Just a few musings on the matter of belief, generally. Belief is a bit like the opinion side of the old philosophical dualism, opinion and knowledge. (It might also be paired with 'appearance', in appearance and reality.) John Dewey had two short descriptions of belief: 1. "Hug some special belief and one fears knowledge" and, 2. "Beliefs are personal affairs; personal affairs are adventures; and, adventures are, if you please, shady."
Neuman's Corollaries are, 1. Belief is what someone said that someone said, in some other place and time. It may remain relevant, but I would not count on that. 2. Faith is for skydivers, bungee jumpers and kindred souls possessing only a dubious reverence for life; or those who feel they need it, just to get past another day (and are worse off than they thought).

杜威、詹姆斯、罗蒂和其他实用主义者在成为无神论者之前都是无神论者。对他们来说，宗教并不是团结在一起的东西(见:塞拉斯)。尽管如此，它已经存在了很长一段时间，并导致了好的和坏的行为行为，信仰和决定(人类存在的abcd)。布莱斯•帕斯卡(Blaise Pascal)下了赌注，我必须严肃地怀疑，他的犹豫不决是否会给他带来任何好处——但我也有可能是错的。这不是所谓的“能知”——许多信仰强调上帝的不可知，这只是生活中不可言说的事实。我们实用主义者认为，这种“不可知”即使不是彻头彻尾的荒谬，也是令人不安的。但是，是的，我们可能错了……

Regarding whether belief is voluntary: Many religious people obviously think it is because they proselytize, which it would not be rational to do unless they believed that their targets could voluntarily change their beliefs. They are the experts regarding religion, so I guess it must be voluntary.

广播中的一些评论似乎没有意识到强迫行为和信仰之间的区别。一个人可能被迫去教堂，信奉信仰，等等，但是，因为除了自己之外没有人知道自己真正信仰什么，所以人们可以自由地相信自己信仰的任何东西。

At least a religious belief is a claim that something does exist , hidden from our direct proof. What should be interesting is, if this belief itself can fit into a doxastic logic formulation. Doxastic logic is the abstract logic formulation of belief. Which of Raymond Smullyan's categorizations of believer is a believer in religion ?
The modest reasoner , the stable reasoner ,the timid ? We should use abstract logic to formulate this , aristotle told us that logic is directly connected to metaphysical questions as dialectics , in the book of topos. In todays philosophy this viewpoint is lesser emphasized as i could wish for.

Inquiries into religious belief are as perennial as crab grass. Even so, people either embrace it or they don't. Some who do are not as pious as they pretend to be. Others, who do not, may actually display compassion and humility more honestly and openly than their pious brothers and sisters. Some Humanists, for example. Religious belief is neither reason, nor excuse. It is a manner of looking at life and death. We can dissect, examine and parse to heart's content. Inquiry eventually uncovers something new.

宗教可能是一根拐杖，但我们在某些时候都需要拐杖，即使不是所有的拐杖。如果定义得好，无神论者的信仰是充满宗教信仰的——我认为这个节目没有。我期待着读尼尔的书来澄清。

Most of the discussion seemed to revolve around the difference between factual belief and religious credence, with Neil’s ill-conceived juxtaposition of religious belief with make-believe. No devout believer will listen any further than that, despite the merits of the view. Those merits stake claim to inviolate philosophical and religious turf. Turf long since ceded by weak philosophers of religion.

Religion is needed for human happiness and flourishing. Everyone does it, atheists as well. Yeah, atheists!-time to pay the make-believe piper. Instead of factual belief, the show should have centered on the difference between make-believe and religious credence. This is where Neil and Ken quibbled but didn’t dig deeper. Here is a possible difference.

We engage in make-believe knowing that we will return to reality, and there will be little to no repercussions in our “real” lives. We engage in religious credence while entrenched in our real lives. As Neil said, there is no Lazy Christianity or Islam or other faith/practice. Our devotion may wax and wane, by lack of will, but always from our religious credence lazy boy. The cushioning is too forgiving ever to leave. Rarely even do we bother to complain. Atheists and theists alike are too comfortable in their credences to change the channel.

This is not to say make-believe can’t affect our “real” lives and identities. It can. One can watch Game of Thrones, take out their crossbow and shoot their father dead on the john. But when make-believe affects our lives like this (no patricide required – it is generally very subtle and small), at that point “belief in” has become “belief that.” Identity can come along for the ride or not. When fiction breeds fact, I argue that make-believe has transmuted into religious credence.

