Faith and "Truth vs Utility"

[Valyza1]

So if I'm constantly acting as if proposition X is true, and I know it could never actually be shown to be true or false, that would be different than believing it?

No, it would not be different from believing it. You can believe something is true, even if you know that you can't demonstrate it to the satisfaction of skeptics. Thinking that something is actually the case, is actually true, is what belief means.

It's not about whether you can show it to be true. It's about whether you believe it's true. Not useful, true.

believing something to be true is not a choice, yes. You either believe something is true or you don't. Acting as if something is true, when you have no way of ever finding out it's truth value, is a choice. Since you can't find out whether or not it's true, but have been presented with the notion, you can either act as if it's true, or refrain from acting as if it's true. Either one is a choice.

So yes, believing and acting as if are different in that one is not a choice and one is. So the first sentence of my initial post may be misleading because I mention belief. But the actual question involves "acting as if" something's true, which is actually different than believing.

{belief in a god} provides a sense of purpose...

For me the idea of a god has the exact opposite effect, total negation of purpose because some purported invisible, intangible being of unknown motives is pulling the strings.

While a god's motives may be unknown, people don't typically believe in gods that are defined as possessing any harmful motives. Usually, the god they believe in is defined, at least in part, as motivated by what's best for all creation. The perfection descriptor usually includes perfect goodness.