Hi Jomifl. I'm grateful that you recognised my caricature for what it was. You will know from past encounters that I'm not against reason per se, indeed, it's perhaps the most precious of out faculties, and I do try to use mine. I am critical of a reductive rationalism that assumes it's all we have, and seeks to divide the human race into us, the pure rationalists, and them, the poor, ignorant rest with their superstitions and religions and (phooey) faith. Pascal's wager is a very interesting piece of reasoning that interprets and comments on the human condition of being caught between there is/is not a god, neither of which is provable by rationality alone. We all come at the question carrying different baggage - Pascal's was of the Catholic religion of his time - and travel between different conclusions, changing as we go. Pascal's contempt was reserved for those who refuse to consider the question at all:
"This carelessness in a matter which concerns themselves, their eternity, their all, moves me more to anger than pity; it astonishes and shocks me; it is to me monstrous."
I'm for honesty in debate, and respect for our fellow travellers trying to make sense of the uncertainty of life - "This is what I see, and what troubles me. I look on all sides, and everywhere I see nothing but obscurity. Nature offers me nothing that is not a matter of doubt and disquiet." - Pascal again. What I see here (remarkably consistently, it seems, as I'm an infrequent visitor and it seems to be going on every time I visit) is a tendency to mock and caricature the supposed opposition before they have a chance to join in the debate - not a tendency exclusive to the rationalists, atheists, religionists or any other -ists that inhabit this little circle. My best wishes to you and all who gather here.