This question is just another way of phrasing "Is compatibilism true or reasonable?" or "Why do people believe in Compatibilism?" or something along those lines.
Like most things in philosophy, there's no canonical, True with a big T, universally accepted answer. The jury is out. There are arguments for and arguments against. There are strong intuitions that it must be true and contrary strong intuitions that there's no possible way it's true. As such, all answers can only amount to the speakers philosophical opinion (in my opinion). The closest you could hope for in regards to expert consensus is finding out that a small majority of professional philosophers do, in fact, accept compatibilism.
I'll give my opinion here though: if freedom is incompatible with determinism, then that means freedom relies on randomness. To me, decisions based on randomness aren't free - randomness cannot give freedom. A person in a world with randomness is a slave to that randomness just as much as a person in a deterministic world is a slave to determinism. Thus, if there is any sort of freedom, it seems to me that it would have to be compatible with determinism.