An interesting collection of articles on the question of free will.
Mele's in particular strikes me as pretty weak. He points out a study which indicates that the "majority of people do not see having a nonphysical mind or soul as a requirement for free will." Well, so what? That's an observation about what "most people think," but not about what is actually the case. Any way you slice it, it's damn hard to make room for free will in a wholly naturalistic universe.
He also asks for "scientific evidence that [free will] is an illusion," shifting the burden of proof away from the believers in free will. This is always a silly and dishonest maneuver; no one has ever really "disproven" the existence of werewolves, but does that mean it's prudent to carry silver bullets with us every time we venture into the woods? It's not as though belief in free will is a "default" position, requiring no logical or evidential support. What we call free will in the traditional sense (that is, the power of a human being to "pull his or her own strings," in some sense, or to be the ultimate author of his or her own actions) is a sort of cultural artifact, something we come to believe in largely just because of, well, "what most people think," or "what we're told." I'm not convinced that just any person would come around to accept metaphysical libertarianism just by way of careful introspection or anything like that. I don't deny that deliberation and reflection occur, but I do contend that they occur within a larger causal context, and even introspective observation of our own deliberation and reflection would lead us, at best, to a feeling of uncertainty about the future, not that some future events can be things for which we are, as they say, "buck-stoppingly" responsible.
I'm also not convinced that the question of the existence of free will is a "merely academic" question, or something that has no bearing on practical activity. Both Einstein and Spinoza, for example, rejected the notion of free will and felt that without this dogma, a person can become more compassionate and understanding, and less prone to anger, envy, and hate. Einstein in particular felt that the rejection of free will "conduces to a view of life in which humor, above all, has its due place," and "prevents us from taking ourselves and other people too seriously."
What really intrigues me is why certain philosophers put so much time and effort into constructing some kind of "proof" or argument for free will. Is this really necessary? Is there any phenomenon which requires us to posit free will for explanatory purposes? I can't think of any.
I suspect that, like theism, metaphysical libertarianism is a doctrine to which people cling for largely emotional reasons; just as many people want to feel that there is an invisible, powerful, all-knowing being out there somewhere who always loves them very much, people want to feel that they are fully in control of their own lives, that they are the authors of their own vices and virtues, that they are "responsible" for their good deeds and deserve all the credit, and that their enemies are "responsible" for their bad deeds and deserve punishment.