And so as some of you nervous humanities majors make your way towards the podium in the next few weeks let me remind you why the humanities are so utterly fabulous and why you should be proud of your degrees, especially when living in a skeptical community.

1. The humanities were the birthplace of the sciences.
Now this one is a little controversial, but hear me out. Originally we had philosophers. These were the people who did math and science and theology and philosophy and pretty much everything else. They figured that they wanted to understand the world, so they tried in every possible way they could. This is the birthplace of both science and philosophy in the Western world, and it looked a lot more like the humanities than it did the sciences. But what about modern science? Well our dear friend Francis Bacon who formalized the scientific method for the first time was a top-notch philosopher, and he was actually practicing philosophy when he created the scientific method. So while science as a method is a great thing, it did come out of the methods of inquiry that the humanities started.

2. The humanities teach you great critical thinking skills.
In most of the humanities you have to argue for an interpretation of data. There is no answer, there is no right or wrong, but there is a lot of trying to find evidence and trying to find ways to put the evidence together in coherent manners. This means a lot of researching, a lot of integrating viewpoints, and a lot of critical thinking to reject the bad interpretations.

3. The humanities tend to be more interdisciplinary.
Now I’m not saying that the sciences are NEVER interdisciplinary, but when you think liberal arts and thinking big and mashing all the departments together, you tend to think of the humanities. And interdisciplinary thinking is a GREAT skill to have, one that a lot of people miss out on in their college experiences. Because we have so much depth of knowledge, we like to specialize a lot. But there are great benefits to understanding multiple ways of looking a problem, lots of methods, lots of theories, lots of disciplines. They give you a broader understanding of a phenomenon or a problem, and interdisciplinary thinkers are often some of the most creative and inspiring.

4. Workplaces are shifting somewhat in hiring attitudes: they’re looking for people who know how to think rather than specifically trained individuals.
The humanities often give you a broad background in ways to think. Particularly if you were in a liberal arts college, you learned how to communicate, you learned how to research critically, you learned how to discuss, you learned how to approach new topics and pick them apart in an intelligent manner. While many workplaces still want to see that you’re trained for the exact job they’re hiring for, there are some that are shifting and looking for people that have demonstrated that they can think and problem solve and learn.

5. The humanities cover integral parts of life.
Some strict materialists like to argue that sciences are the only important disciplines because they study “real” things. Well I hate to break it to those people, but things like psychology and sociology and English study real things. They study real artifacts of humanity and human culture. And those are important things to know about because they are constant parts of our everyday lives. Some people might dismiss anthropology or sociology because they’re not practical, but what could be more practical than trying to understand how human beings interact with each other on a day to day basis? Studying the humanities makes you better able to understand your human world, not just the natural world.

So rejoice in your humanities degree! All is not lost! You can get a job (says this philosophy and religion major who is working). You can find jobs that aren’t soul-sucking (she said, sitting at her non-profit job). You can go on to grad school and still not drown in debt (ok I don’t have evidence for that one yet but my sources tell me it’s possible). And you can look back on your education knowing that you did something you enjoyed and cared about and came out a more well-rounded and understanding person for it.

He is quite right to point out that agnosticism and atheism address completely separate issues. He is also correct when he says that agnosticism answers the question "Is there a God?" with the response, "I don't know".

He is also correct that atheism answers the question, "Do you believe in God?" in the negative.

Here's his mistake. He claims 'if you don't know God exists, then you don't believe God exists.' This is clearly false. It states that knowledge is a necessary condition for belief. By contraposition ("if not p then not q" is the same as "if q then p"), we get the claim, "if you believe God exists, then you know God exists." What self respecting atheist would endorse that claim? None! None I tell you! That would be bullshit!

[Penn and Teller magic powers happen...]

Wait a minute. Maybe this does make sense.

Let's back up and go through it slowly.

We've got two questions.

1. Does God exist?
Answer: I don't know = Agnosticism. Check.
2. Do I believe God exists?
Answer: No = Atheism. Check.

But what if I give a different answer to question 1?

