Originally posted by lucifershammer
You need to be precise - is an agnostic one who says:
a. I do not know with certainty that God exists
b. Humanity (at the moment) does not know with certainty that God exists
c. No one can [ever] know with certainty that God exi ...[text shortened]... of "true belief that is justified"? How does one know he knows?
Actually I think any of the three options you've listed could be compatible with theism. In fact, I think one could hold any union of these postions as well and still be a theist since (c) is a refinement of (b) which itself is a refinement of (a).
a) "I do not know with certainty that God exists. Instead, I believe by faith that he does."
b) "Humanity, of which I (hypothetical theist) am a member, does not know right now with certainty that God exists, but I believe by faith that he does."
c) "No one, including myself (hypothetical theist), can ever know which certainty that God exists, but by faith I believe that he does.
Given this, I don't see how it really matters which definition of these three Rob picks.
As for certainty, I think you can be fairly loose with the term given that certainty is a pretty ridiculous requirement for a human. I've always taken the agnostic to be one who says that it is impossible for a human to know anything about God. (The language I use does have a problem because to saying that it is impossible to know anything about God is to know at least one thing about God. Or maybe not. Maybe this offers no information and so a response like "null" would be more appropriate.). Since belief is not wholly contingent upon knowledge, one can believe something that they do not know to be true. This would be the case with an agnostic believer.
I'll let you go around with the others on knowing that you know. Really, do we always have to retreat to extreme skepticism when some one discusses religion?