The demand for freedom meets a demand for a science that says nature is only chance and necessity.
Freedom could never be the instrument of necessity and chance, but necessity and chance are instruments of freedom all the time. The entropy must cool the fridge, or at least there is a very good chance it will. Thus, freedom can preserve the existence of necessity and chance in their proper sphere while necessity and chance cannot do so for freedom. Why go through all the awkwardness of elimitivism or emergence – which none of us can accept anyway – when we can make necessity and chance potentially instrumental to freedom and so preserve the full, substantial and autonomous reality of all three?
More broadly: intelligence can preserve the integrity and domain of nature, but nature-as-modeled cannot even preserve the existence of intelligence. Nature is not “emergent” or eliminated if instrumental to freedom
But what is the mechanism of freedom? Does the soul emanate freedumeons or soulitrons that push the body around? Nature must conquer all! We face the same decision as Socrates: how can the good be binding without cords or straps to bind them?
Freedom is more parsimonious than Naturalism. Allowing for the transcendence of nature does a better job at preserving what nature is in tension with than any of the unbelievable attempts to account for freedom as arising from nature.
But freedom does arise in nature.
Thus there is some source of freedom beyond nature, and this is what all call a divinity.