Generation Atheist
Bo-ring. Image via Wikipedia
According to the Pew Research Center’s sweeping survey, “Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2009,” America, though still highly religious, is getting less religious. This confirms the findings of the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, which had found recently that a full 15% of Americans claimed “none” as their religion in 2008, up from 14.2 percent in 2001, and 8.2 percent in 1990.
To this basic finding, the Pew report adds the following distinction: much of that drop in religious affiliation is generational:
Yet despite the strongly religious character of the United States, the share of Americans who do not affiliate with a religious tradition has been growing (see Feb. 2008 “The U.S. Religious Landscape”). Overall, 16% of Pew Research respondents interviewed in 2009 say they are atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.” Generational change is the principal mechanism driving this growth. Among those in the Millennial age cohort, or Generation Y – Americans born after 1976 – 25% are not affiliated with a religious tradition. By comparison, among Baby Boomers just 13% are unaffiliated.
I love this. You know why? Because I got pretty tired a while back of constantly hearing from blowhards like P.J. O’Rourke about how my generation was supposedly so much more conformist than the revolutionaries of the 1960s. We weren’t politically engaged or passionate enough. Every thing we did — from Promise Keeper rings to Nu Metal — was milquetoast (ok, I agree with respect to those two things). We didn’t believe in anything, man – even if believing in something during the 60s, to a lot of kids, simply meant espousing lofty notions like “free love” and “consciousness expansion” just to get laid a little easier. Today, those kids are derided as soulless hipsters. But, of course, in the 1960s, they were all brilliant revolutionaries — not a speck of hedonism or conformity to them.
Because, clearly, the 60s changed everything: we no longer get ourselves into senseless foreign wars like we did back then, we’ve learned to live simply and within our means, and we’re leaving the world a better place than when we found it, right?
Turns out that even though we’re cynical, snarky and passionless, those of us belonging to Generation Y also have minds of our own. I can think of no more fundamental way to reject conformity than to reject the strictures of organized religion. Say what you will about the tongues in our cheeks. But it takes a bit of fibre to stare into the vast expanse of existence and accept that the only meaning in it is what you make of it. Maybe that’s why, when push came to shove, Generation Y was such a grassroots political force to be reckoned with in the last election.
Ah, generational angst. Will I ever outgrow it?
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
“Will I ever outgrow it?”
hmmmmmmmmmm, only time will tell (how’s that for a tactful reply?).
Dude you can’t claim secularism as some recently emerged sprout pushing fourth from the rich soil of your generation. Who the hell do you think has been out there fighting since Reagan took office. Maybe you haven’t noticed, abortion is still legal and safe, school prayer is illegal, the march for full equality for gay American moves forward, and we now have a liberal black man who calls the White House home.
And you better be careful is what you theorize about, if your premise proves true you may end up attending the ordination of your son as an evangelical minister of a mega church!
But I don’t want to end this sounding like an old crank, let me congratulate your generation for stepping up to the plate. What took you so long?
PJ O’Rourke is still alive?
And he’s frequently on Bill Maher.
In response to another comment. See in context »I wouldn’t compare hipsters with the hippies. Maybe it’s just hipsters in California, but I find them to be far too preoccupied with what they’re wearing (lots of time spent looking like no time was spent grooming at all) and which bands they’re currently listening to; the more obscure, the better, no matter how much the music sucks. As far as political agendas, I find them to be too pretentious and hive-minded. I attended many Obama parties in L.A., some by choice, and I really couldn’t find too many people who could have convinced me to vote for him (which I did, by the way). They were all spouting off keywords with nonsensical filler – clearly regurgitating, with little accuracy, something they heard or read somewhere else.
Anyway, I was hoping this article was going to have some solid focus on atheism. I’m glad to see that religious affiliations are on a slow decline, but compared to other countries, we have a lot of catching up to do. We can’t give too much props to our generation (1981 here) because a lot of our history paved the way for this. Still, I’m glad it’s happening.
Hey, Marc,
Short of getting into a whole discussion about hipsters, I will only say that, though their vapidity often irks me as well, I highly doubt the hippies were any less pretentious or hive-minded. That’s just youth — not to mention human nature. It’s why I refuse to pick on hipsters. This is our generation, like it or not. To do so is just self-defeating.
What is interesting to me about the 60s is how even really intelligent, mature artists I admire — like, say, Jean-Luc Goddard — were completely enamored with Maoist Marxism, which, in retrospect, we’ve come to see as a very reductive vision of the world’s complexities. He was hardly alone. Talk about a hive mind!
From there, I’m guessing your average 20-year-old kid in the 1960s would have simply spouted whatever political slogans were most in currency, however well-intentioned, the same way I did when I was 20. And I don’t imagine that makes them much different than your Obama kids, who probably had intentions they believed were just as sincere. No generation has a corner on the market when it comes to smarts. Not everyone is going to have a new way of saying much of anything. Most people regurgitate. It’s why truly original ideas are so rare.
I guess my broader point (if there is one), is that people really don’t change much from generation to generation. I just get tired of our generation beating up on itself (and getting beat-upon those of our elders who’ve labeled us slackers from the start), holding itself up to some gold standard of the 60s that never really existed. The truth is that at any given time, there are a handful of leaders and lots of followers.
