“Strict naturalism, as an ideal scientific philosophy, seeks to include all aspects of reality within a comprehensive and unified perspective that excludes anything that is either conscious, or psychological, or mental in nature. Thus, not only does it ultimately exclude any teleological explanatory role for purposes with the result that no explanation can ultimately include mention of them (in this sense, strict naturalism countenances only purposeless explanations), but it also excludes or is incompatible with the view that agents make undetermined, free choices. Strict naturalism is incompatible with libertarian freedom because undetermined free choices are choices that are ultimately explained by the purposes of the agents who make them. Hence, because strict naturalism excludes ultimate teleological explanations in terms of purposes, it excludes libertarian free will.”
My comment: No purpose and no freedom. I have to say it’s difficult to see the attraction of strict naturalism. As Richard Dawkins rightly says, on this view, we simply dance to our DNA. That strikes me as pretty bleak.