aith like acceptance, simulated belief in a fictional stance supposes that we play with our own mental state. I know that the monster is in fact an artefact on the screen, but I will behave as if I believed that the monster was in front of me. When someone cries when looking at a movie, and is asked, "Why do you cry, it is only fiction?", the answer could be that the very idea that something like this could happen is sorrowful. And it is not false that we are able to make ourselves sorrowful simply by focusing our mind on sorrowful ideas. So might it be in the religious case: we make ourselves believers by focusing on religious ideas. Such an account of simulated belief presupposes what Henry H. Price called an "occurrence Analysis of belief ".11 to believe something is to have a certain occurrent mental state. In this case we would be able to simulate having a certain mental state or content, without actually having it. Price distinguishes this account from a Dispositional Analysis of belief, which maintains that beliefs are not occurrent mental states but are rather dispositions to answer a question or to behave in a certain way. This means that if S believes that p, S does not have a specific mental content but rather has a disposition to answer "yes", when asked if p, or the disposition to act according to the fact that p. And in that case, how would simulation be possible? The doctrine of simulated beliefs presupposes an occurrence Analysis of belief. We would be able to simulate because we can simulate having a certain mental state or content. I will not here defend a Dispositional Analysis of belief, but clearly if such an analysis is correct, or is at least better than an occurrence Analysis, theological fictionalism is again in a bad position. 10 St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIaIIae, 2, 1. 11 Henry H. Price, Belief (london: muirhead library of Philosophy, 1969). roGer PouIVet436 The argument from the limitations of make-believe We saw that we cannot believe at will, but we even cannot imagine at 