25 Jun '11 04:47>6 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat Pascal's pragmatic argument (especially the Jamesian version) demonstrates is the inaccuracy of the evidentialist position—i.e., "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence" (W. K. Clifford).
But the wager itself is fundamentally flawed. What if we make the wager that Satan (or someone like him) rules the universe and the best reward is to be obtained by living an immoral life?
Pascal was a typical Christian trying to justify his illogical beliefs. But no, it doesn't mean he was stupid, just deluded.
If Christianity is a live option for some individual (i.e., if it has an intuitive appeal for her, and—for her—lacks any undefeated defeaters), and, further, if there is some perceived good associated with that belief (both in this life and the next), then it is, contrary to the evidentialist position, intellectually permissible (i.e., rational) for her to take steps to believe—even in the absence of conclusive evidence.
It would be a mistake to characterize such arguments as "justifying illogical beliefs", since neither Pascal nor James argue that it is ever rational to believe in an illogical proposition. It is a given in this case that theistic belief is a live option for her—i.e., she finds the proposition not only desirable, but plausible.
For you to assume that Christian belief is illogical merely begs the question.