a dismissal of the important issues; it’s a proposal about which camp gets to use, and define, the term. I am beginning to appreciate the benefits of discarding the term 'free will' altogether, but that course too involves a lot of heavy lifting, if one is to avoid being misunderstood.”

“The sceptical attack [on free will philosophy’s concept of libertarian freedom] amounts simply to a dogmatic determination to describe the world only in terms that already exclude freedom as a distinctive feature of human life. The sceptic assumes that the world can contain no power other than causation; and that any event that is not causally determined by prior events must just be random. But if we insist on describing the world only in these terms, then of course it may well appear that libertarian freedom is not possible and cannot exist. But by what right do we so exclude such freedom from the very outset?”

“Being free means "being free for the other," because the other has bound me to him. Only in relationship with the other am I free”

“As part of "moral philosophy," the concept of "natural liberty" clicks easily into place. Man, as an ethical integer, is either free to choose between good and bad courses within thelimits of his circumstances, or he is not. If he is not free, if he canonly accept what is handed to him from above (by fate, or by decree of the human agents of fate), then there is not much use in talking about morality or ethics. To make any sense of the ideaof morality, it must be presumed that the human being is responsible for his actions-and responsibility cannot be understood apart from the presumption of freedom of choice.”

“freedom attends reality:free at the core, any effort is wasted;timelessly free, no release is needed;free in itself, no corrective is possible;directly free, released in seeing;completely free, pure in nature;constantly free, familiarization is redundant;and naturally free, freedom cannot be contrived.yet 'freedom' is just a verbal convention,and who is 'realized' and who is not?how could anyone be 'liberated'?how could anyone be lost in samsara?reality is free of all delimitation!freedom is timeless, so constantly present;freedom is natural, so unconditional;freedom is direct, so pure vision obtains;freedom is unbounded, so no identity possible;freedom is unitary, so multiplicity is consumed.conduct changes nothing - our lives are already free!meditation achieves nothing - our minds are already free!the view realizes nothing - all dogma is freedom!fruition demands nothing - we are free as we are!”

“Scientists, therefore, are responsible for their research, not only intellectually but also morally. This responsibility has become an important issue in many of today's sciences, but especially so in physics, in which the results of quantum mechanics and relativity theory have opened up two very different paths for physicists to pursue. They may lead us - to put it in extreme terms - to the Buddha or to the Bomb, and it is up to each of us to decide which path to take. ”