http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155423/atheist-war

PZ himself is more anti-religion than merely atheist, very much like the European “anti-clericals” of the 1850-1945 era. It’s all very strident, and again sees intentional malice in the opponent. It is also rather reductionist as it ignores the large number of people whose religious convictions inspire them to do good. What seems to escape PZ and most of the active FtBers is the fact that individuals are situated on a continuum from “good” to “bad” independently of their moral, philosophical, political or religious convictions. This explains why they are so surprised and dismayed by atheists and skeptics who don’t share their political convictions, or simply aren’t very nice humans. One has the impression that for them, the group one belongs to is more important than the person one is.

If you are a skeptic, you must be an atheist, and you must be a Patriarchy feminist, and you must be a rather radical socialist, because all these things are objectively and absolutely TRUE. It reminds me of the islamic conviction that the koran is so obviously the word of allah, that people who read the koran and not become muslims are evil. They reject what is obviously TRUE. Honest disagreement is impossible.

This shows how people’s core beliefs are exempt from rational scrutiny. If it weren’t so sad, it would be funny.

Conditions don’t become ripe for change by accident. It is the activists who are “ahead of their times” who sow the seeds of change, which then slowly germinate and come to fruition as the result of the efforts of those who come after them and are inspired by their activities and writings.

Actually I think the timing is a broader societal issue. The activist cannot force change when conditions are not ripe for change, but I agree with your overall perspective. Another, perhaps obvious thing, is that people can be both: For example, in the previous discussion the “skeptic” maybe a diplomat about atheism goals, but is an activist with respect to skepticism.

“But, remember, the activist provides the fodder for diplomatic action. The activist creates the business, the diplomat signs the deal.”

An important element missing from our discussion is societal attitudes towards the topic, which is really the determining factor, although it can be influenced by actions of activists and diplomats. You may be attributing too much to the activists actions, when there are broader reasons that changes occur. Or maybe not

You might want to take a closer look at multilevel selection.

“This is a good analogy, but timing is always very important. The activist may be able to speed up the process if the time is right (i.e. the conditions are ripe for change)”.

The activist, by his very nature is not concerned about whether the time is right. He wants and demands change now. Blacks, women, and gays should always have had equal rights. So the right time for change is now. Getting the timing right is more a consideration for the diplomat. But that timing is brought about, or brought forward, by the efforts of the activist.

“There needs to be a balance: the activist can prod the diplomat along when needed, and the diplomat can convince the activist to be more reasonable and realistic when needed.”

I was thinking more along the lines of the activist prodding the public and politicians, and the diplomat sweet talking the public and politicians once they’ve been prodded, rather than an activist/diplomat dynamic.

“The both can help with the broader change. I definitely am the diplomat by nature, which biases me away from activist-type approaches”.

Fine. But, remember, the activist provides the fodder for diplomatic action. The activist creates the business, the diplomat signs the deal.

I took some notes throughout. There were definitely some points where he said some questionable things. Originally I was planning on posting them.

But taken in context of the whole speech with just a little (but well deserved) principle of charity I think I have to side with Philosoraptor’s take on it. As well as Dr. Novella’s.

It seems like a fine distinction, but it’s not unreasonable. And I’m happy to continue my anti-theism stuff as I see fit, where and when appropriate.

But I have to admit I’m rational enough to enjoy being wrong from time to time. Well, you know, like how you enjoy being sore after a good workout.

In your last sentence you even changed it around to define “group” as two organisms. That is not a “group” that is just a breeding pair and the interactions are entirely gene level selection. As I said, group selection is either ridiculous, semantics, or a narrow hypothetical that has no evidence it exists in real life.

Each individual that is less fertile with a member of the out group has (in effect) “sacrificed” their fitness (number of descendants) to maintain the allele frequency of the group (not allow incompatible genes to enter).

But if the F1 generation can breed with the F0 generation (which it must be able to unless the fitness of the F1 progeny is zero or it is a new species in one generation) then it isn’t a protection of allelic frequency it is merely a change in it.

If the fitness of F1 is zero, then we have strict speciation and the point is moot – all you are saying is that populations evolve based on selective pressures. There is nothing unique about “group” level here – you are just substituting one word for another without changing mechanisms of evolution. And population evolution is accurately and sufficiently described by gene level selection.

To be in any way meaningfully different than plain old gene level selection as described by population genetics, group selection must have the sacrifice of fitness within a breeding population not between different populations.

Epistasis effects have to be group effects, not individual effects. If gene-gene interactions matter, then the genes of the mating partner matter and selection can only be on the gene-gene interactions that depend on both parents. The “fitness” of a particular genome depends on the genome of the other parent it is being mated with. How is that not a group effect?

It is… but to be so you must define “group” in a way that doesn’t make sense in context. In this context “group” means nothing more than “a bunch of stuff that interacts.” If you define it that way, then somatic hypermutability is a “group effect.” But at the end of the day gene level selection still describes what is going on when talking about the evolution of populations (because remember, a population is the smallest unit on which evolution can act – it cannot act on a breeding pair, because otherwise we would have speciation in one generation and Ray Comfort would be right).