Sam Harris and others might have to rethink their positions. The question of free will seems to be back to unanswered status.
The trouble with logic and reason is that you often find yourself in the position of not having all of the relevant information. For this reason alone it seems that reason and intuition will be forever intertwined. You cannot know everything, yet you have to make decisions. Categorizing free will as existent or nonexistent, however, may not be a necessary decision. Why do we need to come to a conclusion about this? Is it just the biases of believers in determinism at work here?
Of course, it would be wise not to ignore the information you have, but equally wise to never assume it's complete. As most decisions seem to me to be other than critical, I assume it's also reasonable to wait until your intuition indicates you have all the information you're going to get before making a decision.
And when it comes to decisions about what to believe, it may sometimes be best to decide not to decide.