Pascal's wager does not explain why we should believe in God, but it anticipates game theory in explaining why so many people do believe in God. The potential pay-off for believing is so great, that confirmation bias overwhelms agnosticism. Given that if there's a rewarding God, good behavior will get you a great reward, wouldn't you want there to be a rewarding God?

Mr. James sees sufficient evidence of God's existence, but does he believe in a rewarding God? Does he see sufficient evidence of that? And is the sufficiency of that evidence affected by the pay-off if he is right?