I'm a christian (protestant, for what it matters) but I am also very down-to-earth. I know why I believe in God : that's how my parents educated me, and when I

I'm a christian (protestant, for what it matters) but I am also very down-to-earth. I know why I believe in God : that's how my parents educated me, and when I was old enough to think by myself, I chose to keep believing. But I believe mostly in science, and I know there is not a single proof from science on the existence (or not) of God. Yet, I also choose to believe in a religion because it reassures me to say "Please help me, please be with me" when I'm in a dangerous or stressing situation, or when I'm depressed, or when I mourn, while fully knowing that it very might be just bullshit. In a way, I make believe that God exists and is as described in the Bible, but I don't see why I should try to enforce my make believe onto others (and I don't plan on enforcing it on my children). I'm not versed in philosophy, but reading your comment, I think I adhere to the Correspondence Theory of Truth, in the way that science IS true, science is THE truth. But religion is useful to me, it reassures me, so it is true TO ME, it is MY truth, so I might also adhere to the Pragmatic Theory of Truth. In the end, I know full well how to differentiate between those two aspects of my beliefs system, and I think both have their uses and both could live together in the human mind, as long as you know which one to use in which situation.