What is the Biblical basis for Blaise Pascal's approach to "curing unbelief"?

Question

Hence it comes that, if there are as many risks on one side as on the other, the course is to play even; and then the certainty of the stake is equal to the uncertainty of the gain, so far is it from the fact that there is an infinite distance between them. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. This is demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one. "I confess it, I admit it. But still is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?"—Yes, Scripture and the rest, &c.—"Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What then would you have me do?"

[The Heart Has Its Reasons]

True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and you cannot believe. Endeavor then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believe, taking the holy water, having masses said, &c. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.—"But this is what I am afraid of"—And why? What have you to lose?

But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling—blocks.

The heart has its reasons which reason does not know. We feel it in a thousand things. I say that the heart naturally loves the Universal Being, and also itself naturally, according as it gives itself to them; and it hardens itself against one or the other at its will. You have rejected the one, and kept the other. Is it by reason that you love yourself?

It is the heart which experiences God, and not the reason. This, then, is faith; God felt by the heart, not by reason.

Source: https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/introbook2.1/x4404.html

It seems to me that Blaise Pascal is suggesting that one can "fake it till you make it"—that by acting as if one believes that God exists, genuine belief will eventually follow, thus "curing" unbelief. And this cure will actually take the form of one somehow experiencing God in one's heart (whatever Pascal exactly meant by that), as opposed to a logical/rational conclusion being grasped by reason. Hence the well-known "The heart has its reasons which reason does not know".

Is my understanding of Pascal more or less correct? If so, what is the Biblical basis for his approach?

---

NOTE. I asked a similar question on Philosophy Stack Exchange: Is Blaise Pascal's approach to "curing unbelief" in the proposition that God exists philosophically sound?

Answer 1

It was through Jansenism that, in 1654, Pascal became a Christian. On 23 November 1654, he experienced what he described as "a definitive conversion." Pascal carried this life-changing event with him, literally. Recording it on a piece of parchment, Blaise sewed the parchment into his coat. "Fire. Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy. Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ."

After his conversion, Pascal applied his inventive mathematical mind to understanding and defending the Christian faith. Pascal was convinced that reason could only take one so far. Faith must come as a gift of God's grace. Science and reason might get one close to faith, but it could not actually bring anyone to faith. Only God can do that.

Pascal wrote that God can be known through Jesus Christ by an act of faith, itself given by God. [Logically, that means coming to know this one, Jesus Christ, as Pascal's conversion experience demonstrates.] Man's need for God is made evident by his misery apart from God, who is to be known by faith (though there's plenty of evidence to support belief: fulfilled prophecies, miracles, the witness of history, the self-authentication of Scripture). He wrote that, "We come to know the truth not only by reason, but still more so through our hearts... The heart has its reasons, which the reason does not know."

It is not accurate to suggest that he was saying we "can fake it till we make it." His depth of thinking powers extended to working out the theory of probability and, aged 19, inventing the first workable calculating machine. He knew, and used the power of the mind for understanding matters, but neither of those things he understood can ever go into the realms of experiences. God is altogether other than things created by him (like laws of physics and elements.) He is to be known through his self-revelations, which are never unreasonable, nor are they just cold-blooded intellectualism.

What came later to be known as "Pascal's Wager" only reflects a little of his philosophy. The Wager has been over-simplified by objectors. That is when some view the unresolved question of a deity's existence as a gamble, and coolly calculating the odds, or (on the other hand) over-complicating it to imply that "Pascal was not much better off than an unbeliever", as one person did on Wikipedia. It seems like those who don't like the idea of God find Pascal to be a bit of a nuisance.

http://www.blogos.org/churchhistory/blaise-pascal.php

To answer the question: This suggests that the understanding of Pascal presented in the question, is more or less wrong. This requires then, that Pascal's combined and balanced teaching on faith and belief in God needs to be presented, and then we can move on to what the Biblical basis was for his approach. But as it is not me who is asking the question, I can take the existing one no further. Nor will I add any more to my answer, or try to explain further why I think the understanding given in the question is largely wrong, nor will I make any comments, so please just leave it at that, as I shall do. Thank-you.