Pascal and Doubt

It is clear that Pascal finds much at issue with Descartes both in his strong language ("I cannot forgive Descartes" 77) and in his writing (his rejection of studies of oneself, e.g. Montaigne, as frivolous, &c.).

I cannot help drawing a connection between the two, however:

...this is what makes us incapable of certain knowledge and of absolute ignorance. We sail within a vast sphere, ever drifting in uncertainty, driven from end to end. When we think we attach ourselves to any point and fasten to it, it wavers and leaves us; and if we follow it, it eludes our grasp, slips past us, and vanishes for ever. Nothing stays for us. This is our natural condition, and yet most contrary to our inclination; we burn with desire to find solid ground and an ultimate sure foundation whereon to build a tower reaching to the Infinite. But our whole groundwork cracks, and the earth opens to abysses.
(72)

As a result of this uncertainty "we hate truth and those who tell it to us" (100), and we fear solitude or lack of diversion (cf. 139). Our reason, our senses, and our imagination all become forces of self-delusion. Descartes's doubt had a methodological purpose, and by and large proceeded somewhat calmly even as he razed down his beliefs; similarly, he resolved his problems with a divine 'finger snap.'

Pascal's unflinching look at humanity, however, places humans in an uncomfortable middle position, tangled between skepticism and dogmatism, between knowledge and doubt, reason and nature. How does this view of humanity compare and contrast with Descartes's doubt? In which aspects does it provide for less certainty and in which for more? What do you make of the ever-increasing hunger in the authors we've read thus far to really get at the nature of humanity, to strip away any and all pretense?