1. Does God exist?
Answer: Yes = Theism.

Sure, but is that all? In responding so positively, and so confidently, it seems like you're really saying "yes God exists, and I know it be true." So, in answering 'yes', it seems like the position of gnostic theism falls out. You can address both issues at once, depending on your answer.

What about this response:
1. Does God exist?
Answer: probably not.

This is the most common response you'll get from atheists, because most atheists don't want to answer "no" with such confidence, such certainty, because it feels like they're saying "I know God exists," and they don't want to say that. So they say "probably not," indicating that they don't believe God exists without claiming knowledge of such.

So really, I think you can answer that first question in a way that reveals both your position on gnostic vs. agnostic and theist vs. atheist, and those various responses indicate that there is indeed a difference between the two issues. So can we get an answer indicating agnostic theism?

Can anyone ever reasonably answer the first question like this:
1. Does God exist?
Answer: probably... but I don't know for sure.

This answer represents an agnostic theist. Penn Jillette doesn't think you can be an agnostic theist, though. I think you can be an agnostic theist. What do you think Teller? 

Clearly Teller agrees. How to explain this to Penn? What we need is a Good Analogy. Penn knows a lot about cards, so let's use a card analogy.

You go to MIT and you are part of the MIT Blackjack Team. You are freaking amazing at counting cards. You're a regular Rain Man. So you're sitting there counting, and that count is really high, like +13, which means some face cards are about to start dropping. Pause.

1. Will one of the next few cards be a face card?
Answer: I don't know = face card agnostic.

So, that means you don't believe one of the next few cards will be a face card, right? Because face card agnosticism implies afacecardism. If so, you wouldn't last long on the MIT Blackjack Team. They'd kick you off. For being a loser. When the count is +13, you signal for one of your teammates to come and start betting. The probability is high that one of the next few cards is a face card.

Not a loser.

But consider:

1. Will one of the next few cards be a face card?
Answer: Very probably, but I don't know for sure.

Well, that seems like a perfectly fine answer.

What about:

2. Do you believe one of the next few cards will be a face card?
Answer: Yes.

Doesn't play with losers.

So, there's nothing about answering the first question with "I don't know" that forces you to answer the second with "no". And there is a perfectly logical reason for that.

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge, and it is also one of the coolest of all philosophy subjects. The consensus is, and pretty much has been since before Socrates, that knowledge entails belief, but that belief does not entail knowledge.

This means that in order to know something, you've gotta at least believe it, but that believing is not enough to count as knowledge. If believing were enough to count as knowledge, then you'd have ridiculous things like, "If you believe God exists, then you know God exists." Ridiculous, right?

Some of you are probably gearing up for the ACT or SAT, or maybe oven some other test involving a combination of capital letters. On those tests, you'll have to do analogies. So, let's do another analogy.

Belief is to knowledge as __________ is to ____________ .

a. shape ... triangle
b. mode of transportation .... car
c. death ... murder
d. injury ... assault

Of course, all of those are correct answers. If someone knows something, then they believe it. If someone has a car, then they have a mode of transportation. If someone is murdered, then they have died. If someone has been assaulted, then they have been injured.

BUT.....
These are all false, with (counterexamples in parentheses):
If someone doesn't know something, then they don't believe it (It might actually be false, but they wrongly believe it, in which case they don't know it, but they believe it). If someone doesn't have a car, then they don't have a mode of transportation (bicycle). If someone has not been murdered, then they have not died (old age). If someone has not been assaulted, then they have not been injured (tripped on a tree root and broke an arm).

So, in conclusion, Penn Jillette's logic trick rests on a claim that no self-respecting atheist would ever assert (if you believe X, then you know X), and it fails to recognize the proper relationship between knowledge and belief, namely that knowledge is merely a type of belief, just like murder is merely a type of death.

Still, it's a special kind of death, so make it special.

If you take a belief, add truth, justification, and some special sauce that avoids the Gettier problem, then you get knowledge. If you take a (human's) death, add unlawfulness and another person as the cause, then you get murder. It's that simple. Penn Jillette's claim is formally identical to the claim, "If he died, then he was murdered." This would make prosecutors' jobs a lot easier, but thankfully everyone recognizes that it is false. It's bullshit.

