I've always wondered why determinism is not a more widely accepted view of the world. As Talcott Parsons argues , determinism is the logical consequence of all positivistic theory. If we believe that human actors are rational empiricists, then either there is one right vector of actions for us to pursue (so that our actions are rationally deterministic) or our actions are pre-determined by evolutionary processes at both the genetic and social levels. In either case, choice as we like to think of it is an illusion, we think we are making our own decisions ("The red slayer think he slays" - Emerson) but these decisions are already coded into the entity we call the self, so that what appears to be a voluntary action is, in fact, simply a sort of higher order reflex. There is no choice.
Parsons (and others) don't really seem to have a good argument against this view of the world. The usual idea seems to be  that determinism is incompatible with the human condition because the absence of choice is a truth unacceptable to the human mind. There are three problems with this argument. First, it's not really an argument against the logic of determinism, is it? We may not like the idea that we are little more than genetically determined computer programs  but that doesn't make it untrue. Just because I can't stand, say, Dan Brown novels, doesn't mean that they don't exist. If anything, the fact that "Humankind cannot bear very much reality" is a good reason for why the theory has low acceptance. From an evolutionary perspective, it may be important that we not believe this if we are to continue to remain stimulated and productive, which is why we are not capable of believing it.
Second, I'm not sure that the difficulty of accepting determinism is not largely social conditioning (and especially social conditioning in the Western Protestant tradition). It's not clear to me that the inability of man to accept the absence of choice is an innate quality of human nature rather than just a sloppy intellectual habit we have let ourselves slip into.
But how can one possibly enjoy a life in which one has no choice? That is the final reason why I think the argument against determinism is flawed. It's not clear to me that we need to have choice to enjoy something. Imagine riding a roller coaster. Once you're on it, you certainly don't have any control over the ride - you're going to stick to one rigorously defined track that you've probably traced out in advance. Yet, the sensation of being whisked along on the track can still be a thrilling one . In the same way, I would argue that life can be experienced even if it is not discovered. Even if you knew (as in a movie you've read the book of) how things were going to turn out and what the main character (you) was going to do at every turn, you could still enjoy the process of the truth you already know unfolding. If anything, you may be able to enjoy it more because you don't have the stress of having to make decisions about it.
Bottomline then, I think it is possible to live with a deterministic view of the world. All you need to do is think of the world as one big hostel canteen - you don't get to choose what food you get, there's no menu, but you can still spend a happy life either enjoying what you get or (even more fun) complaining about it.
P.S. I should say that there is a second and more nuanced argument against determinism that derives from the fact that determinism fails the acid test of falsifiability. After all, how do you prove that what happened could have happened differently after it has already happened (or, to take it to the second order, how do you prove that the proof of determinism being falsified was not something that had to happen!). In one sense, this is a serious problem for the theory from the perspective of scientific theory. In another sense, however, it is re-affirming - if we were ever to arrive at the real truth about the world, after all, it would almost certainly not be falsifiable.
 See Structure of Social Action
 At least, I've never come across a better argument - I'd be interested to hear of one.
 There's a movie idea for you - a sort of reverse Matrix - the world is real but the human beings, the things we call the self, are just computer programs. How does a program like that recognise itself - it cannot - and therefore it defines the world as illusion and itself as fact. Welcome to Intelligent Design.
 At least some people seem to think so. Personally I can't stand roller coasters or rides of any sort.