After reading the new notes, I get a clearer idea of Kierkegaard. I fell back into the "trying to understand" hole. Kierkegaards theories sound like someone wanting to have an argument. The "leap of faith" thing still does not happen without some small amount of truth or experience (kinda like what James says). For example, getting married. You have to have faith that your spouse is the "right" one. There is no full-proof way to prove it. But you still use some truths (we like the same sports, food, movies, mom and dad had a good marriage etc etc.) There still has to be some "reason" for you to believe what you believe. In the case of religion (Pascal)- who's "what to gain or lose" are we supposed to believe? Each religion requires you to behave certain ways. They can't all be right, but they certainly all could be wrong!