I think attempts to answer philosophical questions with science are mostly pathological. Most of the time they get 99% of the way to their conclusion due to initial assumptions that are much a matter of faith and then make some thin scientific assertion on top of those monumental assumptions.

A deterministic universe is an okay working assumption for conducting most scientific experiments most of the time, but there's a big jump from that to using it as a fundamental basis for answering the big questions in a "scientific" manner. One might even calling it pseudo-philosophy since it attempts to paper over the hard philosophical issues by using some trite application of scientific reasoning applied to wholly unjustifiable foundations.

Science may eventually come to bear on certain philosophical issues, but it won't be by "scientists" who are simply uncomfortable with certain ideas and thus chase certain conclusions, it will be due to new discoveries that change our understanding in unforeseen ways.