JT Eberhard debates Peter Payne at the campus of UC Santa Cruz.

The Secular Student Alliance at UCSC began planning this event back in January and are happy to say it was a great success. Despite having been on the go with a busy travel schedule for the past two and a half months, JT performed spectacularly, as anyone who is familiar with him would expect. Everyone we talked to agreed the debate was enjoyable and Dr. Payne was a good opponent for JT. This was our second year in a row hosting a debate with the Graduate Christian Fellowship. At the urging of many of the attendees, we plan on continuing this yearly event. The debate was publicized online through Facebook postings from both the SSA and Grad Fellowship. We also shared duties posting flyers at campus bus stops and in the dorms. Additionally, we handed out flyers near the Student Union on the day of and day before the debate to increase awareness and interest.

Additional funding and publicizing for the event was provided by Stevenson College at UCSC, The Institute for Credible Christianity, Center for Inquiry On Campus, the Secular Student Alliance, and UCSC InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. On behalf of the Secular Student Alliance at UC Santa Cruz, I would like to thank Sarah Kaiser of CFI On Campus as well as Lyz Liddell and Nick Stancato of the Secular Student Alliance for their support in helping us make sure everything ran smoothly. Also thanks to David Tamayo of Hispanic American Freethinkers (HAFree.org) for photographing the event.

Some of the crowd before the debate.

Shelley has been featured on a previous Music Monday, where Cody writes about how he discovered her music on the r/atheistmusic subreddit. (Weird. I didn't even know that subreddit existed.) 

Anyway, Shelley put on a fantastic live show at Spot Coffee. She opened with a cover of Phil Ochs' "When I'm Gone," a beautiful piece of music that I always found atheistic. (And much better than Eminem's version.) Phil Ochs' lyrics reveal a humanistic look at the finite nature of human life, and embrace living life to the fullest:

Can't live proud enough to die when I'm gone
So I guess I'll have to do it while I'm here

Shelley mostly played her own original songs, including some from her new jazz album Little March, recorded with Adam Levy. I caught an iPhone video of her single "Saved," a song that has become an anthem of sorts for the freethought movement. My favorite line: "You think it's any of your business what goes on between my thighs?"

Shelley's lyrics are especially relevant in light of the fast-approaching Women in Secularism 2 conference, hosted by CFI in DC this weekend. Many of Shelley's songs from An Atheist Album embrace exactly what this conference is about, including her recent Efat, a song she was inspired to write after hearing Maryam Namazie speak about the unrealistic and inhumane expectations religions place on women. Maryam Namazie is one of many speakers who will be at Women in Secularism 2.

As always, if you get a chance, send your suggestions for future Music Mondays to Cody at chashman@centerforinquiry.net, leave a comment below, or @tweet us at @CFIOnCampus. Your suggestions, along with future and past songs, may end up in the official Course of Reason Music Monday Spofity playlist that anyone can listen to.    

Research by David C. Barker of the University of Pittsburgh and David H. Bearce of the University of Colorado uncovered that belief in the biblical end-times was a motivating factor behind resistance to curbing climate change.

"[T]he fact that such an overwhelming percentage of Republican citizens profess a belief in the Second Coming (76 percent in 2006, according to our sample) suggests that governmental attempts to curb greenhouse emissions would encounter stiff resistance even if every Democrat in the country wanted to curb them," Barker and Bearce wrote in their study, which will be published in the June issue of Political Science Quarterly.

This is an example of where religious belief is doing more harm than good, though I disagree with the analysis in the article implying that the major barrier to climate change action is belief in the Second Coming. Canada doesn't have this religious problem in its government, and in some respects we are currently doing much worse on our environmental record than the U.S. The fact that climate change action is going to require that we actually live in a world of limited resources contradicts capitalism's need for unlimited growth and expansion likely has something to do with the lack of meaningful action.

Still, the belief that everything will end, so why bother? is a problem. I doubt any amount of evidence will convince these Republican citizens that they are wrong, and that we need to take action now.

