As I expected, some intriguing (and potentially controversial) points emerged in the interview with Elaine Ecklund (show website here; listen here; download/subscribe here). In particular, at around minute 15:10 or so, I ask Ecklund about her finding that there are two types of atheists in her scientist sample--first generation, and second generation. First generation atheists start out in a faith tradition and then, at some point, reject it. By contrast, second generation atheists start out with atheist or non-religious parents, and so never really have to reject anything. (I don't know how many third, fourth, etcetera generation atheists there are out there.) On the air, Ecklund observed that the first generation atheists tend to be more critical of religion, and more driven in making such criticisms. After all, religion is something that is much more personal to them, and that they have rejected. We second generation atheists, though--for I am one--we tend to be more mellow. Or so Ecklund finds, anyway. But I pressed her on the point. After all, although I'm "second generation," I was pretty angry at religion when I was a college atheist activist. I was pretty driven. Yes, I mellowed with time--but I was and still remain second generation. What's ...