我想说更多。我认为无神论者是伪君子，牧师是浅薄的，读者是不知情的。等我读完尼尔的书再说吧。但我可以这么说。虔诚的信徒如果抛弃这种宗教信仰的模式，那将是愚蠢的。这是一场哲学上的地震，可以纠正风暴，让几个浪子回头。在我所在的社区，许多较新的教堂已经将当代小说(比如资本主义适合每个人!)融入到他们的布道中，以强大而有利的效果来宣扬这一福音。这些教会成长。在西方世界，那些把古老的信条当作事实的人是失败的。

当代犹太教并不是行善者的温床。这种信念是许多非人行为的核心，尽管在世代看来是合理的。作为以色列行动的一股力量，宗教信仰比欧洲或美国更为重要。

安·塔夫斯(Ann Taves)的《启示性事件》(Revelatory Events)看起来是一本值得一读的书，既及时又有先见之明。我们需要对现代宗教实践中的变革和启示之风保持敏感。在这里，我们将看到时代精神的变化，这种变化已经从自然(如果是人类起源的原因)中反映出来。

一个更好的问题可能是:为什么宗教信仰?如果最好的答案是:因为他们想，我们至少有戴维森的一种命题态度?或两个。:希望、欲望。细节在于区别。和深度。我得到了。并将待命。

Why is there air? An early Cosbyism. John Dewey had the temerity to write a book, purporting to explain How We Think. Epistemology at its' most elemental. His assessment of belief stands cogent in my mind. That there has been no more succinct or lucid explanation, is proof enough for me: beliefs=personal affairs=adventures=shady is about as tersely poignant as it gets. Dovetails nicely with Davidson's notion about propositional attitudes. Which is, in his parlance, what beliefs consist in. This is not so hard.

信念，如果足够努力，就是信念。信念，如果够努力，就是真理。有人提到劝服。如果做得足够努力，并且有足够多的人认同它，信念就是事实。伏都教吗?科学?宗教?对我来说都一样。

You said it. More directly; more concisely than I. Are we right? Was Dewey? Davidson? I think so.

2019年，当我在这里发表评论时，我还没有读过唐纳德·戴维森(Donald Davidson)。——不熟悉他关于命题态度的主张。自从了解了他提出的区别之后，我意识到这些立场(信仰、欲望、期望等)不过是一种建构——一种东方思想在几个世纪以来已经实现的顿悟。这些结构因文化、社会、历史等诸多原因而不同。那么，什么是宗教信仰?所有这些，还有一些。

Just for balance, if such is possible when considering the subject, maybe we could turn the question around, asking what religious belief is NOT. 1. Does it exemplify rational thinking? Not, on its' face: It asks adherents to accept, on faith, anecdotal stories, purporting to be something on the order of historical. Tales of improbable events, some told in conflicting accounts, 'according to' this or that saintly personage. Miracles. Things that defy explanation through evidentiary means. 2. Does it deny and/or refute science? It would seem so. That is, in light of certain facts. At those points in history when many (most?) religions emerged, there was little in the way of science. I won't count more modern cults or other belief systems---they are not religions in any sense we are here considering.
Having asserted that, it is clear that science, as we now have it, was barely out of the egg when religion was in its' prime. Any new kid on the block knows hard times. Science had no reliable references. 3. Are there sound reasonings for religious laws? Yes, in many cases religious laws are intended to shield adherents from harm and reduce transgression. One proscription comes to mind, however: the consumption of pork. How this came about is unclear, but it is reasonable to assume some harm was adduced for eating improperly cooked swine flesh. Science/medicine later figured this out.....( more later)...

...more:
Belief systems, of any stripe, entail what Davidson called propositional attitudes. For any belief system, religious or otherwise, to declare supremacy over others is propositional in the extreme.
这个命题的方面引起了调查。科学是在调查中发展起来的——没有调查就不能被正确地称为科学。宗教有时声称邀请调查，但并不真的希望任何人调查。信仰要求验收。毫无疑问，这里可以断言的还有更多。我想讨论一下我认为最基本的东西。哦。又是那个b字…

I thought a little more deeply about religious belief and what it is not. Taking a combinatorial turn with what Dewey and Davidson said about belief. Here is what I got:
信念是一种命题性的态度。命题态度是个人的事情。个人事务就是冒险，而冒险是见不得人的。这些概念融合得天衣无缝，却不失作者的初衷。最后三个字是决定性的。

说得好，蒂姆。我们不能确定。我们也不知道杜威是否曾经改变过他对信仰的看法。考虑到我对杜威所知甚少，他不知道。
Warmly,
HGN.

To Whom It May Interest:
I capped off my participation in this discussion with a comment on Professor Taylor's post regarding smart people and why they still believe. It may not be THE last word, but it is mine.

There is a blog I found by accident. It features posts from schools, individuals, periodicals and philosophical associations. I won't steal space here for advertising, so you will need to find it for yourselves. Good luck!