You’re right that our generation’s independent mindedness stands on the shoulders of the giants who preceded it. But I thought this was a rare feather in the cap of a generation that, too often (and before it’s really gotten out of the gate), is branded as conformist.
In response to another comment. See in context »Well, it looks like the same ideas and same trends just get recycled every couple of generations, but with new clothes and music. I never really thought that hippies had some kind of gold standard, and that’s what bothers me a little. Perhaps someone will enlighten me, but I also think that today’s 60’s hippie equivalent seems to be more materialistic and consumed with feelings of entitlement. If I’m guilty of beating up on my own generation, maybe that’s human nature, too.
I was also thinking that maybe being labeled a conformist carries an unjustified stigma. As long as there is no suppression of free thought and no one is getting hurt, I think being a conformist is just fine.
In response to another comment. See in context »That’s a fair point, Marc. I think we (and I’m very guilty of this, clearly) often act as though the value of non-conformity were self-evident — whereas, clearly, it isn’t. What if no one conformed to normative standards of social conduct, of ethics, of morality? Clearly, we’d have chaos and butchery on our hands. It’s not very romantic, I suppose, but there’s a lot to be said for one’s cultivating the decorum of the common denominator. It’s really the basis of the people’s end of the social contract, which was pretty revolutionary when that shit first blew up.
It’s funny you bring this up, because I just got around to reading Jonathan Dee’s take on John Cheever’s new biography in the April edition of Harper’s. In short, I think Cheever would have agreed with you, too. Cheever has traditionally been interpreted as anathema to conformity — the thorn in the underbelly of suburbia’s outward perfection. But Dee argues that a closer read of his work reveals just how desperately Cheever wanted to fit in to that world — how much he valued the harmony he believed came from conformity.
Dee writes:
“[Cheever] loved and celebrated the social and economic mainstream, its arbitrary strictures and faux traditionalism notwithstanding, and lived in constant fear of falling from its favor and into the underworld he imagined lay beneath it. It is hard to think of another American writer who maintained that social restraints were to be valued as a kind of salvation, that salvation itself was a collective matter rather than an individual one, and the story of Cheever’s own life, his desperate attempts to stave off depression by living the life he believed we are all meant to live, only amplifies the terrible beauty of that particular vision.”
Anyway, if you hadn’t already read it, I thought you might find that fascinating.
In response to another comment. See in context »In reading the marcflores comment, I couldn’t help but notice how his description of Generation Y could so easily be applied to the ’60s generation. Kind of makes you realize that there may be more in common than what meets the eye.
As for Austin’s article, I have to say he pretty much gets it right when calling out what the ’60s were really all about. We had great drugs and there was nothing like a hard day’s work throwing tear gas canisters back at the National Guard to insure you’d get laid in the evening with some very cute comrade you met during during battle. Basically, political protest was our version of stuffing telephone booths and eating goldfish as did those who came before us.
However, Generation Y’s cynicism is nothing new or even a point of separation. While there was a “wing” of the counter-culture who preached love, flowers, etc., the real guts of the ’60s generation was a the same type of reaction to our elders that is the heart of Gen. Y. The only difference might be that where the ’60s generation thought they would take back and save the world from the idiots who destroyed it, Gen Y began with more of a “its screwed up so let’s just face it and get what we can from it.” But, with Obama, they very much appear to have morphed into more of ’60s approach.
Always keep in mind that we of the ’60s generation pretty much grew up to be the people we hated. If we hadn’t, Gen Y wouldn’t need to be so cynical. We are now the ones who have screwed up the world. Oops. Must have been all that acid. Will the same be true of Gen Y?
One other point – why does it feel like atheist want a “movement” to support the non-existence of God? If God doesn’t exist, then their really is no need for an organized push to convince others that God doesn’t exist. It seems like a lot of trouble to convince people that there is nothing there.
I’ve always understood the drive to take away from the ranks of organized religion, because organized religion actually can, and has, hurt people. But why the need to convince someone that God doesn’t exist if they believe otherwise?
And finally, P.J. O’Rourke is alive…not even a little bit funny anymore..and, apparently, always drunk.
“apparently, always drunk.”
Wouldn’t you be if you were he?
In response to another comment. See in context »I think we’re of the same mind, Rick. As I just wrote in my response to Marc, I think the broader point is simply that no generation has the corner of the smarts market, or on originality. There are only ever a handful of leaders in any generation — and loads of followers.
You raise a really interesting point about atheism, and the atheists’ will to organize. I have to give this some thought. But my first reaction says it’s for two reasons:
1. I imagine a lot of atheists feel like part of an oppressed minority in this country. I wouldn’t go quite that far myself. But how many times have I sat down to dinner with a family, or gone to some event (the Indy 500 comes to mind) where I was asked to pray along with everyone else? I’m not an asshole, so I don’t make a fuss. I just bow my head in respect and leave it at that. But what if I didn’t? Suddenly, I’d be the fly in everyone’s ointment, disrespecting everyone around me. In that sense, though I don’t organize in the least bit, I think organizing atheists could be viewed in the same way we view any other group that struggles to have its views treated with the same respect enjoyed by the majority.
