I believe we do, but this seems to be unjustifiable.  Whether approached from a theistic or atheistic point of view, free will seems unable to exist thanks to an omniscient omnipotent creater and/or the unbreakable laws of physics.  Which leads me to

 Secondly, if yes, how do you justify such belief?

"I think religion, for many people, is moral viagra.  'Some people need help being moral and don't deny it to them.'  Well, if thats true, if religion does help people lead moral lives than one should take very seriously the proposition that we're going to eliminate it and let the devil take the hindmost.  Becasue the hindmost may be a great many people, and we may have the chaos that many people fear.  Many many people want their life to have a meaning, and wheres it going to come from?"

 How much would life change today if all the religious were simultaneously disillusioned?

Does the fact that each person is different, both from the nature side (except identical twins) and the nurture side, mean our decisions are unpredictable?  The arguments that our decisions are the result of electro-chemical processes seem unassailable; we can’t escape the laws of physics after all.  When presented with a decision the brain will go through predictable processes, reviewing memories of similar choices and weighing the benefits/dangers of each possibility, undoubtedly triggered by electro-chemical events, but the memories recalled, variables considered, and things valued will be different in each person.  One may say that this is obvious, and doesn’t mean anything, but I think it may be logically solid way to sneak free will in the backdoor.  A decision will be the immediate result of a preceding electro-chemical process, which is itself the end of a casual chain that reaches back to before the person was conceived, but the experience since birth and the genetic makeup will be different in each individual.  Say we knew a persons history (I eat cheerios for breakfast almost everyday) we would still have to know his genetic predispositions (when I'm likely to try something new) in order to attempt to predict what the decision will be, even granting that we know the electro-chemical status of the brain throughout the decision making process.  No one can "know" what anyone will do, they can do whatever they want, and people often surprise themselves.  Two brains experiencing the same electro-chemical conditions could make different decisions, or even if it is a decision made by the same person everyday (like what to have for breakfast), they will have accrued 24 hours more experience between each one, making a different decision possible every day (I think I"ll have eggs for breakfast tomorrow!).  The different decision may be a result of a change in outlook on life, health, or just mood, but it can alter the decision.  Our free will doesn’t come from an ability to bypass the laws of physics or logic but from our undeniable uniqueness.  We may be meat machines, but we, and the world we live in, are so complex that a decision will never be considered the same way twice.  We can’t escape the laws of physics any more than we can escape our past or our genes, but they all combine to create an infinite amount of unique conditions since the last two are not nearly as static as the first.  Every choice anyone encounters has never been approached by the unique combination of genes/experience that they bring to the table at that very moment.  Their choice is therefore completely unique and unpredictable.  It may not be the normal notion of free will, but it does allow us to own our actions.

Science is close to explaining away theology, and some, myself included, would say it already has.  Is philosphy next?  If science can explain away our free will and prove that our consciousness is nothing more than electric pulses and chemical reactions will philosophy suffer the same fate as religion?  Will all philosophy start to be viewed as childish fairy tales (to steal a phrase from the article) of little, or no, meaning? 

I personally don't think philosophy will every completely fade away, but than I also don't think religion will either.  Your thoughts?

"All man wants is an absolutely free choice, however dear that freedom may cost him and wherever it may lead him to.  Well, of course, if its is a matter of choice, then the devil only knows…"

"But I repeat for the hundredth time that here is one case, one case only, when man can deliberately and consciously desire something that is injurious, stupid, even outrageously stupid, just because he want to have the right to desire for himself even what is very stupid and not to be bound by an obligation to desire only what is sensible."

"He would even risk his cakes and ale and deliberately set his heart on the most deadly trash, the most uneconomic absurdity, and do it, if you please, for the sole purpose of infusing into this positive good sense his deadly fantastic element.  It is just his fantastic dreams, his most patent absurdities, that he will desire above all else for the sole purpose of proving to himself (as though that were so necessary) that men are still men and not keys of a piano on which the laws of nature are indeed playing any tune they like, but are in danger of going on playing until no one is able to desire anything except a mathematical table.  And that is not all: even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematically, even then he would refuse to come too his sense, but would on purpose, just   in spite of everything, do something out of sheer ingratitude; actually, to carry his point."

"I believe this is so, I give you my word for it; for it seems to me that the whole meaning of human life can be summed up in the one statement that man only exists for the purpose of proving to himself every minutes that he is a man and not an organ stop!"

