people, etc. So(2)may be on the right track, but it needs to be refined to get at what James is looking for(Ex xercise. can you refine it?) However, note that where Clifford's view is self-defeating(assuming we don' t have conclusive evidence for it), James's is elf- endorsing. The decision between evidentialism and pragmatism seems to be genuine, and so we are entitled, by pragmatism to endorse whichever we want; so James's pragmatism entitles him to endorse pragmatism, but does not equire RECAP Mackie: Theism is irrational(because belief in God is inconsistent with the recognition of evil) Pascal: Theism is(pragmatically) rationally required(because the EV of theism swamps the alternatives) Clifford: Theism is not warranted by the Wager(because belief must be based on sufficient evidence) James: Theism is rationally permissible but not required(because it is a genuine option)people, etc. So (2) may be on the right track, but it needs to be refined to get at what James is looking for. (Exercise: can you refine it?) However, note that where Clifford's view is self-defeating (assuming we don't have conclusive evidence for it), James's is self-endorsing. The decision between evidentialism and pragmatism seems to be genuine, and so we are entitled, by pragmatism to endorse whichever we want; so James's pragmatism entitles him to endorse pragmatism, but does not require it. RECAP: Mackie: Theism is irrational (because belief in God is inconsistent with the recognition of evil). Pascal: Theism is (pragmatically) rationally required (because the EV of theism swamps the alternatives). Clifford: Theism is not warranted by the Wager (because belief must be based on sufficient evidence). James: Theism is rationally permissible but not required (because it is a genuine option)