A Follow Up on Pascal's Wager

My post apparently confused some people when it came to pragmatic reasoning, so I'll try to further clarify.  When Pascal posited his wager, he, for the sake of argument (not because he actually believed this), assumed that humans are incapable of knowing what God is or if he exists because these cannot be determined through reason, which is all we have.  If you're just taking Pascal's Wager as a hypothetical that has nothing to do with reasoning, then you're missing the point.  Pascal argued that one must wager (as I mentioned in my previous boat -- look at the sailing ship example).  A better example might be this:  or must choose to call heads or not call heads.  This is different than choosing between heads or tails, because whether you choose tails or you choose nothing, you're still not choosing heads.  Just as much, if you choose to believe God does not exist, or you don't choose at all, in effect you're still choosing not to believe God exists.  You must choose God exists or face the consequences of the antithetical belief.  What wagering involves is believing and as such living those beliefs.  

The argument against this is not only that of doxastic voluntarism.  W.K. Clifford argued against basing religious beliefs on pragmatic reasons.  It is wrong, he would argue, to believe anything without sufficient evidence.  Further, just believing it is one thing, but when one acts on an insufficiently evidenced belief, that is wrong.  One example he gives is that of a shipowner.  This shipowner had been sailing his ship for years with no problems.  Because of this, he believed there was nothing wrong with it, and so he ignored the advice of his peers who told him he needed to fix a few things.  He thought since his ship had made every previous voyage, it will make this next voyage.  Well, the ship went out, and it sank.  Is the shipowner guilty?  Yes; definately yes.  It was his responsibility to send out a seaworthy ship.  Even though he truly believed the ship would make the voyage, he is guilty because his belief was based on insufficient evidence.  Just the same, pragmatic reasons are not sufficient evidence for a belief in god.  Thus, it is never permissible to base religious beliefs on pragmatic reasons.  I hope that cleared that issue.