I think lots of young people are pro-socialism even when they're not on college campuses. Socialist ideas are just genuinely popular and viewed as pro-social, and plenty of young people (including ones you'd regard as EHC) have no interest in investigating the empirical track record of something they regard as a moral good.
Per Timur Kuran, "preference falsification" was toward racism in the Jim Crow south. People's private opinions were less racist, but the dominant norm was racist. Around the beginning of the 20th century, elite human capital like Woodrow Wilson endorsed racial segregation. I wouldn't say there was anything "unnatural" about him doing so despite being an elite.
I think the Enlightenment was more masculine than you're giving it credit for. Voting was still reserved for men, as were elected offices. The adherents of it were willing to fight & die for their ideas. It was definitely a product of Norbert Elias' "civilizing process", but still masculine.
Regarding whether science has made religion seem more or less plausible: I think in the 1700s and 1800s you could argue that science seemingly made religion less plausible. But in the 20th century, I’d say the opposite is true. See, e.g.,
I think lots of young people are pro-socialism even when they're not on college campuses. Socialist ideas are just genuinely popular and viewed as pro-social, and plenty of young people (including ones you'd regard as EHC) have no interest in investigating the empirical track record of something they regard as a moral good.
Per Timur Kuran, "preference falsification" was toward racism in the Jim Crow south. People's private opinions were less racist, but the dominant norm was racist. Around the beginning of the 20th century, elite human capital like Woodrow Wilson endorsed racial segregation. I wouldn't say there was anything "unnatural" about him doing so despite being an elite.
I think the Enlightenment was more masculine than you're giving it credit for. Voting was still reserved for men, as were elected offices. The adherents of it were willing to fight & die for their ideas. It was definitely a product of Norbert Elias' "civilizing process", but still masculine.
Regarding whether science has made religion seem more or less plausible: I think in the 1700s and 1800s you could argue that science seemingly made religion less plausible. But in the 20th century, I’d say the opposite is true. See, e.g.,
https://web.archive.org/web/20030812182732/https:/firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0303/articles/barr.html