I wrote an article a few weeks ago about defining atheism, and the necessity to be clear as to what one is (or is not) ascribing to avoid confusion. In that article, I made a distinction between ontological claims pertaining to theism (that is, "gods do not exist" and epistemic claims pertaining to theism (that is, "I do not know if gods exist". I was musing the other day concerning the nature epistemic claims and beliefs and asked: is it possible for one to be an agnostic and theist at the same time?
This question has been asked by numerous people through the ages by people such as Pascal, Kierkegaard, James, and maybe even Descartes. To be agnostic about a given subject, one simple asserts that they have no knowledge pertaining to whatever subject is in question. Pertaining to gods, one merely says he or she has no knowledge about the existence of a god. To be a theist, one only needs to believe that a god of some sort exists. Epistemically speaking, knowledge and beliefs are not necessarily the same thing. Knowledge is typically defined as “justified true belief", or merely "true beliefs". This, of course, requires some sort of independent state of affairs, and typically these are called facts, such as "Rome is in Italy" or something like that. A true belief then is a belief that corresponds to one of the facts. If this is the case then, it is possible to believe something without it corresponding to some fact, or even believe something knowingly without it corresponding to some fact. If the latter is possible, then one could assert that he or she has no knowledge of whether a god actually exists, yet believes that a god does exist.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”