Prudence, I'm enjoying this conversation, but when you keep telling me that I misrepresent or don't understand James, not only that's your opinion, it's not helpful.

That said, James' notion of "our pattionate nature" is nothing but his own rationalization of human nature, so it doesn't constitute an argument. He is begging the question when he claims that to suspend judgment is a "passionate decision."

You've got the causality backwards in the case of my beliefs: for me theism is not a live option *because* I see no reason / evidence to take seriously. It's not that I don't take seriously because it isn't a live option.

You don't like my statement about "despite or against the evidence," but that's exactly what James falls into. There is plenty of good evidence and arguments that ought to make theism not a live option for any sensible reasoner. But James willfully ignores such evidence because he *wants* to believe.