I think I can paraphrase the previous conclusion.

Pascal identifies a paradox. Reason does not justify Faith. The role of reason is to ask questions of this world and to find answers to those questions within this world. Therefore reason cannot be discarded.

Not wishing to discard faith, Pascal attempts to resolve the paradox. He proposes that his wager allows us to live a good Christian life as if God does exist, (a christian eudamonia) whilst continuing to use reason for the purposes of this world (i.e. the Natural Sciences). (The schizophrenic approach).

But Pascal fails in his attempt to resolve the two by recourse to his ethical grounds, because he makes assumptions concerning the nature/character of God and what belief in such a God entails. Assumptions that cannot be reasonably assumed, and values that cannot be confidently justified.

The good Christian life may well be justifiable, as God may exist, but through his appeal to probabilities and his acceptance of the rational we cannot accept assumptions such as revelation as the basis for living this good life. Eudamonia along with Reason is perhaps a seperate sphere and language game from Faith altogether. The good life may well be based on principles of Utility or Hedonism, science may continue to be understood through reason and God may exist, but all three belong to seperate realms of understanding.