Hi James, so sorry it took so long to respond.
My first response is, I don’t think I have much to say. I see the plausibility of his view and get its overall point and maybe he’s right. But maybe he’s wrong. The point being, one of the advantages of UR, in my mind, is that it is compatible with lots of different antropologies, from free will to Harris’s view.
As to my particular views, I’ve been a critic of free will, but I don’t take it as far as Harris. My concerns have always been about the power and scope of the will. Specifically, I came from an Arminian tradition and I always worried from within that tradition: Is the will strong enough to get done (respond to God) what needs to get done given everything we know about sociology, neurocience, genetics, and environmental factors? My concern, thus, is less about the will being free vs. determined than with the will’s ability to “outrun” death. So my criticisms about free will aren’t about swinging wildly to the other side, toward a view like Harris’s. It’s simply arguing for the recognition that our wills are not omnipotent and can’t do what a lot of Arminian theology thinks it can do. In short, my worries are less about freedom than about power and capacity in the face of death (the limited and unpredictable allotment of time we each have).