The researchers state:

"[I]t stands to reason that most nonbelievers would support preserving the Earth for future generations, but that end-times believers would rationally perceive such efforts to be ultimately futile, and hence ill-advised," Barker and Bearce explained.

The explanation here makes sense, yet I don't feel it's enough. We do know the world will end someday. Sure, the believers of the Second Coming probably think it is coming within their lifetime, but the world will end at some point. Whether through a major natural disaster, or the sun expanding and frying us to a crisp, an end is inevitable. Those events are billions of years off and it's impossible to say if humanity will still be kicking by then. All of this raises the question: Why try to save the Earth? It's going to end, and most of us alive today (at least in the Global North) are unlikely to be impacted by climate change in any harmful way. Further, climate change mitigation is a slow process, that carbon in the atmosphere isn't coming out for a long time. Odds are, we won't be around to see the impacts of our efforts. None of this stops environmentalists from working on the climate change issue. Something is driving us. There is some motive. Perhaps we want to reach the end of our lives knowing we tried to do some good, perhaps we have children and want to leave the world in good shape for them. Whatever the reason, we do this knowing that eventually it will all end.

To me, this metaphor describes life itself. We know our lives will end. Us non-believers aren't betting on there being anything after we die. This belief doesn't stop us from making the most of our time. It's the same with the Earth. It's existence isn't infinite. However, we'll all work to make that existence is one worth having.

I've been an ardent freethinker all my life and have thrown myself into a variety of different academic organizations. In high school I was on the Robotics Team, captaining it my last year, the National Science Bowl, and Science Olympiad to name a few.

In college I've been busying myself in work at the Laboratory for Biological Systems Analysis where I am working as a Paleo-Biomechanics Researcher. Through the connections gained with the Drexel Freethought Society I also enjoy membership in The Ben Franklin Thinking Society and the The Ethical Humanist Society of Philadelphia.

Like many atheists and secularists, there really wasn't a direct story for when I became an atheist. In my younger years I was always a curious kid. I dabbled with the idea of god, prayed in hard times and the like, but quickly grew out of it. For a while I even made up my own religion just for fun. But soon enough all those ideas fell by the wayside as I became even more skeptical and learned more. 

How did your group get started? What year was it founded? Was there a specific event or incident that motivated you or the founders to create the organization?
Unfortunately I was not around for the original founding but the Drexel Freethought Society was founded in 2009. Then after a summer preparing for the next school year and filling out paperwork the DFS became an officially recognized student organization on October 23, 2009. Then due to complications in the group and lack of interest the club disbanded. 

In late 2011 I learned that the DFS existed from a friend in the secular community and quickly brought it back! The motivation for the reboot was two fold, to give the atheists and freethinkers of Drexel their own community and to give them a voice in a school dominated by religious clubs. And I believe we are achieving those goals now.

What is your group’s name? How did you decide on that name?
The Drexel Freethought Society. Unfortunately, I was not around for the initial naming so our current group inherited the name, but frankly I'm happy with it. Unhindered by religious belief our minds are free to explore everything, and question what we think is true.

How many members does your group have? What kinds of events do you hold?
Well, depends what numbers you use. We have 4-10 regular members plus myself, but our email list has upwards of 30. But our Facebook has 90 or so. We are a small group but we are growing.

We host a weekly call in audio podcast on Spreaker (http://drexelfreethought.org/freethought-podcast/). This weekly event acts as our normal general body meeting, as well as a way for us to be heard.

We also host several Freethought Movie Nights where we feature some type of movie that we think will stir interesting discussion. Our next one will be Inherit the Wind in the next week or so.

On occasion we also host a speaker to give us and the Drexel community an enriching experience from someone in the secular comunity.

As an example, could you share one thing your group accomplished that you’re most proud of in the past year?
In April last year we quite happily hosted Nate Phelps of the notorious Phelps family of the Westboro Baptist Church with the help of the Freethought Society of Philadelphia. Nate described his upbringing and eventual dissociation with his family. It was a very informative and moving talk.

Do you have anything else you'd like to add?
We are a new and small group that has been going through several image changes over the years, but we are proud to be secular and we will be heard.

What is your vision for the secular movement?
Personally I hope that all atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers can find their own community and their own voice, especially in places dominated by religion. I hope we can get religious opinion back to the personal idea and out of the public square. I want us all to be treated equally and for us all to live in a world of reason. That is my wish for the secular community.

But never fear, one of the amazing things about the skeptical and atheist communities is how easy it is to connect to them. So here are a few suggestions to get you started either over the summer months or as you move on to whatever you've got going on after college (be it living in your parents basement or starting your dream job: no judgments here).

1. READ BLOGS.

The movement is in many ways driven by internet activism. There are some awesome people out there, someone for everyone. If you're like me and want your skepticism to have a social justice flavor, you can get on board the Skepchick train, keep up here at CFI, try FreethoughtBlogs, check out the Patheos atheist channel, or go exploring on your own. If you're interested, I also run a personal blog at taikonenfea.blogspot.com and I'll try to keep up a regular roundup of blogs.

2. Write for yourself.

You can start a blog. Not everyone is cut out for this though, and if it's not your cup of tea to put your thoughts out on the internet, it could be a good idea just to reflect on some skeptical topics and write about them or do art about them or create an interpretive dance about them to figure out where you stand. If you do this kind of work while you're away from your campus, you can bring it back with you as a fresh idea in the fall. For those who are leaving school, it's good to start sorting out your own opinions.

3. Seek out local skeptic groups and events.

Skepchick.org has an entire page dedicated to events. Every week they update with events sorted by location. Meetup.com is also extremely useful for finding local skeptic groups. Otherwise you can check out CFI and see if they have a local branch. But getting involved with what's going on in adult skeptic land can be a really great way to bridge some of the gaps between local groups and college groups, as well as set yourself up to continue your activism post-college.

4. Go to conferences!

Cons are an absolutely fabulous way to network. There are a fair number of summer cons (and I'm gonna make a quick plug for CONvergence in conjunction with SkepChiCON because I'm helping out with some of the organizing of it and I'm on a few panels there), and if you don't have to worry about getting time off of school, this could be a great time to get out there and meet the larger population of skeptics. They're generally extremely fun, really informative, and a great way to get inspired.

These are just a few ideas to get you started, but you can always exercise your skeptical powers in your daily life by researching topics of interest to you, being a critical consumer of media, and participating in any variety of activist work. Leave more suggestions in the comments!

Here in Canada, secular activism doesn't seem to have the same fervour that you find in the U.S. A lot of this may owe to the fact that we don't have politicians constantly making cringe-worthy statements about what Jesus would or not want us to do, particularly when it comes to women's bodies or what rights same-sex partners should have. It's not that such politicians don't exist here in Canada, but they tend to be relegated to the back bench of Parliament where the laws they attempt to put forward are voted down by their own party. Our current Prime Minister comes from an evangelical Christian background, yet debates around same-sex marriage and abortion have more or less been shutdown. The debate still exists in some forms, and there are figures that would like to see abortion and same-sex marriage outlawed, but the debate doesn't exist here in the same way it does in the U.S. 

An issue which could use support from Canadian secularists is the current government's attack on science. The government has cut funding to some key science programs in Canada, has been tightly controlling what government scientists can say to the media, and recently made a comment about how now is not the time to "commit sociology" in response to people who wanted to ask why a group of suspected terrorists were plotting to bomb a train (Source). Though secularism isn't exactly about science, those who want to see "reason" in government decision-making would prefer leaders that want to explore the roots of problems.

Secularism is something I support. However, I differ from what I'd say is the typical—though not supported by all—American atheist view that we should be secular for constitutional reasons. Here in Canada, there is no clear constitutional separation of Church and State meaning there is little room to make arguments for secularism on legal grounds. The principles of secularism are what need to be promoted. I support secularism because I do not want to see the laws of one religion favoured over another. I'm not opposed to an individual stating their religious views in public. However, laws shouldn't be based on religious scripture.

