One more document on several expressions Christianity's view on this topic.
http://www.ncca.org.au/files/Departments/Faith_and_Unity/Anthropology_Study.pdf

I'd like to address a few points. Genesis is expressing theological truths; The literal stories represent theological ideas. I see the childbirth pains as a way of express the pains of sins; that is separation from God. Union with God is perfect happiness and peace. I don't see the fall as God kicking them out of the garden, rather it's Adam and Eve's rejection of God that displaces them from perfect happiness and peace(the garden). In a way, we all displace ourselves from the garden when we reject Gods will. The "darkening of intellect" is an interesting quote. I'd like to see what it says in the original language. English often can not capture the theological nature of other languages. Lets assume its translated correctly. We need to separate two things: happiness and peace. Sinful things an make a person happy, but like a drug, the effects wear off and we are in a worse off condition than before we used the drug. The come down is hard and can make a person miserable. Yet, we seem to forget the bad and remember the good. Who hasn't said "awwwwhhhh I'm NEVER drinking again!" Yet when the next weekend comes around, your right back at the party. The temporary happiness darkens our intellect from doing what we know is right (the will of God). We choose happiness for lasting peace. Peace is what we ultimately want and is the ultimate way to happiness.

The above is not based on any particular theology, but rather they are just a few of my thoughts.

*I have a link at the bottom of this page from a doctor of the church who answers your question very well in section (4). It was written sometime in the fourth century.*

St Paul touches on this subject in Romans. It's one of my favorite scriptures.

Romans 7:15-20

New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.

Now God is love, but also perfectly just. He has so much love that he made creation to share that love. In his goodness he wanted all humans to have free will but being perfectly just this free will would ultimately doom many. That is why he sent Jesus into the world, so we could be reborn into our original state of humanity. If a person had sins, God being perfectly just could not allow them to get away with those sins. If I was sinless, then I could give my life for that persons sins as a payment but I am only one man. Jesus is fully human and fully man, which enabled him to give his life for all of human kind's sins. Thus, he was able to give us free will, while at the same time giving us a just way to return to him if we so desired.

The above is not based on any particular theology, but rather they are just a few of my thoughts.

Your quote from Pope Benedict is interesting. I've heard that he was a a lot more "liberal" in his earlier days. I've never read his early works, but whats interesting about that quote is that It sounds much more Eastern than Western. What I mean by this is that It sounds more Oriental Orthodox or even an Eastern Orthodox than Roman Catholic. He also has some Karl Barth(a brilliant protestant theologian) in that quote which really surprises me! It's true that freedom is relational; I want your iphone so I a free to take it, yet you want it and now your freewill has been diminished. This is one of the reasons I became Catholic. I believe Catholic moral thought gives each of us the most free will possible without taking someone else free will away. I am getting off topic here so I will close with one more thing. If you have never read the Eastern thought on the Human Person, than I suggest you do. It is a lot more intellectually satisfying IMO. Having said that, I believe the Catholic view because I believe in the need for a central authority. I highly recommend you read St Athanasius first. He is a doctor in the RC Church. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox both regard him as one of the greats as well. His view on sin is more in line with the eastern view.

"In order to effect this re-creation, however, He had first to do away with death and corruption. Therefore He assumed a human body, in order that in it death might once for all be destroyed, and that men might be renewed according to the Image. The Image of the Father only was sufficient for this need. Here is an illustration to prove it. (14) You know what happens when a portrait that has been painted on a panel becomes obliterated through external stains. The artist does not throw away the panel, but the subject of the portrait has to come and sit for it again, and then the likeness is re-drawn on the same material. Even so was it with the All-holy Son of God. He, the Image of the Father, came and dwelt in our midst, in order that He might renew mankind made after Himself, and seek out His lost sheep, even as He says in the Gospel: "I came to seek and to save that which was lost.18 This also explains His saying to the Jews: "Except a man be born anew . . ."19 He was not referring to a man's natural birth from his mother, as they thought, but to there-birth and re-creation of the soul in the Image of God."
Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/incarnation.pdf

The rules of this website stipulate that you must have your real identity listed as your disqus name, to reduce the chance of polemic and unproductive bile (on both sides). Your choice of name not only ignores that requirement, it suggests that you're actively fighting against the guiding principles of reasoned and respectful dialogue.

Worse than that your comment here, and comments elsewhere, are devoid of logic and full of factual inaccuracies. I will flag you comments because of your violations of the rules, but I invite you to make a new name and keep doing your best to make logical arguments which will fail on their merits, not the tone.

1) The term capital 'N' "New Atheists" generally refers to the big 4; Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens. Less often someone on this list is meant to be included. You'll notice that you'll fail to notice Pete Boghossian mentioned anywhere, I had never heard of him before you brought him up.

2) You assert, without argument or evidence, the statement that this group of people are not free thinkers, and indeed, that materialism preclude thought all together.

3) Mocking people, and being mocked for your beliefs, is a right and a result of freedom of speech. Get used to it, toughen up, and stop whining so much.

As a side-note; I seem to recall your god telling you that it should be a badge of pride when you are belittled, and are you not supposed to be putting everyone ahead of you anyway? I was told earlier that any pride whatsoever is going to stop you getting into heaven.

4) Religious-belief-being-placed-on-the-DSM-V has nothing to do with human experimentation or your implication of Nazi crimes against humanity. It's not only a purulent allusion, worse, it's illogical: there are hundreds of illnesses which are currently listed on the DSM (A document courting it's own share of controversy, by the way) whose sufferers we don't cut open without consent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Though the points brought up in the OP bear repeating. "Free thinking" is incompatible with materialism. Actually, "thinking", period, is incompatible with materialism.

Thanks, I liked the bit about the cesium myself.

But please allow me to persist. You asked me to try you, and I am. Could you tell us all about your first hand knowledge of atoms?

I'll pass, but thanks for that brilliantly reasoned comment!

Stacy,

Please feel free to reread my proposition. In any of the premises, did you see the phrase "science is an illusion?" No, because it's not a part of this argument...therefore you know that i'm not arguing that...because I didn't.

This argument stands or falls on it's own. If you feel there are missing premises or unintended consequences, feel free to provide a logical framework in which you can show where they fit.

If not, stop making stuff up.

I'd love to hear about your 'first hand' experiences where you asked that cesium atom if it was excited about absorbing that photon.

No, you're trying to use your self-proclaimed scientist status as a battering ram to knock down others' arguments. Science has no gods or authority, so in and of itself that be bad enough "trust me because I'm a scientist."

But more than going against the basic scientific philosophy of free inquiry and honest exchange of information, your appeal to authority wouldn't be so bad if you were telling the truth.

I realize that it might be tempting to go right back on the offensive, asking me questions about my worldview, after being called out for bad logic about yours, but no.

We're not going to skirt the point with a dismissive "either way". You made an invalid logical deduction. I called you on it.

----

Now, onto your questions: In a world where free will is an illusion, there is no problem with choice.

As an example, let's look at your hypothesis; that we live in a world where disembodied minds give the matter of your body the ability to change directions, influence events...be a causal agent.

In that scenario, you already admit that matter can move without free will. Look at the animal kingdom: animals have no souls (therefore no free will) and yet they hide, or don't, they pounce, or don't, they mate, or don't. Venus fly traps move. Fungi push mycelium in the direction of positive stimuli. Many bacteria can move towards growth mediums, some are colonial species who specialize their function to the betterment of a whole group. Ants construct vast cities with clockwork garbage disposal and impeccable air conditioning. On your worldview, all of this occurs without a soul, without free thought or free will.

Additionally, agents who do have this mysterious property can't physically do anything which we don't see non-willed agents capable of doing. Your free will does not grant you the option to jump much higher than your height, no matter how much you will it. You can't force your body to fly. No matter how questioningly disobedient you feel, you will never make your lungs exchange oxygen and release carbon both in our atmosphere and water. All of these things are done by one or more of the other animals on our planet, additionally: you can't will yourself to be in two places at once. You can't will yourself onto the surface of Jupiter. Just like a drop of water joining the ocean, you will never not have protons in your atoms' nuclei.

So what are you capable of in your mystical system of which I am incapable in my deterministic system?

I don't know what is going to happen in the future, so I'm not weighed down by the inevitability of what future me will do (much like you're not weighed down by the inevitability of what your god knows you will do). I'm not being "unquestioningly obedient" to anything, except the regular motions of physical objects and forces....just as you are in your mysterious setting.

So what do you mean by 'free thought?'