A defense of Faith without proof

In light of Pascal's 'failure' for a pragmatic proof to God's existence, the theist still is confronted by Clifford's challenge: Give me some evidence, some proof, or your belief is not only irrational, its blameworthy. Or, if Clifford's challenge is too strong, Flew's milder version is just as damaging to the theist: If you don't have reasons on your side, then the proper response is to remain at the starting point of the debate, negative atheism.

Either way, without some argument, the theist is left in a tough place. But James reminds us, and shifts the debate, that as humans we are not just knowledge seeking-beings, we are also "passional" one's as well.

What does James mean by "passional being"? This requires considerable unpacking and its not always clear from the text we read. But James, a philosopher and psychologist, had much to say about the passions or emotions, see here for one example> http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/emotion.htm

For James, as humans, we are not solely guided by 'cognitive' aspects of our being but also 'passional' ones, our emotions, feelings, desires. Moreover, sometimes we have to simply choose, or let the 'will' guide our action in one direction? Why, because those situations are indeterminate, neither option is definitive over the other. James suggests that maybe religion is one such 'genuine option' and thus, we are not only forced, but rationally required to choose.

In this, James has some parallels with Pascal. Unlike Pascal, James explains why we really only have two options (like Pascal).

So what do we think? Is James right? Do we only have two options, theism or atheism? What reasons does James to give for this. What about his claims to our 'passional nature'? Is James on to something, and if so what? Does the research below support James' view, go against it, or is it irrelevant:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jan/17/faith-body-prayer?newsfeed=true