Contemporary neuroscience is not a challenge to free will, according to Eddy Nahmias:
Most scientists who discuss free will say the story has an unhappy ending—that neuroscience shows free will to be an illusion. I call these scientists “willusionists.” ... Willusionists say that neuroscience demonstrates that we are not the authors of our own stories but more like puppets whose actions are determined by brain events beyond our control.
According to Nahmias, "willusionists" wrongly assume that free will requires some sort of dualism, or "an impossible ability to make choices beyond the influence of anything, including our own brains."
But contra Sam Harris and others, that there are neural correlates to our rational deliberative processes does not make them any less deliberative, or explain them out of existence:
Once we assume that all mental processes have neural correlates, then whether consciousness plays a role in our complex behavior turns on whether the neural correlates of conscious processes occur at the right time and place to influence behavior. It’s unlikely that the neural processes involved in complex deliberations, planning, and self-control play no role in behavior. Instead, there is evidence that conscious and rational thinking can play an important causal role in complex behavior. If we give up the mysterious picture of our conscious selves being offstage, then we can give up the threatening image of our brains pulling the strings while we helplessly watch.
[Insert Wes Alwan-esque rant on scientism and the philosophical ignorance of Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne].