Determinism is not at all necessary, nor even desirable.

I was curious how (or if) metaphysical naturalists reconcile a universe governed by only natural laws with free will. — Paulm12

-First you will need to demonstrate that free will is an option for organisms with biological urges, drives, peer and cultural pressures, environmental influences etc etc. Sure agency must provide the "luxury" of choice, but again how free is it?

I can not talk as a metaphysical naturalist, but as a Methodological Naturalist I can only point out what I observe and can verify.
This is that natural laws produce a world that demands from us (as agents) to make choices guided by our fundamental biological drives(to survive, flourish and procreate).
There is no conflict between those two models under the Scientific Paradigm.

if naturalism is true…the laws that govern the universe are what make everything happen. That everything which happens in the universe is a physical play out through time. And that means everything single thing, including our conscious thought and decision-making…If our decisions are tied to the physical processes of the universe, then we only have a say in them in so far as the physical processes output what we will say about them. In other words, what we think, feel, say, and do are all an output of how the universe is playing out

I think the described problem begs a question based on the use of ill defined abstract concepts.

-" if naturalism is true…the laws that govern the universe are what make everything happen. That everything which happens in the universe is a physical play out through time. And that means everything single thing, including our conscious thought and decision-making…If our decisions are tied to the physical processes of the universe, then we only have a say in them in so far as the physical processes output what we will say about them. In other words, what we think, feel, say, and do are all an output of how the universe is playing out."
-We will need to approach this problem much more analytic of the mechanism in play.
Yes everything we have ever observed and verified has been classified as Natural.
Yes our mental states are products of a Natural mechanism (biological brain).
But that "mechanism" is hooked at a sensory system, with the ability to register external/internal stimuli, store previous experiences and inform future actions based on the feedback.
All those interactions are interpreted by us with meaning and feelings (Symbolic language/what it means to us and how it makes us feel) allowing us to reason different scenarios,thus avoiding previous failures and attempting to have better choices. This demands a long period (known as childhood) and many of us keep meshing up even after that period or for the rest of our lives.

There is nothing incompatible when you take the time and analyze the facts.
Humans are agents, they have the capacity to gather information and improve their choices based on previous experiences, aiming for better results. Its not a "free choice" by any chance since it demands access to experience, knowledge which many do not have or can't process, freedom from personal biological drives and vices, cultural and societal pressure etc etc
Agency, under those conditions and based on the biological systems we are aware of, is something natural.
Freeing ourselves from the "noise" and choosing our actions is a exercise in frustration and a constant struggle that can only get better through practice, but still only a very small percent of our choices will be free from environmental and organic "interference" .

By the way determinism is an observer relative term. We as observers and our limits in our observations "see" things as determine because we don't have the whole picture and access to all hidden variable...if there are any.
On top of that, agency in the animal kingdom is a chance organisms have to avoid things that might appear determined to an organism with limited sensory inputs.

Further, the Center for Naturalism

deny[ies] that individuals have ultimate responsibility for their actions (in the sense of origination - being the self-caused authors of their actions) and assert that free will is an illusion — Paulm12

-That is the picture we get from Science. Individuals are not in control of their actions or better they control a really small percentage of them but they can work on expanding their control!
This is where analytic thinking and reasoning can be helpful.
btw. Everyone should be hold responsible for his actions but we need to understand that most people don't have the power to affect most of their decisions.

if naturalism is true….

.....and naturalism is.....

That everything which happens in the universe is a physical play out through time.

......it does not follow that....

the laws that govern the universe are what make everything happen.

The metaphysical naturalist rejects that the universe is governed by natural law, re: governance is not causality. Laws don’t cause the happenings of physical plays; laws merely describe relations between plays, and then only to the intellect that constructs them for itself.

That every object in the universe attracts every other object in the universe is a physical play. That every object in the universe attracts every other object in the universe according to their relative masses, etc, etc, is a law that describes how the play works, but only to the originator of the description.

The metaphysical naturalist posits that which governs the physical play of the universe is certainly not impossible, but that such governance should translate to a law, is a strictly human construct. And if a human gave that translation its name in calling it a law, why shouldn’t it be the case that he also gave it its descriptive power?
——————-

I wonder.....but not very much....exactly which law ultimately governs the physical play of the guy at The Center For Naturalism writing that humans are not ultimately responsible for their actions, while he sits there ultimately responsible for it being written. Betcha a million dollars he can’t tell me. Nor can he tell me about laws that contradict each other, which is precisely what laws are not supposed to do.

I approach it from two prongs. The language around “laws of nature” imply a kind of governance, leading to the assumption that something else controls or forces our actions. I would refute that language because the “something else” cannot be found, and further that it cannot be shown to control or force our actions.

Second, simple observation and experience shows me that wherever an action begins in an organism, it is thus willed by that organism. It couldn’t be otherwise.

That is the picture we get from Science. Humans are agents, they have the capacity to gather information and improve their choices based on previous experiences..
Individuals are not in control of their actions or better they control a really small percentage of them but they can work on expanding their control!
This is where analytic thinking and reasoning can be helpful…Everyone should be hold responsible for his actions

Thanks for your insight. What bothers me is that metaphysical naturalism seems to imply that all (not just some or many) of our thoughts and actions are mechanistic reactions to the initial state of the universe, laws of nature, etc. In the sense that while we take in information from those around us, the traditional view of agency is incorrect. People cannot “choose” to believe in or do anything. As a result, I don’t understand how people can be held “responsible” for their actions-they did not “choose” their actions but simply, as part of the physical universe, mechanistically responded to their initial conditions. Under this view, with an accurate picture of the initial state of the energy of the universe and the laws of nature, every thought and therefore “choice” could be predicted or simulated with 100% accuracy beforehand.

In other words, in the discussion on determinism, metaphysical naturalists would, to me, be hard determinists because any idea of “free will” is an appeal to a supernatural “power of mind” outside of the natural forces in the universe

If we have libertarian free will, then it is plausible to believe that the occurrences of certain physical events have irreducible and ineliminable mental explanations. According to…[metaphyscial] naturalism, everything in the physical world is in principle explicable in nonmental terms. Therefore, the truth of naturalism implies that libertarian choices cannot explain the occurrences of any physical events.

I was curious how (or if) metaphysical naturalists reconcile a universe governed by only natural laws with free will. — Paulm12

Most "reconcile" them like this .

I was curious how (or if) metaphysical naturalists reconcile a universe governed by only natural laws with free will.
— Paulm12
Usually most of us "reconcile" them via compatibilism. — 180 Proof

Doesn't that make the idea of physical law and determinism incoherent? The universe is deterministic and free?

I think the old, Newtonian model of determinism has been replaced by the quantum mechanical model.
Absolute determinism is replaced with randomness or probability.

Thanks for your insight. What bothers me is that metaphysical naturalism seems to imply that all (not just some or many) of our thoughts and actions are mechanistic reactions to the initial state of the universe, laws of nature, etc. In the sense that while we take in information from those around us, the traditional view of agency is incorrect. — Paulm12

-I can not talk about the beliefs a metaphysical naturalist might holds. The only assumption Philosophical Naturalism brings forwards is an indefensible one (Only but the natural world exists). The rest you mentioned sound more like an attempt to oversimplify multiple aspects of the natural world.
We know that natural processes (biological) are necessary and sufficient to explain agency without the need to involve metaphysical concepts like determinism, physics, QM etc.

As a result, I don’t understand how people can be held “responsible” for their actions-they did not “choose” their actions but simply, as part of the physical universe, mechanistically responded to their initial conditions. — Paulm12

-People do make choices but we need to understand that their role as an agent is limited. You shouldn't bring up the physical universe, mechanistically responded to their initial conditions. First of all Brain function is not mechanistic, it is emergent, like the physical properties of this universe, So there is no value in pointing to cosmology when the phenomenon in question is biological.

-" Under this view, with an accurate picture of the initial state of the energy of the universe and the laws of nature, every thought and therefore “choice” could be predicted or simulated with 100% accuracy beforehand."
-Are you familiar with emergence? Pls watch the following brief video on the two main types of emergence and we can continue this discussion.
Strong & Weak Emergence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66p9qlpnzzY&t=

Doesn't that make the idea of physical law and determinism incoherent? — Jackson

No.

The universe is deterministic and free?

Depends on what you mean by "free".

Depends on what you mean by "free". — 180 Proof

First, I reject scientific determinism. It has never been proven true. So, by free I mean according to that theory there is no freedom of any kind.

Clear as mud. By "free" you mean what?

Clear aa mud. "Free"? — 180 Proof

Back at you!

Okay. Nevermind.

Is my will determined by determined physical processes in the first place? Yes. The will is a completely determined process. The particles making you up, while you move through the physical world around you are completely determined, no matter what imprecise and loose holonomic constraints are applying. We are all like rolling balls on a rough chaotic plane, with internal monitoring facilities guiding the balls in their rolling-alongs. Free will is determined, as it should be. It's the only substrate for free will to exist. Any probabilistic substrate is doomed.

f naturalism is true…the laws that govern the universe are what make everything happen.

The metaphysical naturalist rejects that the universe is governed by natural law, re: governance is not causality. Laws don’t cause the happenings of physical plays; laws merely describe relations between plays, and then only to the intellect that constructs them for itself. — Mww

I was going to make a comment similar to Mww's. Laws don't "make everything happen," they describe how things happen.

I was curious how (or if) metaphysical naturalists reconcile a universe governed by only natural laws with free will. I can’t tell if this is only due to a growing skepticism around free will, or what actually seems to be an incompatibility between free will and metaphysical naturalism. I tried searching on here but didn’t see any topics on the matter. — Paulm12

Compatibilism is a view of free will that is consistent with determinism. To understand compatibilism, and how it can be considered "free will", first consider how you would make an important freely-willed choice:

You would try to think of all the consequences, some would be good some would be bad. You might weigh these against one another. You might give greater weight to long term consequences, or perhaps you'd be more inclined to receive a sure short term benefit instead of a possible long term detriment that may or may not occur. All of the factors you would consider would come from you, your mind - your knowledge of the world, your hopes, your dreams, your desires, and your worries and fears.

Now suppose determinism is true. What would actually be different in the decision process? The decision still comes from within, it is still produced by deliberation with all the same factors. Your knowledge of the world would not be any different; you'd have the same hopes, dreams, desires, worries, and fears. Would you choose differently? Why? All the factors that lead to a choice are there.

Free will is generally taken to mean that you could have made a different choice than the one you actually made. Could you have chosen differently if determinism is true? Yes –if you had more (or less) knowledge, had stronger feelings, or were more (or less) willing to take risks... There are factors in any decision, even if the decision is based purely on whim.

*EDIT* I'll add that compatibilism is consistent with moral responsibility. A wrong-doer would have done good had he held different beliefs, so it is incumbent upon society to encourage morally correct belief.

I agree that naturalism is incompatible with free will, at least of the kind required to make us morally responsible agents.

Most of the debate over free will focuses on a side issue - the issue of whether free will is compatible with determinism or requires indeterminism. Naturalism is neutral on whether determinism or indeterminism is true. And it seems beside the point. For regardless of whether determinism or indeterminism is true, if naturalism is true then everything we do is a product of external causes that we had nothing to do with. And that seems sufficient to rule out free will.

To have free will one needs either to have created oneself or at least to have not been created by anything external to one's self. And neither of those conditions will be satisfied if naturalism is true, for if naturalism is true then I'm my brain and my brain was caused to come into being by factors external to it. Thus, if naturalism is true, then I don't have free will.

I was going to make a comment similar to Mww's. Laws don't "make everything happen," they describe how things happen. — T Clark

If the law described a force, is it the force that makes it all happening? And, what cause would the mechanism of force have. Are you determined by the forces between your parts? The forces between the elementary particles you are made of, or do you determine the forces between them? Are you just a puppet dragged along by forces, like a clockwork orange?