2. When you look at the generational jump, it’s clear that most young atheists today would have come from a religious household — meaning they (like I) made the decision on their own terms. It doesn’t make logical sense: having faith that something you can’t see is there should be harder than trusting your own, more obvious perception that it isn’t. But if you’re raised in a religious household like I was, it’s very difficult to believe there’s nothing there when you’ve always been told there was. I’m an atheist, but I’ll be the first to admit that I’m still quite insecure about it. In that sense, I think organizing is a sort of self-affirmation party, en masse.
But, yeah, I agree. Trying to convince anyone in either direction is just annoying and hypocritical. I keep it between me and my yoga mat and the great outdoors.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Trying to convince anyone in either direction is just annoying and hypocritical. I keep it between me and my yoga mat and the great outdoors.”
Therein lies the answer. If everyone would keep their religious belief, whatever it may be, between themselves, their yoga mat and the great outdoors, we wouldn’t have all these problems coming from something that should only be helpful, not hurtful.
If everyone kept their religious beliefs to themselves, I think there would be world peace! It sounds like a stretch, but I don’t think it’s too far off. The reason that will never happen is because many religions teach the spreading of their gospel and converting new members. If not that, then there is the problem of legislation conflicting with people’s religious beliefs.
I think the capacity for organized religion is human nature. As an atheist, I sometimes feel that I’m longing for the day that will never come.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m all for nonconformity and individual choice and good old-fashioned generational angst when it serves. But as a pre-60s generation member who works hard for interfaith understanding and cooperation I urge you not to ignore what’s going on in religious (and spiritual-not-religious as well) communities. Many of these are actively working on political issues. Politics aside, we’d do well to listen to each other if we’re going to avoid blowing each other to bits.
I would generally subscribe to the, not trying to convince anyone in either direction, argument. However, I find the giant spanner in the wheel is that one party has to be wrong in this matter. There is either a god(s) or there is not. You might argue that whether or not there is a god, people are entitled to believe what they want and religious freedom is important for the human spirit and a basic human right. As long as it is not imposed, enforced or preach to you what do you care.
I think that the sole purpose of that argument is to “keep the peace”.
If we allow religion sanctuary from debate and scrutiny and not seeking to affirm or dismiss the notion of a god or gods, we allow intellectual descent and degeneration into times less informed. Holy cows obstruct the road (go to India and you will see in more than one way) and in this case the road of intellectual and scientific improvement and development. I am not claiming to have the answers but merely stating the importance debating the very foundation of our existence and origin for our own sake. The cows are happy where they are.
A puzzling matter for many is that the US entertains the notion of intelligent design in schools. What is the debate amongst the kids holding The Origin of Species in one hand and King James’ in the other? Who is facilitating that debate? I would argue nobody qualified and religion is allowed front row seats to a scientific debate where it does not belong. It does not belong because there is no proof, no founded theory or likely rational explanation behind it. Religion is valid but not in science class.
In my opinion America is confused today more than ever over religion. Benjamin Franklin once said “I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.”
and “Lighthouses are more helpful then churches.”. Ironically, his face in on the $100 bill carrying the print “In God we Trust”
Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to convert anybody to become atheist, agnostic or dismiss their faith but simply making the argument that religion like any other subject must be debated openly and free of dogmas. Our kids should be equipped to take an informed decision about what to believe in or even better what can be proven unlike our generation. Austin, you claim to be an atheist but is “still quite insecure about it” …a contradiction I will blame, not on you, but on organized religion and your lack or concentration in science class…;-)
I personally was kicked out of Sunday school class when I asked who Cain and Able married when there were only four people on earth at the time. God lost a believer that day. I bet you my science teacher would have called me observant and a bright kid for discovering a flaw in the theory otherwise approved by millions.
Rune, I was a pretty good Sunday School student. Which I think explains why I’m such a screwy dude today. Way to get an early start, buddy.
I know it’s all very confusing to a European. Unfortunately, I can’t help you. Only the religious right can explain how Intelligent Design could be taught in our schools (but only some of them, remember) alongside The Origin of Species; likewise, only they can explain how someone like Thomas Jefferson — a humanist who actually took the time to rewrite a Christian gospel with all the miracles removed — actually meant something else when he talked about the “wall between church and state.”
In response to another comment. See in context »“I don’t like nostalgia unless it’s mine.” ~Lou Reed
I know I’m late coming into this discussion, but if atheists organize, doesn’t that make them a religion? subject to the same “supernatural constraints” (according to Merriam-Webster’s etymology)as say Catholicism or Judaism or any organized religion? Wouldn’t they need a power structure of some sort to run the whole bevy?
Seems antithetical to their reasoning,though even as a God-squader myself, I defend their right to do it.
You might be interested in this Time article about Indiana atheists marketing on buses in Chicago and various cities in Indiana.
[...] haben wir beste Kontakte nach ganz oben. Wer das nicht glaubt gehört – wie wir! – zur Generation Atheist und findet Trost in der Oberflächlichkeit, wie unsere Generation bebe. Wir als Generation XY [...]