Chris Mooney interviewed Elaine Ecklund about her just-released Science vs. Religion, and takes issue with her claim that second-generation atheists (those raised by atheists) are less anti-religion than first-generation atheists. As a counterargument, he writes that he is a second-generation atheist, but:
I was pretty angry at religion when I was a college atheist activist. I was pretty driven. Yes, I mellowed with timeâbut I was and still remain second generation.
I think a lot of people on the 'tubes will be surprised to know that Chris was ever a fire-breathing atheist. Bear in mind also that the people Ecklund was interviewing were closer to Chris's current age than to his teenaged rebel self. Maybe 2nd gen atheists start out really aggressive when they first enter the wider world and confront its ubiquitous religiosity, but then they get over it.
- Log in to post comments
as a 2nd generation atheist, i can serve as your counterpoint. i have been an atheist since i was old enough to make that decision (at about 13 years old, i am no in my early thirties) having been raised thoroughly surroundy by but yet without religion. i was much more of an accomodationist in college and in my younger years. i even went so far as to call myself 'spiritual', whatever the hell that means. and yes, i went to a liberal college. i have only gotten increasingly more vocal and aggressive as the reality of the world and its general accomodation of our religous nut jobs has become clearer.
It doesn't surprise me to learn that Mooney was a fire-breather earlier. I think it explains a lot about his anti-new-atheist crusade.
I find that the most zealous attacks on any view often come from people who earlier held that view. When they decide that their previous reasons for believing something were crappy reasons, they then conclude that all others who hold their old view hold it for the same crappy reasons.
So it fits with my anecdotal evidence that first-generation atheists are typically more aggressive. And it also fits that Mooney would aggressively attack the uppity atheists, given that he was uppity earlier.
Ed Brayton had written this a few years ago:
2nd generation here, and I don't give a @#$ about religion.
The way I have answered questions about it in the past is, "I have fairly strong evidence that there is no God in my fridge." Because the only negatives I normally prove are w/r/t questions of that nature.
That said, I agree with both the fearful fundies and the strident secularist supremacists that essentially people like me, Chris, or you are good cops to the NA's bad cops. I.e, we do envision everyday reality (more gradually, and not through vituperation and mockery) chipping away at the prevalence of faith, and especially of the dogmatic revealed religions.
But the alternative to that is some Straussian infantilization of the world's population and a stagnation we can ill afford. It doesn't bother me if "someone is wrong on the Internet" or off it. I want the science, not to hunt down believers and force it on them.
I have a lot of sympathy with the idea that religiosity promotes moral behavior, too, but since I didn't have the same parents the religious had, and that, and not some involved moral struggle assisted magically from on high, was what makes nearly all people pick their religion, it doesn't transfer to me.
2nd generation can say, hey, this IS the faith of our fathers!