If a belief, be it religious, scientific or any other, is held. Is it held because holding a belief appears preferable to not holding a belief?

If so, then any belief�should suffice.

Or is a belief held because it is believed to be true by the holder?

In which case, is that holder�not obliged to�challenge and re-challenge it? Since if true, testing should only serve to strengthen it. And if false, why would they want to perpetuate it?

Furthermore; if a belief�s holder determines not to, or is prevented by others from engaging in such testing. Is that because they already know, or else suspect, that belief is fatally flawed?

If I am correct, and you disagree, it follows that you are mistaken.

If you are correct, and I disagree, it follows that I am mistaken.

If I do not accept your understanding, because I detect contradictions within it. And you do not accept my understanding, because you observe its inconsistencies. Then both of us must be mistaken. Thus convincing each other of the correctness of our respective understandings is a lost cause. Approaching matters with that proviso in mind, offers a chance for progression.

Is a person�s belief open to questioning?

If no, why not? Is it because challenge is likely to annihilate it?

If challenge is permitted, why is challenge not being applied?

For example, with enquiries such as this:

Is any understanding of reality 100% accurate?

If yes, then it should be able to correctly respond to any query posed.

If no, then what part of that particular understanding of reality is inaccurate?