Each person creates their own sense of morality.  There are a few base propositions upon which larger moral structures can be erected.  Ideas like ultilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number is the most desirable), master-morality (as opposed to slave-morality, Nietzscheian morality), nihilism, or hedonism define what is most valuable in this world, and are ideas around which a larger sense of morality can be constructed.  Religions also provide such core ideas; belief in the god of the bible or the Koran, or belief in any god who was good enough to author a book, provides a person with something more concrete, though undoubtedly also man made, on which to base moral principles.  Whether a person sees god, mankind, or himself as the most important thing in the universe, his sense of morality will shape itself to protect the thing most valued.  When we act in a way that we recognize as detrimental to us individually, but we still think is "right", it is because we are placing ourselves below something we value more.  Though these values might be somewhat abstract, they produce in us a sense that we are not more important than others, that our wants and needs are not supreme.  

Does this mean that one person cann't say that anothers acts are "right" or "wrong" since their morals are subjective?  I say no.  A person can say acts are "good" or "bad" since they consider how the acts will affect something, hopefully something other than themselves, that is not subjective.  An act can be bad for humanity or "bad" because it creates unnecessary sorrow in the world.  Our reasoning for why such an act is morally "wrong" is solid as long as what is considered valuable is shared.  Someone who values something else more, say themselves or even their country or religion, might view such a morally questionable action as "right".  Everyone values something (nihilists excluded), so everyone will have an opinion on moral issues.  People who value the same thing will agree on most issues.  Our evolution as social animals has left us with most people agreeing on most issues, especially the major ones (murder, rape, theft, ect.).

If the bible was published today would you think it was as important as you do now?  Would you consider the possibility that it was 'the word of god'?  How much of the bibles 'authority' is related to its age? When people today say god tells them to do things they are instantly thought of as crazy, yet most people accept that someone two thousand plus years ago had a direct line to the big guy and wrote down what HE said.    Why?

Some people try to point to the missing links in the fossil record, especially regarding the  evolution of the human species, as though this is a flaw in the theory itself.  This is not a valid point, in my opinion, because of the overall rarity of fossils.  The fossilization process only occurs only certain conditions, the result being that many species that quickly died out or lived in a small area would not be fossilized.  Darwin himself commented on this supposed hole in his theory.

 I took this straight from wikipedia

Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.

Due to the combined effect of taphonomic processes and simple mathematical chance, fossilization tends to favor organisms with hard body parts, those that were widespread, and those that lived for a long time. On the other hand, it is very unusual to find fossils of small, soft bodied, geographically restricted and geologically ephemeral organisms, because of their relative rarity and low likelihood of preservation.

Larger specimens (macrofossils) are more often observed, dug up and displayed, although microscopic remains (microfossils) are actually far more common in the fossil record.

Some casual observers have been perplexed by the rarity of transitional species within the fossil record. The conventional explanation for this rarity was given by Darwin, who stated that "the extreme imperfection of the geological record," combined with the short duration and narrow geographical range of transitional species, made it unlikely that many such fossils would be found. Simply put, the conditions under which fossilization takes place are quite rare; and it is highly unlikely that any given organism will leave behind a fossil.

We are lucky to have the fossil record we do, and there will always be "missing links" (were running out of places to look), but this IS NOT a flaw in the theory.

PS  Sorry for posting in Faith, how about what do you believe is the best novel of all time?

A link to the story is posted below, don't hate me because its fox news, I got the link from google news.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/world/middleeast/01hamas.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=48a7108aa0ca1938&ex=1207281600

I know many consider religion less important in causing wars than other concerns, but I believe the support of the populace is needed to fight a war (present wars excluded) and religion is used to gain the support of the people through demonizing the enemy.  How big of a role has religion played in historical wars in your mind?  in recent wars? the current war?

Take this religion and you  will experience this crazy sensation that makes you feel like you know god.  It wont seem weird or anything to know something that is unknowable, it will feel very real, like god is a person who you can talk with (though your really just talking to yourself).  It will also give you this great high, youll feel great, unstoppable.  And you don’t even get paranoid (unless its tainted, like scientology), youll feel really safe and secure.  Itll do some crazy things to you though, itll make you think you can survive death, so be careful and don’t go getting carried away.