[CuriouslyC]

It's disempowering and does not resonate with our conscious experience, and given there is no more evidence for it than the opposite view, I find the idea that someone would choose a world view that tends to cause depression and fatalism to be absurd.

[stvltvs]

There's another option: the Skeptic's choice to withhold judgement when there's not enough evidence.

[CuriouslyC]

That is a choice that entertains both notions. The problem with that is that entertaining the notion that you are a powerless observer of the universe who must abide surfing the waves of fate with no agency is soul crushing for most people. If that choice isn't bringing you some power in some other way, why make it?

[stvltvs]

So you're very much in the Pragmatist camp, something is only true if it's useful?

Personally, I find it impossible to choose to believe something, all things equal, just because I like the implications. The doubt will always be in the back of my mind, "But what if it's not really true?"

I hold to compatabilism. As far as I can tell, the universe unfolds according to natural laws, and we're no exceptions. But we have agency over our own lives, the decisions we will make matter, and we're free in every way that's meaningful.

[CuriouslyC]

It isn't so much that, as given we don't know and we have equal evidence in a number of different directions, our utility function should be biased towards believing in things that empower us and help us lead a better life. If the weight of evidence were in favor of a hypothesis that was disempowering, the situation might be different, but it isn't.