My general support for secularism and the National Day of Reason does come with a caveat. Solving the problems faced in society extends far beyond pushing for leaders that base their decision-making on evidence. People can still contribute to actions that create the conditions that lead to oppression. Getting rid of politicians who think the Earth is only 6000 years old, while a good thing to do, won't end problems such as the exploitation of natural resources in the pursuit of profit and endless growth. There are some advocating for "reason" that can hold views harmful to society. Finally, as I've said in the past, I see no problem in allying with people of faith if it means working towards a goal that creates a better world for us all.

College campuses are a hotbed for mental illness. Unfortunately, a great deal of the situational depression that almost everyone experiences in college goes untreated. Eating disorders are rampant on college campuses right now. And with the rash of sexual abuse happening, there's likely some untreated PTSD hanging around as well. As with any population of individuals, there are also likely to be some personality disorders, anxiety, substance-related disorders (likely exacerbated by college drinking culture), and even dissociative disorders or more serious problems. College campuses do self-select to some extent in that those with severe mental illness may have a hard time with academics. You're unlikely to see someone at the far end of the autism spectrum for example. However mental illness exists on college campuses, and in general the atmosphere of college is not conducive to taking care of one's mental health.

First, please introduce yourself. Where you go to school, graduation year, your background. What’s your “atheist/secular conversion story,” if you have one?
Hello! My name is Kandice Knopp. I attend Orange Coast College. I am tranferring this fall (fall 2013) for psychobiology to San Francisco State University. I will graduate in spring 2015. I hadn't even heard about this thing called "God" or "religion" until middle school. I attended church a year or two. I quickly realized religion offered nothing for me. I began educating myself in science and concluded there is no evidence that supports theology and religion seems to hurt more than it helps people and societies around the world throughout history.

What is your group’s name? How did you decide on that name?
Secular Students Alliance became the name of our organization because we wanted to be open to the religious students as well. We figured that the way to better educate religious people about the significance of secular values is to make them feel more comfortable in a "secular" group rather than an "atheist" group.

How did your group get started? What year was it founded? Was there a specific event or incident that motivated you to create the organization? (One of the club's founders, Anthony Marsh, chimed in to answer this question!)
In fall 2012, my professor, Jennifer Koontz, told me that she tried to establish an atheist science club, but was unable to overcome various obstacles in the OCC bureaucracy. I attended one of the local meetings at the Costa Mesa Community Center and immediately knew this was something with which I wanted to be involved. With my previous knowledge from other honor societies and clubs, I set the plan in motion to establish Secular Students Alliance at Orange Coast College for spring 2013. 

How many members does your group have? What kinds of events do you hold?
We have about eight to ten very active members. We hold recycling programs, community service events, "Ask an Atheist Day," organize panels to discuss world values, beliefs, and ideas, and we are developing more ideas every week.

How did you hear about CFI On Campus? How have you worked with CFI On Campus in the past, and how do you hope to work with us in the future?
I heard about CFI On Campus from my professor—now advisor—Jennifer Koontz. We have attended the local meetings in Costa Mesa, but hope to attend the leadership conferences if given the opportunity. I also hope to establish or join the CFI organizations when I move up north to go to school.

What is your vision for the secular movement?
I hope to see that members of all religious backgrounds eventually see that a secular government is beneficial for all. Secular doesn't mean atheist, but I think the more open our nation is to science and education, the less religious our country may become.

As an example, could you share one thing your group accomplished that you're most proud of in the past year?
We are a small but dedicated group. Our most recent event—and most successful so far—was the Compton Initiative on Saturday, April 20th, 2013. We gathered together with other groups in the community to paint Whaley Middle School and a few houses in Compton, California. It was a very successful first event that allowed our group to build a better sense of comradery and develop their community service skills. (See more photos of the OCC SSA participating in the Compton Initiative.)

Members of SSA at Orange Coast College smile after participating in the Compton service initiative. 

Do you have anything else you'd like to add?
It's not as easy as one might think for atheists and secularists in Orange County to congregate and talk about their values, beliefs and opinions. Although California is extremely liberal, places like Orange County can be judgmental and, frankly, dismissive of non-Christians. I think the members of our group are extremely courageous and will succeed long after I leave. They have the power and imagination that will make this club successful for many years to come.   

Members of SSA at OCC help paint houses and a middle school in Compton.