How I Justify Saying Most People Believe in Libertarian Free Will

​ @lanceindependent  [link to original question]

2.4 billion people identify as "Christian". Only ~75 million of those are "Calvinists". Aside from Calvinists, it's very hard to find a self-identified "Christian" who rejects librarian free will. Muslims are approx 1.8 billion. They too believe in LFW. Hindus: approx 1.2 billion. They too believe in LFW. Judaic sects account for about 15.7 billion. They too believe in LFW. Total estimates "theists": 6 billion. Most "unaffiliated" theists were/are raised either by parents or (otherwise) in a culture ... where locally mainstream core concepts (ie. libertarian free will) were/are either subtly or directly expressed. That's partly because culture intermixes with mainstream religiosity. Cultural concepts have a deep impact on how people in those societies think about personal freedoms, mental abilities, morality, justice, and ego. LFR is also a default intuition for humans. In the absence of sufficient exposure to relevant scientific data. and/or a culture that has already assimilated that data into its narrative, humans would either *all* or *nearly all* assume the Sun is small and close to us (literally just above the clouds). The same holds true for libertarian free will; except even more pervasively. Why? Because exposure to the facts and logic that debunk libertarian free will ... are going to clash with a strongly compelling human intuition about such freedom and ability. Worse yet, that intuition is tied in directly with widespread "moral narratives". Those narratives tie directly into most people's sense of ego, relative to their sense of personal moral fortitude. It serves as bragging rights that justify a sense of being morally superior compared to people who "freely choose" morally "bad" behaviors. It also serves as a justification for wanting to make evil-doers suffer; which, in turn, feeds a common addiction to feeling righteously and violently hateful. Relative to all that, I'd cite every nation's "criminal justice system" as a byproduct of each society's popular views about free will. Societies such as the USA have a system predicated on LFW. It's the primary motivation for sustaining a system designed to make criminals suffer greatly. Commonly, people are violently angry about serious crimes. Commonly, people are also violently angry (just ... less so) about non-serious crimes. Granted, that's partly because people are hoping for a sense of catharsis. They hope it will help them feel better if their criminal enemies suffer. But it's also because they imagine every criminal is "freely choosing" to do those crimes. Meanwhile, it takes some fairly advanced critical thinking skills for someone to be able to mentally draw a "flow chart" for how people think and "decide" about choices deemed "moral" vs "immoral". Granted, most people can and do have some rough draft for such a flow chart. But most people have yet to advance enough that they discover it's not even possible for LFW to be part of that flow chart So they just 'write it in' as a placeholder for impossible magic; which they label as "free will" and justify as"common sense". In reality, each step of a person's thought process must either be a link in a chain of cause-and-effect [aka "determined"], or else random. Even the esteemed Dr Robert Sapolsky, an outspoken educator on this topic ... bases his conclusions on everything EXCEPT that realization about the flow chart. He has not yet discovered the literal impossibility and incoherence of LFW. So his points are still limited to watching people demonstrate how illusory their narrative is. So then he says things like "If we have LFW, it's only in mundane spaces (of human thought processes).". When someone as brilliant as Sapolsky is still paying catch-up on the one point that completely renders LFW impossible and reveals that it's not even a rational concept, we should really not expect there to be a global silent majority of humans who have already figured it out.